Apr. 2022 Science Corner | “Why companies fund climate change projects on National Forests: insights into the motivations of the Forest Service’s corporate partners”

Every April, social media is flooded with corporations posting about Earth Day volunteer clean-ups, new sustainability commitments, or sponsored environmental projects. This year’s Earth Day theme is “Invest in Our Planet,” a call for businesses to engage more meaningfully in efforts to restore natural ecosystems and deploy climate solutions.

But what truly motivates some companies to give money to environmental projects on public lands? A recent paper from Natasha Haruka Collins, a Nature-Based Solutions Specialist at the World Resources Institute, offers new insights.

In the 2021 paper, co-authored with Dr. Courtney Schultz of Colorado State University, Collins designed a qualitative study to investigate the motivations driving corporate giving projects on National Forest lands and whether climate change explicitly motivates participation. The study only included project activities with climate change adaptation or mitigation benefits, such as tree planting, watershed restoration, or fire risk reduction activities.

Collins interviewed 26 representatives from for-profit companies funding projects on National Forests and seven representatives from “intermediary” organizations. These intermediary groups were typically non-profits like the National Forest Foundation or The Nature Conservancy, which facilitate partnerships between the Forest Service and corporate funders.

Four primary categories of corporate motivation emerged from Collins’ analysis. First, corporate funders were often motivated by company culture, defined explicitly in the paper as a combination of company leadership, corporate sustainability goals, and employee engagement.

Company size and sector also played a key role in defining motivations for supporting conservation. Larger companies were typically more motivated by reputation, while smaller companies (often B-corporations) were more intrinsically motivated by sustainability commitments. “While there are some sustainability champions, some companies are using it for marketing, storytelling, or branding,” Collins said. Sector often influenced the type of project. “Most companies were funding something that directly benefited their company,” Collins explained. For example, a beverage company funding watershed resilience projects or a hunting company funding habitat restoration.

Crucially, a third motivator for corporate funders was pressure from external stakeholders, like customers or investors. Customers were actually the most referenced stakeholder group. “I was pleasantly surprised,” Collins said. “Sometimes it feels like companies don’t actually get influenced by customers and what customers want, but it’s true that the power is in the buyer.” Finally, marketing and “brand image” drove some companies to fund these projects. “Story value,” essentially the charisma of a project and its relevance to the greater public, was mentioned as a critical motivation by about half the companies Collins interviewed.

Yet, the most marketable activities are not necessarily the most effective in promoting resilient landscapes. Collins explains, “The general public loves the idea of tree planting, but that’s not always what needs to be done on National Forests.” Collins says she’s curious how the intermediary nonprofits will navigate the challenge of maximizing gifts from corporate donors while also educating donors on the importance of other landscape restoration activities, like thinning or prescribed burns, that may not have as strong a “story value.”

And what about climate change? Was it an explicit motivation for the companies included in this study? “It was multi-layered,” Collins said. Even though all corporations included in the study participated in projects that contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation, climate change did not come up as a key motivation when companies were asked broadly about their reasons. When probed explicitly about climate change, some companies did describe it as a primary or secondary driver of their engagement. Yet, others maintained that climate change was not one of their motivations for funding these projects.

Collins notes that context may be relevant here, as all interviews were conducted during the Trump Administration, a time when climate change was more politically divisive at a national level. “It would be really interesting to see how it has evolved because I bet it’s largely increased,” Collins says. “I think climate has become a top goal, and if I asked companies now, everyone would be talking about it more than they were at the time.”

While Collins anticipated that her findings on climate change would be nuanced, another knowledge gap was more unexpected.

“Something that surprised me is how often people didn’t actually know what National Forests are or what the Forest Service is, even if they were funding projects on National Forest lands,” Collins said.

So how can groups like Blue Forest, in partnership with the World Resources Institute and Bonneville Environmental Foundation, more effectively solicit private sector engagement with projects on public lands? This study provides the beginnings of a road map.

“If you look at a company and its characteristics, you’re probably going to have a good guess at what they’re going to be motivated by,” Collins says. Understanding these motivations can inform how we teach others about the challenge of ecological restoration at scale, the need for committed partners, and of course, the value of the landscapes in which we work. As Collins says, “Part of it could just be better storytelling of how amazing National Forests are and what a great privilege it is to have these public lands.