WWF vs. Greenpeace: Community Engagement Approaches Analysis

This report provides a comparative analysis of community engagement approaches employed by the World Wildlife Fund Inc. (WWF) and Greenpeace UK, focusing on their respective projects aimed at addressing societal and environmental challenges. The study highlights the safeguards utilized by WWF to minimize risks and ensure positive outcomes for communities and the environment, contrasting them with Greenpeace's initiatives, such as the 'Ending the climate crisis' program. The report evaluates the effectiveness of each organization's strategies, considering stakeholder engagement, social media utilization, and communication approaches. It concludes that while both organizations strive to improve community well-being, WWF's project-based approach, engagement with diverse stakeholders, and impactful social media presence contribute to its greater effectiveness in addressing poverty and environmental issues within the UK.

2 COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Difference between projects along with comparison between best practices on their
community engagement approaches............................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
Community engagement is a process of working in collective manner with the help of
various people having similar kind of interests or similar level of understandings to address
challenges that affects the well being of the society (Kimminau and et.al., 2018). It is basically a
way of ensuring that community members have complete access to social settings and
activities along with development of functional capabilities that enable them to participate in
complete manner. This report will describe the reflective experiences of programme run by
World wildlife Fund Inc., which has been designed in order to resolve challenges that have been
faced by the society regarding the environment and whole planet. Apart from this, the study will
also highlight the comparison of the practices or programme run by Greenpeace UK regarding
i.e. the Stop Climate Change.
MAIN BODY
Difference between projects along with comparison between best practices on their community
engagement approaches
Safeguards are always prepared in order to minimise risk factors, uphold human rights, and
make sure about the conservation projects that are able to deliver better results or outcomes for
communities as well as nature or environment. World Wildlife Fund Inc. Use safeguards to
identify, avoid and mitigate any negative social and environmental impacts within this work. As
per my study, I have evaluated about certain differences among the programmes that has been
conducted by WWF and Greenpeace regarding the betterment of the poor people and for the
external environment in most effectual manner. As per my analysis, I have realised that WWF
undertakes safeguards screening for all landscapes and seascapes on which work has been done
in order to manage risks at surfaces, including those who are related to community engagement
and consultation, access to natural resources and indigenous people within the UK (Wallen and
Daut, 2018). The programme is efficient enough to address risks through appropriate design of
project, their implementation as well as monitoring. Setting up of grievances mechanisms for
communities and other stakeholders to voice the programmes that are highly related to the
welfare of the overall programme along with fulfilling all the concerns related to the society poor
people and environment and seek certain resolutions for the same.

It is one of the most recognisable organizations in the whole world working in over various
countries for the betterment of the society concerns such as poverty and to resolve environmental
issues. The organization is highly focusing on the preservations of resources for the betterment
of the human kind as well as working for reducing ecological footprints. The firm maintains an
important level of outreach to the society people by educating those regarding endangered
species of wild life, environmental degradation, pollution emission as well as programmes for
reduction of poverty. They also offer each and every individual to offer many opportunities to
get involved through different methods which includes donation, campaigns, pledge, and greener
living along with adopting animal programmes (Rieckmann, 2018). The WWF is the highly
interactive and active organization, attempting to harness public power along with directing their
own considerable influences. While if we take examples of other charity organizations such as
Greenpeace charity institution which also running various programs regarding the betterment of
the society and environmental concerns such as one program namely Ending the climate crisis
which fulfils the environmental factors along with promoting sustainable food program. The
Greenpeace also took certain steps to prevent global warming conditions as because of industrial
evolution, the climatic problems arise. And as per their analysis, it has been identified that rich
countries have caused more global heating than poor countries. This is because of wealthy
people everywhere are more tend to emit CO2 into the atmosphere through their poor lifestyle
than poorer people. Thus, in order to resolve certain aspects those are related to the climate, the
Greenpeace also took certain steps to remove environmental issues in most possible manner
(Ardoin, Bowers and Gaillard, 2020).
Apart from this as per my views, I have analysed that the most effectual programmes are
run by the World Wildlife Fund Inc. As it involves programs that are prepared according to all
the necessary problems that are faced by the people living in the society. WWF provide
programs to alleviate poverty issues. Although it is not direct link that has been recognizable on
immediate basis but sustaining a healthy environment is extremely beneficial or important in
order to provide the world’s population food, clothing and shelter along with water needs as well
(Martin, 2017). For many people in this developed world, conservation is somewhat distanced
from our day to day life as in the urbanized environment, we get our food items from
supermarkets, live in houses that are prepared from concrete, work in the third sector and the
weather is extremely inconsequential to all of us. Yet for many people, subsistence farming is the

ultimate source of food, droughts and floods are the matter of life and death and various other
disturbances that disturbs the balance of nature that has a direct and devastating impact on daily
lives of the people. The major difference among both the charitable trusts is that Greenpeace is
like a campaigner where as the WWF actually works on the projects which provides ultimate
benefits to the society. As per other issues, it has been identified that Greenpeace members are
those who are journalists, scientists as well as activists by profession while WWF attracts more
of the business people, scientists and government officials in order to resolve their issues in most
effectual manner (Owen, Brennan and Lyon, 2018). Thus, as per my understanding, it has been
the programs and the people who make the strategies successful as with that the WWF are able
to offer best of their programs to the society for their advancement and resolution of dangerous
issues that highly affects the people living in the world.
Both organizations are using high profile individuals and used media to highlight their
actions. And now both the firms have shifted towards the broader range of environmental issues.
They both are in public good delivery and are based on non-profit actions. Even in the case of
non profit, the idea is to generate more value than the cost. Apart from similar kind of programs,
it is highly important to figure out ways to fund themselves in order to evaluate the issues and
rectify them in most effectual manner (Manisalidis and et.al., 2020). On the basis of effective
communication differences, it has been identified that as the WWF organizations involves
business people, scientists and government officials, they are more prone to provide best of their
services towards the society in order to resolve the issues in most effectual manner while the
Greenpeace are involves journalists, scientists and activists who are more focused towards
getting public support.
Differences in context of stakeholders’ analysis who are the people get affected by actions
and policies in direct and indirect manner that can influence decision making procedure. Both the
firms have their diversified stakeholders who are work with them for the betterment of the
society as well as for the organization. The idea of evolution of multiple stakeholders into any
project may seem as counterproductive in nature. This is because bringing together different
individuals with diverse perspectives, interests and positions has the potential to slow down the
implementation of defined projects into action and create conflicts. For WWF the stakeholders
are identified as local residents, community teams, governmental workers and other scientists
who work towards the betterment of the society and resolve drastic issues (Magni, 2017). With

the involvement of certain programs, their stakeholders are able to alleviate poverty and other
sustainable factors that affect the environmental issues in most effective manner. With the help
of stakeholders, the firms are able to fulfil their programs to provide world’s population food,
water and shelter.
Differences in context of community engagement, it has been identified that this particular
practices are able to develop effective and strong relationship among different stakeholders by
doing several practices. For example, the firm took various opportunities to coordinate in
effective manner with each stakeholder which enables the firm to develop better understanding
about issues that are related to behaviour, attribute and thinking of stakeholders. World Wildlife
Fund Inc. utilises strategy in order to engage project stakeholders in appropriate manner such as
it involves the stakeholders talking to each other into various projects and meetings in order to
develop high level of understanding among all of them regarding the programs through which
they are able to make their work successful in nature (Kumar, 2020). While the Greenpeace
organization utilises work within team strategy for their stakeholders in order to engage them in
effective ways. Although there are not major differences among both the strategies as both of
them are highly important in order to fulfil the requirements of the program through which the
society has been able to address their issues in fruitful manner.
In terms of social media engagement the World Wildlife Fund utilises social media channels
for their communication and marketing strategies as the firm has strong online presence due to
their interesting articles and videos presented by them along with life changing campaigns. Their
presence is highly available on the Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube
(Thrandardottir and Mitra, 2019). The firm has high number of followers on all of their sites.
There are various campaigns that have been successful because of their social media channels
because through this they are able to effectively promote their programs. According to my
perspective, it has been identified that this is an extra ordinary thing for the non profit
organization through which the firms getting benefits from the internationally known
personalities who are also able to add capital of image to the campaigns and programs (Tam and
et.al., 2021). While on the other hand as per various studies, it has been identified that
Greenpeace faced various challenges to create their social media content effective through which
they are appropriately able to reach their potential audience into action. Thus, with the detailed
study it has been evaluated that social media platforms that are utilised by World Wildlife Fund

Inc. helps to built communities and engage people in order to discuss issues and feel determined
to get highly involved within the organization. This illustrates that the followers of the firm are
able to get engage into diversified content including blog articles, press coverage, news,
information and upcoming events and stories that enables the people to volunteer themselves into
the programs through their active participation (Hasudungan and Neilson, 2020). Also, it has
been evaluated that non profit firms should focus on presenting their ways in which the followers
can help the organization through funds as well as their volunteer services which ultimately
benefits the charity firm in order to resolve challenges and issues faced by the firm. In similar
manner, The WWF also takes advantages of their provided services in order to benefit the
society and resolve issues that are related to the poverty and environmental challenges.
CONCLUSION
From the above report it has been concluded that charity organizations within the UK are
tries their maximum level and best possible practice in order to overcome negative impacts of
community challenges in most effective manner. Through such ways, they have the ability to
enhance the living standard of people living within the society. However, each charity
organization has their own particular way to address issues and different programs have been
conducted in order to resolve certain issues through their effective practices. The above study
illustrates the difference among the programs that has been conducted by World Wildlife Fund
and Greenpeace organization for which they utilises different social media platforms along with
different ways to engage stakeholders in their programs to make them appropriate and
successful. With the help of certain sources, the firm are able to differ themselves from other
companies and support through their effectual services to all the poor population to lead them
normal life with the fulfilment of basic requirements. The WWF with the effective techniques
and approaches are able to reduce the negative impacts on the external environment through
which the nature is able to balance the devastated impacts given by the society people.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Ardoin, N.M., Bowers, A.W. and Gaillard, E., 2020. Environmental education outcomes for
conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 241. p.108224.
Hasudungan, A. and Neilson, J., 2020. The Institutional Environment of the Palm Oil Value
Chain and Its Impact on Community Development in Kapuas Hulu,
Indonesia. Southeast Asian Studies, 9(3). pp.439-465.
Kimminau, K.S., and et.al., 2018. Patient vs. community engagement: emerging issues. Medical
care, 56(10 Suppl 1). p.S53.
Kumar, V., 2020. Smart environment for smart cities. In Smart Environment for Smart
Cities (pp. 1-53). Springer, Singapore.
Magni, G., 2017. Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development
agenda. European Journal of Education, 52(4). pp.437-447.
Manisalidis, I., and et.al., 2020. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a
review. Frontiers in public health, 8. p.14.
Martin, A., 2017. Just conservation: Biodiversity, wellbeing and sustainability. Routledge.
Owen, R., Brennan, G. and Lyon, F., 2018. Enabling investment for the transition to a low
carbon economy: Government policy to finance early stage green innovation. Current
opinion in environmental sustainability, 31. pp.137-145.
Rieckmann, M., 2018. Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in Education for
Sustainable Development. Issues and trends in education for sustainable
development, 39. pp.39-59.
Tam, C.L., and et.al., 2021. Climate Change Totems and Discursive Hegemony Over the
Arctic. Frontiers in Communication, 6. p.12.
Thrandardottir, E. and Mitra, S.G., 2019. Who Does Greenpeace India Represent?: Placing
Effective Limits on the Power of INGO s. Global Governance: A Review of
Multilateralism and International Organizations, 25(4). pp.587-619.
Wallen, K.E. and Daut, E., 2018. The challenge and opportunity of behaviour change methods
and frameworks to reduce demand for illegal wildlife. Nature Conservation, 26. p.55.
1