A blog about marketing, causes and a variety of topics in the “goodsphere”

Category Archives: Sustainability

I want my life back

Posted on June 19, 2010 in Lifestyle, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), Sustainability

It’s easy to point the finger at Mr. Hayward from BP right now.  Recent callous comments from Mr. Hayward (”I want my life back”) are almost darkly funny coming from an exec who’s likely sweating out the oil crisis in a 5 star hotel and crisscrossing the world via an executive jet when he needs a moment with the family.

Surely Mr. Hayward’s PR team is not happy with the bumbling BP exec.  BP seems to continuously downplay the accident and make slick new ads promising to fix things while they underspend on the clean up effort (though the recent $20 Billion spill fund effort is a step in the right direction).

But really, Mr. Hayward is no different from most of us.  We tend to rarely think beyond ourselves…even in situations where we should so obviously be concerned about those who are suffering the most.

And, although we were not directly responsible for the current crisis, we can shoulder some of the blame.  We’re the one’s investing in mutual funds replete with oil companies and driving gas guzzling SUVs.   We’re the one’s creating all the global demand for oil.  BP makes an incredible amount of money off of us.  Heck, last year alone, BP posted $17 billion in profit.  For perspective, $17 billion was almost double the profit of Apple ($5.7 billion) and Google ($6.5 billion) combined.  In the past three years, the company has generated a staggering $91 billion in cash flow from operations.  I was a loyal contributor to that enormous number.  I often purposefully drove into BP gas stations vs other competitors…I was a believer.

BP was supposed to be the “Green” oil company, right?  Maybe Greenpeace had it right all along.  In 2008, Greenpeace sensed something was amiss with BP’s trustworthiness and awarded them the 2008 Emerald paintbrush Greenwash award.

But Are Consumers Like Us the Real Greenwashers?

Joel Makower just posted an interesting article entitled “Who’s the Biggest Greenwasher of All?” In the article, Makower also takes consumers like us to task saying:

How many (consumers) can say that they are making substantive changes in their daily lives? How many are doing more this year than last? How many have set bold goals about their environmental progress — two, five, or ten years from now?

Compare this to the latest consumer research findings. “Eight in 10 consumers are interested in some type of green product,” according to the latest LOHAS Consumer Trends Database from the Natural Marketing Institute…so, who’s fooling who? Are companies nefariously saying one thing and doing another, or is it consumers who are masquerading as eco-heroes while making only symbolic changes?

In the end, Makower has a point.  If we all want change like we say we do, then we need to start exercising our collective power & start leaving our old fund portfolios, products + marketing/PR plots behind.  We don’t have to live on the extractive stuff of the past; we can help develop the regenerative stuff of the future by driving change ourselves…1 purchase choice at a time.

Maybe things will turn around for BP after this crisis?  And, hopefully Mr. Hayward, like all of us, internalizes that very often those who willingly lose a little bit of their life in defense of something greater, actually wind up “getting their life back” (though life as they knew it may look a little bit different than it did before).

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
1 Comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

Did Brand Management die in 2009?

Posted on January 12, 2010 in Brands and Culture, Marketing, Sustainability

What is a Brand Manager and how will he/she play a role in building the 21st century?

Given the tough business climate, mind bending tech. changes & dire need for innovation in the next decade & beyond, some (like Forrester) propose that we ax the command and control “Manager” part of the traditional Brand Manager title and go with something more relevant like “Brand Advocate.”  Ad Age followed up with a similar article on this topic near the end of 09.

Brand Managers today in many companies are really business managers that guide a multifunctional business team (e.g. Finance, PR, Supply Chain, etc.).  Marketing promotion is just 1 part of their job (remember the 4Ps of marketing).  Brand Managers create the strategy for the business, making decisions about how to run their business & build their brand.   Like my good friend Dave Knox writes in this excellent post, a Brand Manager in many cases is a General Manager in training…he/she is at the center of everything that happens on a brand.

GOOD

Good Brand Managers are fun, open & inspire their teams as they lean forward to discover new ideas.  They get out front & show that they want to build future focused products & their brand for the next generation. They work together with trend, consumer research, and design agencies to envision the future, so they can  build something that makes sense.  These guys & gals are visionaries with a lot of courage.  They are Builders first, managers second…

BAD

Other Brand Managers can tend to focus too much on how they will close the financial year. They operate with so much discipline & care to deliver the right numbers that they lose sight of the future.  They don’t take risks…and they aren’t willing to adapt to technology.  They spend too much time on internal “horn blowing” and developing processes for yearly evaluations instead of following up on what’s happening in the culture and working out how they can build a better future for people. These folks wind up killing the “golden brands” built by earlier entrepreneurial heroes.

There are good & bad brand managers in every company.

“Brand Building” the 21st Century

P&G invented the “Brand Manager” term back in the 1930s when the industrial era was moving full steam ahead and command & control was in vogue (check out the McElroy model that spawned Brand Management at the end of this post–via Forrester).

So, as the new century emerges, it will be interesting to see how Brand Management evolves and what (if any) title emerges to take its place.  I personally like the idea of the Brand Builder.

Brand builders create the classic, seemingly untouchable brands/products that form the foundation of a company.  Brand builders aren’t just 20th century leaders seeking internal influence and power; they prefer constructing and transforming the future.  While they thrive on understanding what’s happening now in the online social spaces and in the culture, they don’t meekly conform to the fleeting whims of online crowds…instead, they think longer and deeper to consider the impact of their products on future generations.  They are reflective, curious and tend to motivate other people.  Brand builders would rather put messages into the culture that help & inspire.  Builders think about driving the evolution of culture…not devolution.

As Umair Haque puts it in his recent manifesto, today’s builders are igniting the distant grandchild of yesterday’s industrial revolution: an institutional revolution for a post-industrial world. They are forging the new building blocks — from ethical investment, to deep journalism, to socially useful finance, to universally accessible communication — that a rusting economy, society, and polity so urgently demand.

It’s easy to get into the mode of “just trying to find newfangled ways to move product” via promotion.  Brand builders would like to see more focus return to the Product part of the 4Ps. Brand builders want to create sustainable & responsible growth that matters…not just another boring line extension that clutters the shelves and people’s lives.

The 20th century Brand guy/gal thinks “I” & “we”. The 21st century Brand person thinks  “all” — people, communities, and society.

Let’s hear it for the 21st Century Brand Builder.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Post a comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

Defectors from the Inside the Chamber

Posted on October 12, 2009 in Leadership, Sustainability

What do Apple, Nike & PG&E have in common?  They all recently staged rare corporate defections from the US Chamber of Commerce.

Below is an excerpt from the PG&E press release

SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- PG&E Corp. (PCG) said Tuesday it is leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over objections to what its top executive called the chamber’s “extreme position on climate change.”

And here is an excerpt from Nike’s release (side note: Nike didn’t fully leave, but decided to step down from the board)

Nike believes US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth.

As we’ve stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action.

The Daily Kos weighed in on the defectors saying that they were bold and innovative…willing to carve out a new divide between the more innovative companies and the older, hard-line climate laggards.

This crucial announcement from PG&E is the beginning of a massive reframing, away from jobs vs. polar bears, and focusing on the growing divide within the business community: innovative and forward-looking companies that “get it” vs. old line extraction companies that cling to the past.

The NYT points out that this crack in the (normally) homogeneous US business community is a new signal that the fight over climate legislation is changing.  This time around we won’t see a repeat of the time-worn face off between greens and big business, a fight in which environmentalists are often outgunned in money and influence.

So Who’s Next?

Which company will drop out of this powerful, 3 Million strong US Chamber next?  And, will these new companies start a new type of business federation to compete with the US Chamber juggernaut?

If Apple wanted to lead something like this I bet there would be followers…

Copenhagen’s Coming Soon

Beyond the recent Chamber defectors, encouragingly, there are a lot of big, innovative companies that are pushing government to do more on climate change.

In a dramatic shift since the Kyoto treaty was signed in 1997, 500 of the world’s leading global businesses recently joined together to endorse the Copenhagen Communiqué on Climate Change by signing a two page manifesto.

The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders’ Group on Climate Change recently pulled together some of the world’s biggest companies for the Communiqué. The two page document is being billed as a strong call from the international business community for a stronger international framework ahead of the UN negotiations on climate change this December in Copenhagen.

The Communiqué is very encouraging and leadership from global companies on climate change is also very encouraging…who would have thought–5 or 10 years ago–that big, global companies could pull together voluntarily to call for a tougher stance on Climate Change?

We need powerful global business leaders to stand up and say that they are ready to take on one of the  defining issues of our generation.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Post a comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

Drive-thru sustainability

Posted on August 14, 2009 in Sustainability

This is a cross-post from a piece I wrote for GO Media

A few years ago while back home in the US, I hopped in the car with the family to quickly run some errands.  Now, you need to understand that I have been in Europe for over 10 years and was not ready for what would happen next—a shopping experience without ever actually touching the ground.

First stop, the drive-thru bank for a bit of cash to continue our convenience tour.  Second stop, the drive-thru cleaners—this was even a new experience for me. Third stop, a drive-thru pharmacy to fill a prescription.  Last but not least (you guessed it), a fast food joint to cap off the drive-thru tour.

We never left the car…

The weather was nasty and this partially justified sitting in long lines with the car running. Don’t get me wrong, I have often yearned for the chance to do the “never leave the car and get everything done” tour during harsh Swiss winters. It is sad but true, convenience and comfort often rule when push comes to shove.

Lets face it, convenience plays a huge role in much of our decision making.  It’s simply difficult to make trade-offs for Green(er) ways like leaving the car in the garage, facing colder weather or accepting that it takes longer to do errands. It is the same for buying Greener products…will we pay more? Or will we accept slightly lower performance to buy Green? Most consumers outside the “Green niche” simply won’t make these trade-offs for Greener products today. Convenience and comfort are huge hurdles that companies need to work around if they want to design products for the sustainable mainstream—that huge mass of consumers in the middle who would happily do their green part if it is convenient for them.

A couple of years ago, a design group called Continuum conducted a year-long research project to try & help explain “the WHY” behind sustainable choices. They named the project Colorblind (have a look at the excellent 1 page graphic explaining their findings here).  One finding that stuck out for me was an obvious but often overlooked point that people take on environmental actions for personal reasons and simply care about “their own world” more than “the world”.

Companies making it easier for the sustainable mainstream to choose Green will be winners longer term because that is where the biggest prize resides. But companies will not be the only ones who win, because if the sustainable mainstream buys into Green products “the world” will be better off as well.

Photo Credit Courtesy strangelv via Flickr under Creative Commons License.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Post a comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

Products that air their (hopefully less) dirty laundry

Posted on July 22, 2009 in Consumer Product Strategy, Sustainability

I’m guessing everyone who stumbles onto this post is already familiar with Wal-Mart’s move to encourage suppliers to transparently disclose detailed life cycle information on their products.  Basically, Wal-Mart’s big idea is to develop a rating system that scores products based on how environmentally and socially sustainable they are over the course of their life….sort of like a sustainability nutrition label (as the NYT points out).

I’m impressed.  With the announcement of its sustainability index, Wal-Mart is flexing its marketplace power to become a transformational sustainability leader.  The labeling/scoring won’t happen over night, but in a decade or so, I’m guessing the shelves at Wal-Mart will look quite a bit different.  By then, we might not hear as much about the nefarious form of Greenwashing known as the “hidden trade-off” where companies make claims suggesting that their product is ‘green’ based on a narrow set of attributes, without paying attention to other important environmental issues.  With fully transparent, life-cycle focused labeling on products it will be harder for companies to hide piles of dirty laundry behind cleaner marketing claims.

So what are some of the critics saying about the new move?  I had a brief look over at Wal-Mart watch–a blog/website devoted to pushing Wal-Mart to become a better employer, neighbor, and corporate citizen. Strangely, I didn’t see a post on this topic (did I miss it?).  Side related Note:  Marc Gunther, one of my favorite sustainability minded bloggers wrote on ClimateBiz: Much as I’m an admirer of Wal-Mart’s ambitious sustainability goals, and its efforts to achieve them, there’s a glaring problem with the company’s “progress” to date…when it comes to climate change-the defining environmental issue of of our era — Wal-Mart is moving in the wrong direction because of the fact that the company is adding more stores and selling more stuff.

So, interestingly, while Wal-Mart is doing so much admirable stuff to change the retail sector, it finds it hard to manage its own carbon footprint.

In any case, it will be fascinating to watch the development of Wal-Mart’s ambitious move.  I wonder how the future labels will look…and how will consumers respond?  How much will “every day” consumers really care?  I hope somewhere along the way there will also be some basic consumer education within the program.  Better education of everyday shoppers will help people fully understand product lifecycle evaluation.

Smart companies will get out in front of this new move by Wal-Mart and help drive the future.  It is really great to see this BIG move toward addressing sustainable consumption–there is a big opportunity here (see the right side of the below graph from the global compact network in Germany).

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Post a comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

The Silent “Greenmutes” vs the “Better Greenwashers”

Posted on June 25, 2009 in Sustainability

Being accused of Greenwashing strikes fear into the hearts of many eco-conscious (at some not so eco-conscious) marketers around the world.  And that is probably good–to a point.

Seth Bauer, in a presentation at the Sustainable Brands 09 conference (via Triple Pundit) argues that with so much focus in the media on exposing misleading or exaggerated green claims, many companies are discouraged from pursuing legitimate, green product innovation. And for those who do, many remain silent for fear of the dreaded greenwashing label.

Greenmuting:  The Silent Innovation Killer?

So is “Greenmuting” really stifling some legit Green innovation?  A recent study by Terrachoice from their 2009 Greenwashing report (listed below) shows that the number of Green product claims by companies is, in fact, rising pretty fast…so it is hard to tell if Greenmuting has slowed what otherwise would have been a steeper rise in innovation & claims.  Unfortunately, I didn’t see Seth’s presentation.  Most likely he has more data on Greenmuting to share that I have not seen.

Seth goes on to state:  “no matter how credible, clear and consistent your message, someone can always find a flaw in your marketing claims…(brand managers should) continue to innovate and continue to develop green marketing messages. But by learning the common greenwashing traps, and by understanding there is no perfect green product, you can learn to “greenwash better” making your messaging as credible as possible”.

So, to become a “better greenwasher,” Seth proposes some tips like educating your customers (better) on environmental benefits.  Go over to the Triple Pundit article for more details & tips from Seth.

Personally, I think that no one should aspire to Greenwashing, and that every effort should be made to avoid the 7 Deadly Sins.  If there are legit claims that can be made around favorable green product innovation, however, marketers should go ahead and press forward (as Seth points out).

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Post a comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

Why aren’t more Europeans considered “Green shoppers”?

Posted on April 21, 2009 in Consumers driving change, Sustainability
Location of Switzerland in Europe on 1.Image via Wikipedia

As Earth Day approaches this week, I’ve got my mind on Green.

I recently saw a new Forrester report (European Green Shoppers Unveiled) highlighting that while 71% of the European population is concerned about the environment, only 12% of European adults can be defined as green shoppers (Forrester defines a Green shopper as someone thinking about the environment while shopping offline or online).

12%?  Wait a minute…aren’t Europeans supposed to be on the bleeding edge of sustainable living?  How can 71% of people care about the environment and only 12% actively use their pocketbooks to drive change?

European countries have long led the world in developing all things sustainable and several countries are early adopters when it comes to using sustainable energy (Spain announcing this week that it created 40% of its energy in March from wind). Germany, in particular is far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to reducing, reusing and recycling.  A few months back, I wrote a this confessional post about how I practically received a Graduate degree in recycling after moving to Germany.

So what gives when it comes to considering the environment while shopping in Europe?

While on many levels European companies and consumers are way ahead when it comes to sustainability, there is still a large gap between concern and action when it comes to buying Green, unfortunately.

For quick answers on this dilemma, I went to my European wife…

According to my wife, Europeans are master recyclers and brilliant when it comes to bringing reusable cloth bags to the Supermarket, etc.  At a very young age she was taught (in school) how to reduce, reuse and recycle.  But, when she was young, buying Green wasn’t even close to mainstream.  If you wanted to shop eco-friendly, you shopped at a local farm (that’s hard when you live in a city) or grew your own vegetables at home.  Shopping Green was simply “fringe” and way too expensive.

In effect, my wife was taught to recycle outputs and show respect for nature…but shopping Green was considered a luxury (and only existed in very specialized shops).  Naturally, the mindset of Green = Luxury is hard to shake.

Of course, my wife & I now buy organic and Fair Trade whenever possible now.  Switzerland’s COOP (where we often shop) does a great job of making eco products readily available alongside the classics.  However, my wife (along with other Europeans I know) believes that when it comes to buying Green…the landscape is still a bit too confusing.  Also, as a regular reader of “eco-test” magazines, she is becoming more skeptical of Green claims on product packaging.  The good news is that (at least here in Switzerland) “bio” food is getting cheaper and pretty competitive vs. the normal offering.

Is there a silver lining in any of this?

According to the Forrester survey, European green shoppers are more likely to be brand-loyal and to spend more online and across more categories than non-green shoppers. So, if retailers can get their “hooks” into those 12% of Euro Greens–they will likely find them very profitable over time.

Digital is also key

Green shoppers are also heavily engaged in online social media and are information-savvy, so retailers should exploit this and really focus on building best in Class Digital Experiences.

Other interesting demographics of the Euro Green Shoppers from the report.

  • Green shoppers skew mature and female. Sixty-one percent of green shoppers are women, compared with 40% of non-green shoppers (see Figure 1).
  • Green shoppers are well-educated and wealthy & live in big cities.
  • The Netherlands and the UK have the highest proportion of green shoppers, whereas Italy has the lowest.
  • Green shoppers have vigorous hobbies.

What do you think about all of this?

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
1 Comment
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

Procter & Gamble going deeper with sustainability

Posted on March 26, 2009 in CSR, Sustainability

I just received some good news…P&G is “upping the sustainability ante” & will expand its product, ops & social responsibility targets.  I have listed the new goals for 2012 below (direct from the source)…personally, I was particularly happy to hear about the expanded new product pipeline and the increase in focus from the Top ((I added a quote from A.G. Lafley (CEO) at the end)).  It was also very encouraging to see a bold(er) vision with regard to the Children’s Safe Drinking Water program.

Happy to hear you thoughts…

The revised 2012 goals are:

• Develop and market at least $50 billion in cumulative sales of “sustainable innovation products” (SIP), which are products with a significantly reduced (>10%) environmental footprint versus previous or alternative products. When compared against P&G’s original target of $20 billion in cumulative SIP sales, the new goal reflects a strengthened pipeline of initiatives.

• Deliver a 20 percent reduction (per unit of production) in carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, water usage and disposed waste from P&G plants, leading to a total reduction over the decade of at least 50 percent. P&G originally targeted a 10 percent reduction in each of its operational categories and now sees new opportunities in all aspects of our operations.

• Enable 300 million children to Live, Learn and ThriveTM (LLT) and deliver three billion liters of clean water through P&G’s Children’s Safe Drinking Water (CSDW) program. P&G had set an original target of reaching 250 million children through Live, Learn and ThriveTM (LLT) and delivering two billion liters of clean water through its Children’s Safe Drinking Water (CSDW) program. We now see new opportunities to expand our programs to serve more children in need.

Quote from Lafley:

“P&G’s commitment to sustainability is strategic. It is how our company conducts business,” said A.G. Lafley, P&G chairman of the board and chief executive officer. “By increasing sustainability goals, we demonstrate our ongoing commitment to innovate continuously to improve results.”

4 Comments
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

The Growth of consumer reflection…what will it mean?

Posted on March 11, 2009 in Generation G, Sustainability

Consumers have a lot to consider before making a purchase of anything during these trying economic times.

On top of traditional purchase factors (Price, brand etc.) consideration of a company’s environmental and social stance seems to play a bigger & bigger role right now.  According to an excellent recent report by Forrester analyst Sally Cohen, consumers say that on top of everything else, their purchases are now generally influenced by the following social and environmental elements:

How companies treat people and communities: According to the Forrester report, 2/3 of consumers said that socially responsible practices influence their purchase decisions.  While this majority of consumers won’t pay extra for products from companies that behave in these ways, social responsibility can prove a tie-breaker between products or build brand equity. A smaller — but sizeable — 18% of consumers are willing to put their money where their ethics–representing 40.2 million adults in the US.

Whether companies incorporate green practices into their products: 59% of consumers say they take the environmental practices of manufacturers and products into account when making a purchase.  15% of consumers would pay more for products that are made by companies recognized as environmentally friendly.

Sally also points out: The ethically minded consumer is attractive: Consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally and socially responsible products are higher income, brand loyal and very optimistic about technology.

Other interesting notes:  The Forrester report shows that socially minded consumers skew more male, while environmentally minded consumers skew more female.   I have to say, I was a little surprised to see that males are more (if only slightly) socially conscious.

Sally’s report is exciting and should be a significant call to action, however, some observers seem a little more cynical about the recent deluge of optimistic consumer reports & surveys in the social & environmental space–especially when it comes to exuberant environmentalism during a downturn.  In a recent blog post called, Green Consumers Irrational Exuberance, Joel Makower lets out a mini-rant against the seemingly unbridled enviro-optimism of pollsters and green consumers during these difficult times.

Makower asks: Are green-minded shoppers really going forth into the marketplace as idealistic as ever? Are they immune to premium prices? Clearly, some green purchases may fall into the category of small indulgences whose sales often rise during tough times, but probably not to the extent reported by these findings. Makower even goes on to ask a very provocative question…can researchers be greenwashers?

I see Joel’s frustration on this, however, I have a lot of confidence in Forrester…and, I don’t see Forrester needing to intentionally greenwash their findings.  Forrester admits that the group willing to pay more for Green is still pretty small (15%).

It is exciting to see consumers really starting to consider these issues more seriously when making their purchase decisions–despite the downturn.  More and more, consumers are considering the social/green reputations of the companies they intend to buy.

I agree with Sally’s conclusion that intelligent FMCG companies will take these findings on board and incorporate environmental and social responsibility into their products, driving differentiation, incremental revenues, and brand loyalty.

2 Comments
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us

The US civil war of 09 or 10?

Posted on January 6, 2009 in Sustainability

A few days ago, I saw an interesting Wall Street journal article from a Russian academic who thinks that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will kick-off a US civil war next fall (all combined with the collapse of the dollar). By June 2010, he believes that the U.S. will break into six nicely cut pieces–interestingly Alaska is going to revert to Russian control.  hmmm…

Photo by Karliehenbauer

While I think the Russian Prof’s civil war forecast is pretty funny (Americans are actually very united in times of deep crisis), I do wonder about potential mini civil wars erupting in companies as the Responsibility Revolution clashes with tough(er) economic realities in 09.

The Responsibility Revolution: Tim Sanders calls this very real emerging trend toward companies improving the lives of everyone in its footprint (employees, suppliers, communities and the planet) the responsibility revolution. The responsibility revolution comes on the heels of the 1970s quality revolution and the 1990s internet revolution. Tim cites the below set of facts as giving rise to the responsibility revolution.

  • In 2006, 78% of 14 to 18 year-olds said that money “was less important than personal fulfillment”. (original study from BBDO).
  • 65% of Americans are willing to switch to a brand associated with a good cause if price/quality are relatively equal.
  • 66% of Americans participate in at least 1 social cause boycott each year.
  • 10% of young job seekers identified themselves as “ethical enthusiasts”–more concerned about the ecological values of their potential employer than they are about starting take home pay.
  • One third of job seekers will look for a new position soon because they feel the contribution made by their employers is below par.
  • Two thirds of college graduates say they will not work with a company that has a poor reputation for social responsibility.
  • SRI funds have attracted trillions over the past few years, and the trend toward people investing socially continues to rise.

As Sanders points out, some companies have chosen to lead the way in the responsibility revolution & are now in the drivers seat with regards to this mega-trend.  GE, for example, is driving Ecomagination–a program seeking to reduce, & maybe even completely change, the company’s carbon footprint as well as focusing on building green products. It took courage for GE to drive Ecomagination and it is still not a stock price driver, so as times get tough, will bloody civil wars start to break out between the socially conscious who support programs like Ecomagination and those who want to revert back to short-term, purely profit driven survival tactics? Time will tell, but I believe the responsibility revolution is now fully in swing…and companies or individuals who get in the way of change will slowly die.

If civil wars erupt inside companies over the next year, lets hope the victors are in touch with the Responsibility Revolution…

Hat tip to Rob Walker for the US civil war article.

2 Comments
Permanent Link | Digg This | Stumble It | Save to del.icio.us