Shiny Green Button

The Sun is setting
The CEO tweets goodbye
New dawn for HR

Photo credit: PhillipWest on Flickr

A company’s sustainability communications often focus on two things: stuff they’ve done (easy to talk about) and stuff they plan to do (kinda iffy).

Take these two statements:
Company A seeks to remove toxic chemicals from its products by 2012.
Company B will remove toxic chemicals from its products by 2012.

Which company do you trust to remove toxic chemicals—the company that seeks to or the company that will? It’s not a subtle distinction. It’s the difference between a good intention and a promise.

I come across this language all the time—aspire, hope, strive, aim, seek and the list goes on. Here’s what these words convey to the reader: “We really think this is a good idea, but things might not work out.”

Some people say that the business world doesn’t lend itself to definitive language about the future. They question how a company could know whether it will actually achieve its goals.

I’m betting that on any given day, you guarantee to clients, co-workers and partners that you’ll get something done by a specified time. Imagine if you told a client, “I hope to complete your project on time.” What would they say? “Oh really? You hope to? That’s cute.”

Instead, you tell them what they expect to hear—“I will have this done by the deadline”—and you deliver. Why would you treat customers—your livelihood—any differently?

We’re past the era of good intentions. Welcome to the era of brass tacks. The public expects businesses to stop aspiring and start getting stuff done. It’s time to use the language to match.

I’m a writer by trade, so I go through a fair amount of pens. I hate tossing dead ones in the trash, but there’s really no good alternative. Until now:

Sharpie, Paper Mate and EXPO have formed a partnership with TerraCycle  to repurpose used pens, markers and other writing instruments. Touted as the world’s first program to collect and reuse writing instruments, the partnership will also help raise funds for schools, charities and non-profits nationwide, as well as reduce waste headed for landfills.

Each pen recovered is worth 2 cents to the school, community group, charity or nonprofit organization of the participant’s choice. Drop locations will be set up at corporations and schools. Shipping is prepaid. And then returned pens will be upcycled to make new products.

Not to reduce it to a crude formula, but there’s a lot to like about this program. It’s simple for anyone to participate. There’s an incentive. It covers both environmental and social angles. It’s got the backing of companies. And it’s got economic upside for TerraCycle.

That’s a story that can virtually write itself.

Just wish I’d thought of it first.

Photo credit: tiffanywashko on Flickr

This past Tuesday, I arrived home to find a box on my front stoop. It contained two brand new SIGG water bottles, and a letter that began like this:

Thank you for your participation in our SIGG Voluntary Exchange Program.

We understand that you may not have heard from us as often as you may have wished during the process – and may have had to wait an extended time for your new SIGG bottle. We can assure you it was not due to a lack of effort on our part. We are a small company (15 people in the USA) and this program has been a huge undertaking for us. We truly appreciate your patience and understanding.

My AHA! cohort Shelby posted back in October about how SIGG has bungled their communication around the BPA content of their water bottles. And I have to admit, I was a pretty frustrated customer when I returned my water bottle only to wait months to get my replacement. But this letter (and the bonus bottle!) went a long way to make me a SIGG fan again. Here’s why:

1. It fesses up. I’m immediately more receptive when a company doesn’t claim they are perfect.

2. It shows they care. They tried. They really did.

3. It’s human. Fifteen people were all they had to deal with this PR and product take-back nightmare! Wow. I feel for them.

The letter does one last smart thing in its conclusion: it encourages me to pass on my extra bottle to a friend in order to help more people kick the bottled water habit. Nice. More SIGG fans for them, and a free way for me to feel like I’m doing a good thing.

Three keynotes, three stories
I kicked off my CES hearing Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally talk loosely and repeatedly about innovation. It was comparable to a behemoth company in a staid industry that notoriously stymies innovation telling a different, highly innovative industry that, what do you know, innovation is essential. Actually, it wasn’t comparable to that. It was that.
Takeaway: Apparently there’s a revolution going on, and it has something to do with a Ford Taurus and hands-free parallel parking.

Intel’s Paul Otellini closed out Wednesday with show-and-tell. He showed us how to shoot 3D home movies, that my clothes will apparently be chosen by an in-store computer and that someday everything really will be connected … in 3D. Basically, 3D will save the tech world—the more complex the content, the more processing power needed.
Takeaway: The revolution will require a lot of processors.

Best in show goes to Nokia’s Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. In a nutshell: The developing nations have different needs than the developed world. If we continue to throw the same gadgets (mobile phones in Nokia’s case) designed for customers in Tokyo at customers in Kandahar, nothing good will come of it. Bad business is bad for people. Good business is good for people.
Takeaway: If we don’t listen to the people, there really will be a revolution.

Green machines
It was hard to tell at times, but sustainability is on the mind of the industry. Several key players devoted whole sections of their booths to eco-conscious solutions. The catch is that these “green” displays were all too often about potential solutions and not about real products. It’s great that a company, Panasonic for instance, has developed super-light, energy-saving insulation. But what does that mean if it’s not being used in any products? It’s especially deflating when, just five feet over, the TV exhibit is sapping enough juice to power a small planetary system.

There were a few companies with interesting eco products, though. My fave: Miniwiz. Their portable, compact solar- and wind-powered chargers looked both useful and, more importantly, cool. They get added points for their Solarbulb, a gadget that stores and then uses solar power to act as a lamp and a water sterilizer.
Takeaway: Energy efficiency is cool, but nobody is doing anything revolutionary, especially compared with those awesome 3D TVs.

Did I mention 3D?
CES’s main message was basically this: 3D TV is real, it’s here and it’s pretty amazing, regardless that it’s expensive and there’s hardly any 3D content and you have to wear goofy, disorienting glasses. I couldn’t really tell one 3D TV apart from another 3D TV. What made the biggest difference was what the TV was showing. Nature docs and movies? Meh. Sports and video games? OMG. And I wasn’t alone in this reaction. Any 3D TV showing mountains and underwater scenes had a handful of viewers. Those with 3D sports or video games could have been mistaken for Lady Gaga from all the attention they got.
Takeaway: The revolution will be televised … in 3D.

Photo credit: The Plan8 Podcast on Flickr

We’ll be tweeting our 140-character observations of the trends, technology and speakers at CES 2010. You can follow our tweets at http://twitter.com/AHAwriters. We’ll also compile much of what we observed about communications and sustainability into a couple blog posts here on Shiny Green Button.

Photo credit: tonystl on Flickr

Consider this potential solution to global warming: the Stratoshield or “hose to the sky.” The Stratoshield was proposed by a collection of scientists, engineers and intellectuals at a company called Intellectual Ventures, funded by some of the world’s largest Fortune 500 companies.

An overly simplified explanation: Take a long hose. Attach it to large balloons. Float it up to the stratosphere. Use it to pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Block the sun’s rays. Reduce the earth’s temperature. Save the polar bears. Of course, it’s much more complicated than this, but that’s the gist.

Opponents say it’s too simple, too easy, too cheap and targets the symptoms of global warming rather than the cause. Supporters say it’s simple, easy, cheap and targets the symptoms of global warming rather than the much more daunting cause.

Hmmm…

When I first heard the idea, I thought it was crazy. But then something happened to change my view. A brand that I have interest in—Freakonomics—presented the idea as if it were totally valid. After I read that Freakonomics authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner supported the Stratoshield in their new book, Superfreakonomics, the idea went from “crazy” to “a legitimate solution,” all because it gained the power of a brand I enjoy.

But my brand-influenced shift didn’t end there. In this same book, another brand that I respect—the brand of Al Gore—opposes the idea. Al Gore thinks the Stratoshield is crazy.

So, here’s a breakdown of how my stance shifted in the time it took to read a few pages.

1. Seems a little out there, but whatever. (Intellectual Ventures? Who are they?)

2. This is starting to make perfect sense! (Freakonomics! I know those guys!)

3. Wait, is this idea crazy? (Al Gore says so, and he’s, like, the patron saint of saving the earth!)

I like to think otherwise, but maybe this just means I’m fickle and easily influenced. Even if that’s the case, it’s worth remembering that I’m not alone. Progress is made, products are sold and ideas are accepted, not always because of their necessity, value or worth, but because of who is selling them.

Photo credit: crazytales562 on Flickr

Last week, I wrapped up all my holiday gifts for my out-of-state family, stuffed them in boxes and schlepped them to the post office, all the way thinking, “This is not very green of me.”

Too bad I hadn’t heard about UPS’s carbon neutral shipping option, which allows customers to offset the emissions associated with shipping for a fee. Apparently DHL is rolling out a similar program, though it’s only available in Europe at the moment.

I like this strategy for so many reasons. First, it’s a way for these companies to take a step toward integrating sustainability into their core business, rather than just tack it on as an afterthought. Also, the program makes the environmental impact of shipping more visible to their customers, and provides their customers with an easy way to make their own businesses more sustainable.

Unfortunately, there’s one aspect of UPS’s program that’s missing for me. I was hoping they would make it easy for customers to see the associated carbon footprint for each package. But this type of carbon analysis service is only available to their high-volume customers. Providing all customers with the environmental cost of shipping a package could drive increased awareness of the issue. Pairing the carbon footprint numbers with some simple tips, like using smaller boxes when possible, UPS can extend their influence even further, by helping smaller businesses and individuals do better for the planet.

Be sure to check out this intriguing post by senior writer Mark Gunther at GreenBiz.com. The volume of user-generated content and commentary coming out of Copenhagen is staggering, which Gunther interprets as a sign that the most important technology for combating climate change might be smart phones, Flip video, digital cameras and social media.  While not necessarily a revolutionary idea, it does emphasize that the solution to climate change isn’t going to be found in some technological silver bullet, but in authentic communications that compel us to get engaged, rethink our priorities and transform our behavior.

What can the orchestra teach the corporate world? Apparently a lot, according to conductor-turned-business-consultant Itay Talgam.

In this video, Talgam compares the leadership styles of six great conductors to those of business leaders. There’s the conductor who rules with an iron fist, and then the conductor who allows each musician to bring their own interpretation to the music. Perhaps you’ll be reminded of a few of your past bosses.

Talgam’s message is certainly appropriate for managers: great leaders don’t treat people like puppets; they create conditions that allow people to do their best. As I watched, I couldn’t help but think the same principles apply to communicators.

Many corporate communicators start out by determining the message, and then create tools that tell other people in the company exactly how to deliver it. It’s like a micromanaged game of telephone. The intent is to make sure the customer gets the same message no matter where they encounter it. But what if it were different? What if you just set up the framework, and then let others fill it with their own interpretation?

Take one of my favorite stores, New Seasons, a locally owned grocery chain. Their tagline is the friendliest store in town. And they are friendly, but not in any prescribed sort of way. Usually, the cashier is just genuinely chatty, or the guy taking my hot wok order notices my hat. Once, the person in the flower section gave me a bunch of sunflowers that were a bit ragged, but still lovely, instead of throwing them away.

Contrast that with the mechanical “Can I help you find anything?” I hear every time I shop at Safeway. I can just imagine a manager telling the staff something like, “Our goal is to be the best in customer service. So, greet every single customer and ask if they are finding what they need.” Their approach is aggravating, and sometimes I go out of my way to avoid anyone in a Safeway uniform, which I’m sure is not the desired effect.

What do you think? Empowering others in your organization to tell their own stories: chaotic dissonance or intricate melody?