Posts Tagged ‘Sustainability’
Marketing for a sustainable future
Those of you who’ve visited this blog before may see a slight change in emphasis in future posts. I’ll be exploring more frequently the personal and professional interest I have in marketing’s role in a sustainable future. Some would say marketing is antithetical to sustainability. As a long-time marketer, I don’t believe that. However, I also know that marketers shoulder great responsibility for supporting companies, products and business practices that are fundamentally unsustainable.
I don’t believe marketing, by definition, is the problem. One marketing executive I know believes in the Peter Drucker objective of marketing: to create and keep a customer. Sounds simple enough. And non-controversial. It says nothing about creating demand for material products we don’t need and end up throwing away in gigantic landfills. Nor supporting businesses that indulge in wasteful and polluting manufacturing practices. Nor ignoring an economic system that places shareholder interests far above those of the environment and the larger human community.
As marketers, we have choices in who, what and how we market. We can create awareness, build preference and generate demand for organizations and products that do good, or at least no harm. Or we can put our talents in creativity and persuasion to work for the bad guys. I believe it’s time for marketers to awaken to our capacity to change the world for the better and to make conscious choices about how we are going to employ our skills and ourselves.
There are organizations and businesses trying to do the right thing for shareholders, customers, employees, communities and the environment. These are the employers and clients we need to be supporting. If that isn’t a practical option for you as a marketer (since you need a job and income), then do what you can to change the marketing — if not the behavior — of your employer or client. Stand for sustainability, even if you stand alone.
For better or worse, marketers are perhaps the most visible storytellers of our time. The stories we craft and publicize are meant to move people to act, and very often they do. The question we must face is whether the actions we instigate support or jeopardize a sustainable future. If you don’t know the answer, then consider the physician’s maxim: First, do no harm.
Tags: do no harm, Marketing, storytellers, Sustainability, sustainable future
Posted in Marketing, Sustainability | No Comments »
Spread of fashion undermines sustainability
One of America’s foremost critics of our consuming ways is Juliet Schor, a professor of sociology at Boston College. I had the pleasure of hearing her speak this week in Portland.
Among the many observations that jumped out at me in her lecture was what she called “the aesthetization of American life.” Not sure that’s a word, but the point is fast-changing fashion, long the staple of the apparel industry, is now central to the selling of many retail products. In recent years, furniture, cellphone, home electronics and other manufacturers have joined clothing makers in emphasizing the design — or aesthetic appeal — of their products. A New York Times piece yesterday, appropriately headlined “Hoping to Make Phone Buyers Flip,” helped make Schor’s point:
Like fashion or entertainment, the cellphone industry is increasingly hit-driven, and new models that do not fly off the shelves within weeks of their debut are considered duds.
I like attractive, well-designed products as much as the next person. However, when it becomes industry’s prevailing practice to change product designs with the season and encourage us to discard perfectly good items because they are no longer “fashionable,” then we have a problem. Making more of the products we buy fashion statements only encourages us to purchase more. This may bolster the financial bottom lines of producers and retailers. But it puts the world’s environmental bottom line further in the red.
To illustrate her point, Schor projected a graph from the World Wildlife Foundation’s Living Planet Report 2006. You can access the report here. According to the WWF:
The Living Planet Report 2006 confirms that we are using the planet’s resources faster than they can be renewed — the latest data available (for 2003) indicate that humanity’s Ecological Footprint, our impact on the planet, has more than tripled since 1961. Our footprint now exceeds the world’s ability to regenerate by about 25 per cent…This global trend suggests we are degrading natural ecosystems at a rate unprecedented in human history…Effectively, the Earth’s regenerative capacity can no longer keep up with demand — people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste into resources.
WWF offers several alternatives to our unsustainable (and potentially catastrophic) “business as usual” course of human development. If you’re wondering what you can do, start by examining your consumption choices. Resist the urge to stay at fashion’s leading edge, no matter the product. Buy less stuff. When you do make purchases, reward producers and retailers who embrace sustainability.
And if it’s aesthetics you value, ask yourself this: What better designer than Mother Nature?
Tags: aesthetization, consumption, Ecological Footprint, Juliet Schor, Living Planet Report, Sustainability
Posted in Business & Economics, Consumerism, Marketing, Sustainability | No Comments »
Making the wrong argument for sustainability
Call me a hopeless idealist, but I happen to believe we need no other motivation for living more sustainably than simply doing the right thing. I’m no fan of leading with competitive, economic or profit-based appeals when arguing for sustainability, as The Oregonian did earlier this week in their editorial, “Racing to stay ahead of the pack.”
The editors cautioned Portlanders that we can’t stop doing what has made us a world leader in sustainability because other cities worldwide are “hellbent on catching up”:
Daily we are reminded just how global, competitive and interconnected the modern economy has become. The consequence is clear: In this new world economic order, only the nimble will thrive. This fresh market reality places cities — not generally known for being light on their feet — in extreme peril. Those that have a clear sense of purpose and direction will flourish. Those lacking this trait will wilt.
Accompanying the written editorial was a cartoon of man in a meeting room pointing to a large poster of a dollar bill and telling his colleagues, “Actually there is one rather compelling ‘green argument’ for sustainability.”
The message was clear: There’s money to be made in sustainability, and if Portland loses its position as a global leader in sustainability, we will also lose out on the economic spoils that go to the victors in this race. Maybe so, but in looking at sustainability through the lens of economics we lose sight of the much greater social and moral imperatives for changing how we live.
The editors got it partially right when they concluded:
Current consumption patterns cannot endure. We all will have to use fewer resources, use them more wisely, reuse them, then recycle them. That is the core of sustainability. That is the manner of living Portland must role-model for the world.
The very fact that our global consumption patterns are unsustainable is all the motivation we need to live more sustainably. And Portland should be the role model for the world because the world desperately needs one. Period.
Let’s just keep doing the right thing. If our economy grows as a result, so be it.
Tags: consumption, doing the right thing, Portland Oregon, Sustainability, The Oregonian, world leader
Posted in Business & Economics, Oregon, Sustainability | No Comments »
Oregon law gives teeth to business sustainability
Oregon has opened its doors to a new kind of corporation. In a bill passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2007, businesses can state in their Oregon articles of incorporation they will operate with equal regard for environmental, social and shareholder impact. It appears Oregon is the first state to adopt such a law. And according to The Oregonian:
It’s not an empty gesture. One of the principles of business law is that corporations must act in the best interests of their shareholders. Some courts have narrowly interpreted that to mean companies must act only to maximize profits, even if the action runs roughshod over wider community interests.
It will be fascinating to see where this little publicized change in Oregon’s corporate governance laws will lead. Last spring, I heard a presentation from the founders of B Corporation, an organization whose aim is the widespread formation of corporations acting on behalf of all stakeholders (environmental, community, employee, supplier), not just shareholders. Oregon’s new law gives legal teeth to efforts such as this. According to Oregon Lawyers for a Sustainable Future, which drafted the legislation (HB 2826),
The statute makes it clear that anyone forming an Oregon corporation can include a provision in the
articles authorizing or directing the corporation to be operated in a sustainable manner. Moreover, any
existing Oregon corporation can take that step by amending its articles of incorporation, which will
then govern operations after the date of the amendment.
Under such a provision, corporate officers will be directed or authorized to make decisions that adhere to a triple bottom line (people, planet, profits). How this will all play out is anyone’s guess. Ideally, we will see businesses throughout Oregon adopting the triple-bottom-line standard for governance. And perhaps even a rush of out-of-state companies that want to incorporate here so they can legally act out of concern for more than maximizing shareholder return. But how long might it be before powerful investment groups challenge Oregon’s amended corporate code in the courts? Or an individual company is sued by shareholders for failing to act in their best interests while making decisions that benefit other stakeholders? Conversely, will the adoption of these sustainability provisions leave businesses vulnerable to lawsuits from other stakeholders who claim the business is failing its environmental and social responsibilities?
Legal issues aside, I’m anxious to see how companies that adopt these new governance provisions actually behave. Will their conduct be measurably different from shareholder-centric companies? When push comes to shove, will they make decisions that reduce short-term corporate profits or shareholder return out of an obligation to the environmental or social common good?
The Oregon lawyer group behind HB 2826 acknowledges “profitability is built into the DNA of a corporation.” The question for Oregon, and the rest of the country, is whether the truly sustainable corporation is even genetically possible. Thanks to the Oregon Legislature, we’re about to find out.
Tags: B Corporation, HB 2826, Sustainability, sustainable corporation, The Oregonian, triple bottom line
Posted in Business & Economics, Oregon, Politics, Sustainability | No Comments »
Only the color of money is green in Las Vegas
My wife and I had the pleasure of leaving Las Vegas last night. We were in the city for the weekend to visit friends who moved there from Portland earlier this year. We love our friends, but our next get-together is going to have to be in Portland or some neutral location.
This was my first trip to Vegas for something other than to attend a conference. Since my last visit almost 10 years ago, it’s fair to say my environmental consciousness has been raised. So when I looked upon the huge glimmering casinos on The Strip this time, I couldn’t help but shudder at the unsustainability of it all. And surrounding the city core are vast grids of slapped-together strip malls and subdivisions entirely dependent upon the automobile for their existence.
Yes, we saw the occasional Prius and solar panel array. And we visited the outstanding Spring Preserve, a 180-acre venue within city limits meant to “provide a vision for a sustainable future.” I also understand many casino hotels are doing more to conserve energy and the city is trying to encourage more dense “non-gaming” residential development. But the sheer enormity of the casino industry in Las Vegas makes the thought of sustainability almost absurd. I can’t imagine how much energy is consumed and CO2 emitted each hour as the casinos suck in electrons for their humongous neon signs, ubiquitous slot machines and the computing farms that keep all the gaming operations running. And with each new casino hotel complex, the ante gets raised in size and sizzle.
The greening of Las Vegas remains strictly of the monetary variety. SustainLane ranked Las Vegas the 27th most sustainable city in its 2006 ranking of the 50 largest US cities. (That seems very generous.) The organization placed Portland at the top. I was no doubt experiencing this chasm between the two cities this weekend. An environmentally green Las Vegas seems far-fetched as long as casinos dominate its economy and suburban-style development continues unabated. Still, I’m confident things can change there. And they must, if we are to stop gambling away our energy future.
Tags: casinos, energy consumption, environmental consciousness, greening, Las Vegas, Sustainability
Posted in Climate Change, Sustainability | No Comments »
What would you do if Wal-Mart called?
“He Sold His Soul to Wal-Mart,” the cover of September’s Fast Company magazine shouts.
The story inside doesn’t quite pay off the cover tease, but it offers a fascinating look at the life of Adam Werbach. Or at least what it’s been like since he decided to take on Wal-Mart as a client. That alone isn’t newsworthy. But the plot thickens when you recall or learn that Werbach is the former wunderkind president of Sierra Club and once called Wal-Mart “a new breed of toxin.” After a very public falling out with the environmental movement, Werbach was approached by Wal-Mart to help them with their now much-publicized sustainability initiatives. He eventually agreed. And in the past year his consulting firm has grown from eight to 45 employees, mainly to handle the Wal-Mart work.
The article gets to the heart — and soul — of one of the many contentious debates within the environmental movement. Are environmentalists better advised to become corporate insiders to move business toward greater sustainability? Or do they need to remain outsiders to a consumption-based economy that by definition is unsustainable and needs radical overhauling? Perhaps that choice isn’t as stark for the environmentalist who weighs whether to go to work for a progressive company such as Clif Bar. But when it’s the hated Wal-Mart, well, that’s a line most won’t cross. Had Werbach taken on just about any other corporation in America as a client, he wouldn’t be nearly as reviled by his former environmentalist kin.
While I haven’t walked in Werbach’s shoes, I can tell you this: If I had been approached with the same offer from Wal-Mart, I sure as hell hope I would have run away faster than it takes Wal-Mart to earn its first million dollars each morning.
How about you? Is Wal-Mart “beyond redemption”? Would you have stayed in the environmental movement and tried to make it more effective, rather than walk away like Werbach? Or would you have taken the Wal-Mart gig and figure on making a bigger difference there?
These are my questions.
P.S. Thanks to The Triple Bottom Line Blog for the tip-off on this article.
Tags: Adam Werback, Sierra Club, Sustainability, Wal-Mart
Posted in Business & Economics, Marketing, Sustainability | 1 Comment »