This is an interesting question - and one on which very little has so far been written.

There are certainly risks to partnering or otherwise collaborating with corporate actors. These can include:

• Losing strategic focus: NGOs can be pulled into projects that may not be well aligned with their existing priorities, as e.g. defined in a strategic plan or agreements with donors, or which otherwise which may not speak to the areas of greatest need within their target constituencies of rights-holders, or which may simply not be truly human rights-based in their goals or approach, due to the availability of funding and a willing corporate partner.  Corporate funding may well have less strings attached, in terms of consistency with an NGOs´s own strategic plan or with national or local government strategies, and project planning, than funding from e.g international donors or larger foundations - which can increase both its appeal and the risk for NGOs that it may tempt them away from areas of strategic focus . From the business point of view, whereas up until now much "corporate giving" and funding for "community development" has lacked a robust basis, e.g. through linkage to local or national development plans, or via comprehensive mapping and surveying of local needs by appropriately qualified professionals, increasingly, in this aspect of their activities also corporations are being called on to "know and show", in the words of the former UN Special Rapporteur, John Ruggie, that they are human-rights compliant. So NGOs who raise these issues with potential corporate partners when approached, and see that a human rights-based approach is at the heart of any collaborative projects will be doing both themselves and the business partner a good turn.

• Loss of control over communications. A critical point to establish with clarity at the outset of any partnership is how external communications will be handled (e.g. a requirement that any publicity, such as entries in the company´s annual sustainability report, or other communication with external stakeholders about the project, will be subject to agreement by both parties). Poor phrasing, inflated claims, use of images or names of project participants or beneficiaries, or mere inadvertent errors in publicity about joint projects can have serious negative consequences for the NGO, the project and the corporate partner, when these are picked up, as they will be, by other stakeholders, as well as jeopardising good faith in key project relationships. Better to avoid this risk from the outside by addressing this issue explicitly, in writing, from day one.

• Loss of legitimacy. This is a particulary interesting point. Amongst human rights organisations, there are certainly some who feel that taking corporate coin compromises independence and integrity almost automatically. In some national contexts, where historically CSOs have been used as vehicles for corporations to channel funding to political activity, or as mechanisms of paying off and so dividing host communities, it is easy to understand why this should be the view. And this backdrop can put NGOs in a real dilemma - especially where funding from other sources may not be available.

I think the key here is transparency. Any NGO, CSO or non-profit that engages in corporate partnerships or accepts significant corporate donations must be fully transparent about the source, value and purpose to which corporate funds are applied. This means making such information available and accessible, e.g. by publishing on the organisation´s website and /or in annual reports and should extend to in-kind support  (e.g. funding for participation on corporate workshops or consultations) as well as programme specific funding.

 The commitment to transparency should moreover be embedded in an overarching governance framework to regulating the NGO-business relationship.  This should include definition of human rights based objectives for the collaboration, principles on external communications, as mentioned above, and, to protect both sides, might well include terms to address a process for resolving any disagreements, in the event it is envisaged that NGO and business cooperate in project implementation. Though comprehensive, such a framework need not be heavy : one approach is to devise general principles which can be supplemented with more specific terms on a per project bases(see e.g. DIHR´s Corporate Engagement Principles (http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/corporate+engagement)