Environmental groupsindividual supporters is largely limited to fundraising. There are just a few
hundred full members in each country. In Greenpeace Germany, for exam-
ple, those members elect a management board which sets the agenda and
appoints a directorate (one or two people) to head a management team that
runs the national organisation (Bluhdorn ̈ 1995 :191). This highly person-
alised and centralised executive structure has been described as ‘authoritar-
ian leadership’ (Rucht 1995 : 70).
The growing professionalisation of FoE and Greenpeace is reflected in
thewaythat their national offices employ, in addition to campaigners and
administrators, a significant number of marketing and fundraising special-
ists, and they depend decreasingly on volunteers (Jordan and Maloney 1997 ;
Rawcliffe 1998 : 82). Both groups invest significantly in mail-order recruit-
ment. They purchase address lists of people with the demographic quali-
ties – occupation, education, age, disposable income, political affiliations –
likely to make them sympathetic to environmental causes, and willing to
pay a subscription. One British study found that the typical FoE member is
‘Awell-educated middle-class female under 45 in a professional/managerial
occupation from a relatively affluent household, who is a member of other
campaigning organisations (most notably Greenpeace) and votes for a centre-
left party’ (Jordan and Maloney 1997 :121). Each new ‘eco-crisis’ is cleverly
exploited with carefully chosen high-profile campaigns or stunts to draw
media attention, combined with a massive mailshot to existing and poten-
tial supporters. An indication of the effectiveness of this strategy is that most
British FoE members are recruited via a direct mail approach or advertise-
ment, rather than through a social network of friends or colleagues (Jordan
and Maloney 1997 ). Former Greenpeace activist Paul Watson has complained
that Greenpeace has ‘turned begging into a major corporate adventure’ (Time,
10 June 1996).
Greenpeace and FoE both have a predominantly ‘couch’ membership that
is quite willing to pay a subscription fee and let the leadership get on with
running the organisation. Supporters seem to have only a limited emotional
bond with the group; most do not wish to become activists and are unwilling
to make major sacrifices to protect the environment. This passive support
is probably no more than can be expected from a marketing strategy that
asks for little more than a limited financial involvement from supporters in
return for feeling good about helping the cause. Far from being new social
movements, Jordan and Maloney ( 1997 : 22) even describe Greenpeace and
FoE asprotest businessesmodelled on private business practice because they
emphasise investment in recruitment and marketing, make policy centrally,
leave campaigning to professional staff and regard supporters as a source
of income. This label may be more applicable to Greenpeace than to FoE
as the latter still places considerable value on its links with its grassroots
membership.
Further evidence of institutionalisation is found in the changes that both
FoEand Greenpeace have made to their campaigning strategies. Whereas