Shiny Green Button

Today’s Wall Street Journal article titled, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility,” has our hackles raised around here today. The basic gist of the argument is that companies exist to maximize profits, and social responsibility puts profit at risk. The author advocates for leaving social good to government and corporate watchdogs. Here’s a tidbit:

Executives are hired to maximize profits; that is their responsibility to their company’s shareholders. Even if executives wanted to forgo some profit to benefit society, they could expect to lose their jobs if they tried—and be replaced by managers who would restore profit as the top priority. The movement for corporate social responsibility is in direct opposition, in such cases, to the movement for better corporate governance, which demands that managers fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders’ interest or be relieved of their responsibilities.

Provocative argument, but it seems a little short-sighted and simplistic to me. What about the positive impact of CSR on brand reputation? On employee productivity and innovation? What about its potential to reduce risk? I dare say, that’s just a short list of benefits that are all in line with shareholder interests, and therefore are a reason for corporate executives to make CSR a part of their agenda. Also, the author seems to be making the assumption that short-term profits are best for shareholders. What about long-term, sustainable success and the viability of the company?

What’s your response to the WSJ article?

That’s how Gil Friend kicked off the first full day of the Sustainable Brands conference yesterday.

It was a powerful and surprising statement. It showed how far sustainability has come from the days when environmentalists were labeled “tree huggers.” Today, it’s become another part of the business landscape. Companies aren’t demonstrating social and environmental responsibility because it’s nice. They’re doing it because it gives them a competitive advantage.

Friend’s statement also emphasized the urgency and complexity of our challenge. You just can’t afford to be nice when climate change threatens to turn our home into a blistering, sooty rock. You can’t afford to be nice when you are reinventing the industrial engine of the economy.

Still, change is hard. Bruce McGregor from IDEO told us yesterday that only 10 percent of people are successful in making a change when faced with a life-or-death situation. There are an awful lot of smokers out there who can’t kick the habit after a diagnosis of cancer, and plenty of people fail to exercise and eat better even after developing type I diabetes. Just telling someone to change because it’s good for them doesn’t mean they will do it.

Now, here we all are—facing a life-or-death situation—and still drinking water out of plastic bottles, flushing bleach down the drain, driving our cars.

As marketers and communicators, the lesson is to stop talking to consumers about how they can feel good about their more eco-friendly purchase or their microloan. Only a handful of consumers buy because they want to do good for the planet, and recent research by Fruitful Strategy shows that 24 percent of people are “rejecters” of green products, purposefully avoiding products with green messages on the label. Most people are not buying or behaving green out of altruism, but because it also makes them feel more secure, comfortable or attractive—or it saves them money.

So it’s time for sustainability to stop being so nice. We have to be sustainable and beautiful. Sustainable and healthy. Sustainable and simple. Sustainable and affordable. Our future depends on it.

AHA! is heading to the Sustainable Brands conference next week, for four days packed full of CSR goodness. We’ll be reporting back throughout the week, right here on Shiny Green Button, or you can follow our tweets at http://twitter.com/AHAwriters.

Photo credit: Daniel*1977 on Flickr

Over at GreenBiz.com, Tim Mohin, director of corporate responsibility at AMD, offers insights from this month’s Ceres conference in Boston and poses an interesting question:

“If so many companies are producing data on environmental, social and governance issues, who is reading all these reports? And, what are the data being used for?”

Mohin describes a scene at the Ceres awards ceremony, when a representative of Seventh Generation accepted the award for best sustainability report in the small and medium business category and asked the audience how many people had actually read the winning report.

The response? Chirping crickets and a few hands.

But, when he asked how many people had read their own company’s report, almost all hands were in the air.

Mohin goes on to say that CSR reporting can offer more than a window into a company’s programs; it can be useful as a mirror, to engage employees and inform improvements in a company’s CSR strategy moving forward. An excellent point, but I can’t get past that first question: why should anyone read a company’s CSR report?

Mohin identifies a gap that we communicators need to fill. The data companies collect for CSR reporting is a goldmine for stories with relevance beyond employees and investors and industry analysts.

For example, we can take the data out of the report and into the real world,  putting one company’s accomplishments in the larger context of its industry and global efforts. We can connect the dots between corporate sustainability efforts and the products consumers see on the shelf. We can add texture to data about employee volunteerism by highlighting who benefits from it and how others can pitch in.

When we use corporate responsibility as a frame for a company’s larger brand story, we can encourage external audiences—consumers, suppliers, peers and even competitors— to not only read about its sustainability efforts, but support them and also consider their own.

Here’s an example from our own portfolio. We helped HP develop its comprehensive global citizenship report, but we also used the data to create a business-magazine style companion piece for a consumer audience. Would you read this?

Photo credit: D Sharon Pruitt on Flickr

As I was cruising through our blog archives the other day, I realized something. We’re two years old this month!

In our first post, Christian Hicks pondered the role corporations play—and the role they could play—in raising environmental awareness.
Since then, we’ve immersed ourselves in an exploration of how brands, communications and sustainability come together. And, we’ve challenged ourselves to figure out how they can work together in ways that are good for business, good for people and good for the planet.

To celebrate our birth month, we’ll take a look back at what we’ve discovered along the way—insights that have come from and been valuable to the communications work we do every day for our clients.

We’ve covered a lot of ground in two years, but whether we’re talking about the financial sector or technology, advertising or corporate responsibility reports, one theme emerges over and over again: even though the sustainability landscape feels like new territory for many, the fundamentals of good communications still apply. Just as we suspected.

Check out these posts from the past—still relevant today—and you’ll see what I mean. Words matter. Respecting your audience is crucial. Storytelling connects and engages people in powerful ways.

But, don’t think for a second that we writers aren’t open to something new. We also wonder, will our changing world change how we communicate?

Enjoy, and have a great weekend!

Photo credit: Water Lemon on Flickr

An EcoGeek reader who subscribes to both National Geographic and Wired found two very different messages recently from Kohler, the company known for its sleek, aesthetically pleasing plumbing fixtures.

In National Geographic, an evocative image of clear water splashes across the page, along with a conservation message about Kohler’s water-saving products and the URL for the company’s microsite www.savewateramerica.com.

In Wired, Kohler offers a highly stylized image of a duo in a Dancing with the Stars-style big-finish pose. They’re standing in a room-sized shower looking fierce, as nine multi-nozzle showerheads blast them with what Kohler’s product info calls “a deluge even Mother Nature would envy.”

Some EcoGeek commenters call this hypocrisy and greenwashing. Others are defending Kohler’s right to target niche audiences, which is a common and even “best” practice in marketing.

The problem here isn’t that the company is sending different messages. The fact is, it’s sending mixed messages. And, those mixed messages are reaching the same audience, not different target markets. NatGeo nature lovers like to geek out on Wired tech gear; water conservationists still like an amazing shower, but they’d prefer the low-flow variety.

As sustainability and environmental responsibility flood the mainstream, this is a fundamental communications problem that marketers will need to solve. Companies that want to do their part for the environment on one hand (Kohler offers water-saving products and also donates them to Habitat for Humanity), but who still profit from not-so-sustainable offerings on the other will want to promote both ends of the spectrum, from green to luxe.

If clients don’t integrate sustainability into everything they do, how can communicators weave it into an authentic, credible brand story? Have you had a similar experience?

Photo credit: Lel4nd on Flickr

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal contained an article about the chocolate giant Nestle’s recent troubles with activists. The issue: Nestle’s use of palm oil from a supplier accused of razing rainforests to get it.

Activists took advantage of social media outlets like Facebook and YouTube to raise awareness. Nestle responded by asking Google to remove the protesters’ videos, citing copyright violation, and threatened to delete comments from the company Facebook page. Bad idea. Nestle’s defensive actions only riled up the activists even more.

I couldn’t help but think of the situation in terms of personality types. If Nestle were a person, they would be a curmudgeonly introvert, demanding to be left alone, waving a fist and yelling at the crazy kids to stay off its property—or else.

What social media requires is an extrovert, someone who likes people, who wants to listen and engage. Someone who is interested in the conversation and the buzz that comes from pinging ideas back and forth.

Some marketing experts are advising Nestle to shut down its Facebook page altogether, according to the Wall Street Journal. But it seems like the worst possible time to shy away. Here’s an idea for you, Nestle: Hire the most outgoing, sociable person (or team) to manage your social media strategy. Give them the power to be transparent—let them blab about all the details of your progress so your customers can follow along as you take steps to address your palm oil problem. Let them get to know your critics, and treat them like friends with a bit of constructive criticism, rather than adversaries. The more open and honest Nestle can be, the better chance they have of turning their critics into champions.

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.

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.

Yvon Chouinard is my hero.

I had a chance to hear the founder and owner of clothing company Patagonia at last week’s Sustainability Awards Luncheon hosted by the Portland Business Journal. Chouinard tells it like no one else does. Dressed in a pair of jeans and a rumpled jacket, he explained his vision of sustainability: buy only what you need, make decisions with future generations in mind, work with your friends and kids around, and examine everything you do.

One especially pithy statement he made has echoed in my mind all week: “An uneducated person has no choices. When you educate yourself, you’re left with choices.”

True dat.

In the realm of sustainability, educating yourself can be an overwhelming task. You research one thing, and it leads to another. You sift through conflicting reports, confounding marketing messages, confusing statistics. For me, even making a simple decision about what to eat has become a challenge. Because I now know too much. For 12 years, I thought I was doing the right thing by eating vegetarian, but after reading Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, I’m not so sure. What’s better? A Morningstar veggie burger made from corporate-farmed GMO soy and shipped across the country? Or a locally raised, grass-fed chicken? I’ve got both in my freezer, waiting for me to defrost and choose.

AHA! is going through its own education process right now, as we’re trying to measure everything from our energy consumption to our garbage output. We’ve all had a gut feeling that, as a services business, a big part of our carbon footprint comes from our commuting to and from the office by car. And then we actually measured it. Were all 35 of us to drive individually to work, we’d collectively log 692 miles each day! That’s a humbling number, but also a powerful motivator. Now that we know the worst-case scenario, we can measure the impact of our car commutes. And we can also factor in how our walks, bike rides and carpools to work lessen that impact.

When it comes to the increasingly complex task of making a sustainable choice, Patagonia has a winning formula for making it easy for their customers. Any business—or individual for that matter—should look to them as a model.

If you haven’t heard Chouinard speak, here’s a glimpse. This video is lengthy, but if you have the time, you’ll come away inspired.