Du Pont and Greenpeace: The Dynamics of Conflict Between Corporations and Activist Groups

Public relations makes organizations more effective by building relationships with stakeholders in the environment that have the potential to constrain or enhance the mission of the organization. When stakeholders become activist groups, they become particularly troublesome to organizations because they appeal to the media, government, and other stakeholders to force the organization to change when the organization's response does not satisfy them. Few public relations practitioners have found successful strategies for dealing with activists, but this research on the conflict between Greenpeace and Du Pont suggests that Axelrod's (1984) concept of "Tit for Tat" games from game theory may be effective. Conflicts are resolved most efficiently when the participants develop compatible ground rules. In our case history, however, Du Pont and Greenpeace used incompatible approaches to dispute resolution, dictated by their constituencies. As a result, there was little hope that the two sides could agree on ground rules for discussing the conflict, much less for resolving the issues. Although Du Pont used a "Tit for Tat" strategy in the conflict, Greenpeace followed a pure zero-sum model that hampered its effectiveness in fostering change. We conclude that both parties may have met their objectives by not resolving the conflict in the end.