Greenpeace learned its lesson well.

Back in March 2010, in response to YouTube’s removal of a Greenpeace-produced parody TV commercial, the advocacy organization launched a campaign against Nestle that ultimately forced the powerhouse consumer products company to seek a new source for its palm oil. Palm oil from non-rainforest sources is more expensive and Nestle was taking its time trying to find an alternative, but the pressure—much of which targeted the company’s Facebook page—led them to switch suppliers much sooner.

This time around, Greenpeace didn’t wait for a trigger like company lawyers forcing YouTube to remove its video. The organization went directly at Mattel, the maker of iconic toys like Barbie and Hot Wheels (and, I might add, my former employer; I joined Mattel in 1984 and left as director of Corporate Communications in 1988).

As a result of the campaign, Mattel froze its contracts with Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), which provided packaging for Barbie and other Mattel products. Greenpeace accused APP of damaging logging practices in Indonesia. In response to the protest, Mattel said it would develop a sustainable procurement policy that would require suppliers to adhere to forestry management standards.

The case is interesting not just because of the adeptness Greenpeace has shown in applying pressure through social channels to effect change, but because Mattel didn’t do business with APP. Instead, the company had contracts with packaging suppliers who, in turn, bought from the beseiged organization. That is, Mattel was the customer of a customer of the company in question, and yet became the target of activists’ attacks.

The actions against Mattel weren’t confined to social media. Activists rappelled down the face of Mattel’s El Segundo, California, headquarters building, unfurling a banner showing a frowning Ken doll telling Barbie, “It’s over, I don’t date girls that are into deforestation.” The link on the banner, however—greenpeace.org/ken—leads to a Facebook page inviting consumers to tell Mattel to stop destroying rainforests for toy packaging.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the campaign led to thousands of derogatory posts to Mattel’s Facebook wall. In addition, a YouTube video—an interview with Ken—outlined Greenpeace’s case; it has attracted over 300,000 views and nearly 400 comments.

Targeting a well-known consumer brand like Mattel was bound to get more attention than going after APP itself or the packaging companies it supplied. Which begs the question: Are there parts of your supply chain that could make your company a target of activism?

It won’t take much for other activist organizations—environmental and otherwise—to get wise to Greenpeace’s tactics and the results they produce. In Mattel’s case, it was a supplier’s supplier buying product from an objectionable company, but that didn’t stop Greenpeace from making Mattel the target. It would behoove every company to examine its supply chain to see where vulnerabilities exist. And it wouldn’t hurt to get out in front of those chinks in the armor. Your reputation for corporate social responsibility will benefit far more from proactive steps your company takes than the appearance of being subdued by a well-orchestrated campaign that activates thousands of your own customers against you.

It’s not too great stretch to view Greenpeace’s tactic as extortion-like. But the simple fact is that the tactic succeeds, and its duplication is inevitable. It’s not like companies are being pressured to do something evil, after all. And the damage a campaign can cause could well exceed the cost of making these changes. Fighting to continue buying products or services from companies against which activists have legitimate gripes just may not be worth it.

(Of course, I’m not suggesting companies should capitulate to every nutjob with an ax to grind. There are certainly times to stand up and fight for what an organization believes is right.)

It’s not just manufacturing supply chains that need to be examined. Any vendor or supplier engaged in practices that raise the hackles of an advocacy group could lead the group to target you instead of (or in addition to) the vendor.

You should also consider getting out in front of the issue with a policy like the one Mattel unveiled,  which the company said “will include requirements for packaging suppliers to commit to sustainable forestry management practices. In addition to addressing current concerns about packaging sourcing, Mattel’s policy will also cover other wood-based products in its toy lines, such as paper, books and accessories.”

Just don’t wait to be forced into it.