It looks like PETA is up to some new old tricks.

The animal rights group, which is well known for staging publicity stunts to draw public attention to what the group views as “unethical” commercial activities is now bringing its fight to corporate boardrooms by buying a stake in the very companies with which it is clashing.

A recent Associated Press (AP) report detailed how People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has spent the better part of the past decade buying stock in at least 80 companies, including such retailers as Safeway, Kroger, Costco and Wal-Mart, in an effort to influence the way these corporations do business. The stock purchases enable the organization to engage company officials and other shareholders by submitting resolutions at shareholder meetings.

While this represents a decided shift in PETA’s tactics, the group isn’t really blazing any new trails, as Pet Business editorial director Seth Mendelson points out. Vietnam War protesters, he says, often employed a similar strategy to speak out against corporate involvement in what they considered an unjust military action. Back then, the goal was simply to create a spectacle; but PETA seems to have refined the practice to the point where it is seemingly impacting the way companies operate.

As a result of PETA’s stock purchasing strategy, several targeted companies, including Safeway and Burger King, have “agreed to give purchasing preference to suppliers that abide by what the group says are more humane rules,” the AP report states.

Now, I’m all for promoting companies that treat animals in a humane way–as I assume most members of the pet industry would be. In my opinion, the problem lies in coronating PETA as the sole arbiter of what constitutes humane treatment. Granted, in many cases, the organization is right on point; but let’s not forget that this is the same group that has gone on the record with the opinion that keeping fish in an aquarium is the equivalent of animal abuse.

As far as I know, there aren’t any pet product retailers and manufacturers on the list of companies in which PETA has purchased a stake, but this may just be a matter of time. And if the organization were to make its way into some pet industry boardrooms, what would the repercussions be, given its extreme views on pet keeping? Might we see PETA-infused suppliers refusing to do business with pet stores that sell live animals, for example?

At the end of the day, it is well within PETA’s rights to try to affect change in companies with practices that adversely affect animals. It is also the rights of others to state their views, which may be 180 degrees different than PETA’s opinions. In the end, let’s just hope that any change is grounded in a rational understanding of people’s right to own pets.