When I see the panda, I think of World Wildlife Fund.  This is exactly what the marketing folks with WWF want me to do.

I have no heartburn with branding, especially when the cause aligns with my values.  How did this happen?  The historical foundation of WWF is one of philosophical conservancy, supported by scientific findings and backed by large private donations.  It has evolved from a single manifesto in 1961– The Morges Manifesto — which declared the need to actively fund conservation efforts.  Today, it addresses the range of climate change areas, and declares,

We work globally, with every sector, at every level

(see http://www.worldwildlife.org/initiatives)

The beauty of the WWF message extends beyond the distinct message of conservation through the protection of endangered species.  The beauty is in the cultural legitimacy it extends to these controversial subjects.  WWF was founded by rich and influential people who understood the need to address the way humanity takes care of the earth.  These ideas were publicly discussed in the 1940’s by precursor organizations.  It continues because its education programs reach children as well and have become a part of our collective consciousness.  Today, education materials from WWF can be found in classrooms and donation slips in the mailbox.  “Live Green” is one such effort.

It could have easily regressed into a caricature of  environmental responsibility– fuzzy panda, pretty tigers — or simply remained a one topic organization.  As it matured scientifically, it ran the risk of becoming involved in too many things, loosing focus on its key principals.  Instead, it acquired depth of proficiency.  Over time, that proficiency expanded through leveraged partnerships in marketing, humanitarianism and corporate partnerships.

In a world where partnerships often equate to compromises, remarkably, WWF has maintained its legitimacy as a leading conservation organization while partnering with controversial corporations like Coca Cola.   Coke has been criticized on a variety of sustainability issues including packaging, water rights, and equality.  WWF’s partnership with Coke is centered on the protection of water resources.  The campaign lets WWF influence Coke’s business practices in a positive way, and legitimizes Coke’s efforts to make a positive impact.

This influence/legitimacy handshake is not always successful for organizations.  WWF’s history as an independent advocacy group has help maintain its legitimacy beyond any one cooperation effort.  Charity Navigator  lists it as a highly transparent organization as well, receiving a score of 96%.  Additionally, 85% of donations directly support its programs.  This is a very successful metric for an international charitable organization, and scores slightly higher than the American Red Cross.

WWF also reaches out to influence policy through lobbying and government programs. Marine turtle agreements is an example of policy impact.

Influential people, such as The Duke of Edinburgh, have been leaders of WWF.  He, in particular, was influential in having world religious leaders attend a meeting in Assisi whereby declarations were made that,” conservation was a fundamental element in their respective faiths.” Communicating a spiritual link has helped WWF make conservation a personal struggle that donors should address.

Each of these are extensions of communication efforts which help preserve the reputation of WWF and help it remain successful.