Archive for June, 2008

Doing good doesn’t drive business giving in US

Private companies in the US tend to be more generous than companies in other countries in giving to charity, according to an international survey discussed in the June issue of Inc. magazine. Companies in all surveyed countries are primarily motivated by promotion of employee recruitment and retention; however, private US firms are much less likely than their international counterparts to be motivated by “saving the planet.”

The survey’s supervisor believes employees are commonly the ones pushing their employers to donate to charities and support community service. So employers, seeing this desire among their workers, figure giving is a good way to keep and attract employees. The survey spokesman was surprised that “saving the planet” did not rank higher as a motivation in the US.


I’m not surprised by the finding, but I hope the next survey reveals some changes. The drive to give must come more from the top than the rank and file. Only then will we see the giving continue and expand. And along with that, US business owners and senior managers must accept the challenge and need to do the right thing for our planet. Not that employee retention and recruitment isn’t important. It is. But giving out of concern for the planet signals to all of your stakeholders that you recognize your organization has social and environmental responsibilities. The reward is inherent in the action of taking responsibility, not in the profits, or even the retaining of employees.

I don’t have other studies at my fingertips to prove this, but I believe companies whose owners and leaders operate from a place of commitment to the common good will also enjoy the greatest employee loyalty and generate more interest among desirable employee prospects. These social and environmental values need to start at the top and be embedded in all aspects of a company’s behavior and practices. Giving to charity or community groups flows naturally from the values of a triple-bottom-line company: people, planet, profits. 

That businesses give back to their communities, even for selfish reasons, is a good thing. But when the majority of business employers are motivated solely or primarily by their employees to do good, we have a serious misplacement of values at the top. We need business leaders to embrace their responsibility to the common good and become committed and active citizens of their communities and the world at large. Until many more do, there will be no solving the daunting social and ecological challenges in front of us.
Share
Share
Friday, June 27th, 2008
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Business & Economics, Climate Change, Sustainability | No Comments »

There’s no consuming our way to green

I find it difficult to avoid the topic of Wal-Mart when speaking of sustainability and marketing. The company came up again today at a breakfast presentation by two professors of business from the University of Portland, sponsored by the Oregon Natural Step Network. And once again I find myself bristling at the notion of Wal-Mart playing any part in the ultimate sustainability solutions for our planet.

Professors Diane Martin and John Schouten conduct research related to sustainable marketing. Included in their work is the study of Wal-Mart’s aggressive sustainability initiatives. They receive no payment from Wal-Mart as part of their research. Nor do they shop there.

Martin and Schouten peppered their presentations this morning with examples of what Wal-Mart was doing to lessen the environmental impact of its business operations, the products it sells and the global supply chain that feeds its stores. Schouten says the company is so serious about its sustainability efforts it has reached out to detractors such as the World Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and Conservation International to involve them in their green initiatives.

But when asked whether she was aware of Wal-Mart actually encouraging their customers to consume less, Martin quickly replied, “No.” Schouten said the mindset that “growth is good” is still very much present in Bentonville, although its managers are all evaluated by metrics of sustainability. He didn’t say what those metrics were, but clearly they don’t involve helping Wal-Mart customers buy fewer products. Wal-Mart doesn’t plan to relinquish its role as the world’s largest retailer — indeed, its revenues make it the equivalent of the world’s 19th largest economy, Martin said.

This raises what I believe to be the fundamental question for companies and marketers embracing sustainability principals: Can humans consume their way to green? In other words, can we simply switch from brown products to green products across the board and create the sustainable future we all want? 

Wal-Mart and most other companies can’t envision a future where their customers dramatically lessen the amount of goods they buy. After all, what would happen to their growth ambitions and their need to create adequate shareholder return? Their solution is to get us to consume differently: less brown, more green. 

I don’t believe we have the luxury of simply shifting to green products. In fact, I can’t imagine a sustainable future where humans — at least in the developed countries — don’t reduce their consumption many fold. That’s a prospect few in business, including those of us in marketing, want to either accept or condone. Where’s the money in non-consumption?

Last week, I heard author and Boston College Professor Juliet Schor speak for the second time in several months, this time at the national conference of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) in Boston. Schor is a well-known critic of over-consumption by the middle/upper classes of developed countries. She cited new data that illustrate how the growing scale of consumption among higher-income people is swamping virtually all the product greening steps our society is taking. 

The de-materialization of our economy is not happening. For example, in what Schor calls “the Ikea effect,” American consumption of furniture in material weight increased from 6 billion kilograms in 1998 to 12 billion kilograms in 2005. Our population increased 10 percent in that time, but our furniture consumption doubled. We consumed 2.9 billion kilograms of ceramics in 1998 and 5.7 billion kilograms in 2005. Our electronics consumption — despite the ongoing miniaturization of digital gadgets — increased from 3.8 billion kilograms in 1998 to 6.2 billion kilograms in 2005.

Schor’s solution is to engage people in redefining the good life. One where we acquire more time and far less stuff. A life in which we work fewer hours, and use that time to reconnect with ourselves, our families, our communities and nature and rediscover our happiness. Schor didn’t say it, but I’m pretty sure you won’t find even a green Wal-Mart in her picture of the good life. You certainly won’t in mine.
Share
Share
Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Business & Economics, Consumerism, Marketing, Oregon, Sustainability | No Comments »

The accidental benefit of higher gasoline prices

There’s going green. And then there’s saving green. We’re seeing the difference now as gasoline prices climb over $4 per gallon. 

In the post-“Inconvenient Truth” era, many Americans are finding ways to drive less or volunteering to trade in their gas guzzlers for gas sippers to do their part for the environment. That’s going green. Lately, people are selling gas hogs and driving less for a different reason. To save green. Whether the motivation is to save the environment or to save money, the results are the same: fewer gallons of gas consumed and fewer greenhouse gases emitted. 

But the environmental benefit rarely gets mentioned when reporters cover the broader economic and personal financial costs of expensive gasoline. As much as it pains me to say it, an economist quoted in the New York Times is probably right when he says:

“Al Gore came out with a movie called ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in 2006, when Hummer sales were still good. The inconvenient truth, in fact, is that prices are what matter. With gas prices soaring, Gore is going to get his collapse in Hummer sales, not because people went green, but because they wouldn’t spend the extra green to buy the gas.” 

 

My hunch is a lot of Americans have wanted to do the right thing for our warming climate by downsizing their automobiles, but have waited for financial incentives. When gas was closer to $3, the incentive wasn’t great enough. At $4 and climbing, it is.

Sustainability marketers should take note. There are a certain number of eco-minded customers who choose the environment over saving money. But most customers are guided by their pocketbooks and probably always will be. In the case of gasoline, they find ways to consume less, so they can save money. Period. The environmental benefit is unintentional or, at best, icing on the cake. 

Not that enviros should be complaining that Americans drove 4.3 percent fewer miles in March 2008 than March 2007. We’d just all feel a lot better if we knew environmental values, more than economic reactions, explained the drop. Maybe then, we’d trust that Americans are serious about fighting climate change. 

Share
Share
Monday, June 2nd, 2008
Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Business & Economics, Climate Change, Marketing, Sustainability | No Comments »