Table stakes in sustainability land are constantly increasing.

The Powers That Be say that in order to "be part of the conversation," you must: Measure your carbon footprint. Disclose your carbon footprint. Conduct product lifecycle analysis. Build a sustainability department. Have a sustainability vision. Set measurable sustainability goals. Sink or swim in a sea of certifications. Champion a cause. Write a full environmental sustainability report. Write a separate social responsibility report. Measure your water footprint. Disclose your water footprint. Partner with an NGO that likes you. Partner with an NGO that doesn't like you. Stop calling your sustainability department a "sustainability" department. Find a way to integrate the expertise. Advocate for legislation and new rules. But be honest about your profit motive. (You are a capitalist after all, aren't you?) Publicize the business case. But don't ask for credit. And don't complain when we change the rules.

Ready, set, deal. 

The thing about these changing sustainability table stakes is that unlike in poker, where the table stakes limit how much you can win or lose with any given hand, in business these days it feels like the stakes only limit your winnings. How much you can lose keeps going up.

With Greenpeace on one end and guys like Aneel Karni (biz professor who wrote the WSJ’s recent “Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility”) on the other, it seems like there’s no clear way to get ahead unless you’re Rain Man.

But there are a couple alternatives: play by your own rules, write the rules for everyone else, or simply plan to fold.

Talking to a client the other day, I was impressed by his take on the challenge of changing sustainability norms: “Look, we can’t expect expectations to be static. But if we’re waiting for other people to tell us what they are, we’ll run ourselves into the ground playing catch-up. I would rather we were running towards our own set of goals. That way, the rules – and the competition – are always playing catch up with us. If we define it, we own it.”

I love this combination of confidence and clear-headedness. It’s like a Hippocratic Oath for business: first, do no following. The mix of ideas here has to be at the heart of the business-sustainability anatomy—the bare bones of the set of game rules you make up for yourself. Here’s the little starter kit:

Rule #1: Whatever you do has to help you save money or make money. (Think Wal-Mart scorecard)

Rule #2: Whatever you do has to accord with the core strengths of your business or represent a logical expansion of them. (Think IBM “Smarter Planet”)

Rule #3: Whatever you do has to have an internal champion. (Think Ray Anderson and InterfaceFLOR)

Rule #4: Whatever you do has to interest and invigorate employees. (Think Google.org)

Rule #5: Whatever you do has to further the plot of a really good story that you tell actively within and beyond your walls (Think Starbucks? Ben & Jerry’s?)

So, take hearts: with your own clear set of priorities and objectives, the table stakes can rise and fall, but you’ll always have a seat at the head of the table.

I don’t mean to steal the Sustainability Movement’s increasingly sonorous thunder. But I would like to steal its principles for a different mission.

I’ve had a couple revelatory conversations over the past weeks (can I use that as an excuse for my blog-negligence?), and despite very different starting points, they all found their way around to the drum-roll worthy question for advertisers everywhere: What happens when your consumers decide consumption isn’t the panacea they thought it was? What happens when they decide it’s more than a dirty word or defunct disease—that the ‘buy more’ telos in fact does violence to their peace of mind?

We’re about to find out. More and more of us our reevaluating our shopping habits and coming to the conclusion that not only do they transgress the prudent function of fulfilling basic needs, they actually perpetuate a southward spiral of consumption, waste, empty aspiration and malaise. Uh-oh.

While major brands have only just begun to grapple with the questions raised by a consumption-weary age—let alone answer them—some consumers are well on their way. The journey seems to be a totally un-Frostian intertwining of two diverging roads: one goes forward, one goes ‘backwards,’ and the enlightened among us are taking both.

Impossible? Not according to the principles of sustainability.

At the macro level, limited resources are demanding that businesses find a way to marry progress and so-called reversion, too. The most forward-thinking use cutting edge technology to create the products and systems that will get us back to a low-impact, close-to-nature state we left a thousand years ago.

But at the micro level, leading a low-impact ‘have less, do more’ simple life has little to do with resource scarcity. And if it sounds more like serfdom than wisdom to you, you’ve been in Manhattan too long. Just talk to Tammy Strobel, who pared down her stuff-congested, hyper-complicated life to less than 100 items, 400 square feet and a dog. She’ll tell you it’s not hunting and gathering; it’s latter-day happiness achieved through inspired volition and a shockingly difficult recognition that bliss is our scarce resource, and following it a choice.

Is it a more sustainable way to live? Certainly. But does it fall under the banner of the sustainability movement? Nah, it’s much bigger than that. It’s a Happiness Mission; and for individuals, more sustainable living is just a byproduct.

Semantics aside, one thing’s clear: there’s no room for extraneous products and push-sell marketing in this simpler world.

But, there is lots of room for conscientiously designed products that aren’t so much ‘have’s (a 75^th pair of Jimmy Choos) as facilitators of ‘do’s (a first pair of recycled-material hiking boots). (Jimmy, how do you do with Vibram?) There’s also room for fresh marketing that teaches us how to make our stuffless cocoons more stylish (Method), that engages us in co-creative efforts to make lower-impact products (Starbucks Beta Cup Challenge), and that creates ‘do’-focused experiences that demonstrate how a product can contribute to our long-term joy (Gatorade Replay).

Appraised correctly, a consumption-weary age need not mean the death-knell of products, services and their advertisers. But it does mean we have to align products and marketing with values that feel antique and post-modern at the same time—where simpler and happier means enlightened and advanced. (Your planners will have fun with that one.)

Swooping plains, endless mountains, winding rivers. No matter what form, breathtaking natural beauty moves our spirits and opens our minds. At least this was the conclusion I came to after recently returning from a ten-day vacation in the eco-friendly city of San Francisco. While there, I took some time to step into nature and visit Muir Woods and the magnificent Yosemite National Park. The steep ascent into the nearly 1,200 square mile park was awe-inspiring. I could care less when I saw the service bars drop on both my iPhone and Blackberry. Being cut off from the fast-paced and tech-obsessed was a blessing in disguise. It allowed me to question the history and future of the wilderness, the waterfalls and giant sequoias. 

Getting back to my roots as a Visual Media major in college, my eye was drawn to the photographic serenity of the area.  But recalling new knowledge gained as an OgilvyEarth associate, I considered that any photo I snapped today could be vastly different by the time I returned; global warming has put Yosemite on the shortlist of endangered U.S. National Parks. So my admiration for the visual splendor was colored by concern for its longevity. At the end of the day, I left the park with a SLR full of images, but I was empty on ideas for how surmount our colossal environmental challenges.

The ennui continued until I stumbled on a slideshow one morning in my daily photography round up.   One of my favorite photojournalism blogs, The New York Times Lens, provided a pictorial comparison of the receding Himalaya Glaciers along with the caption:

“There’s a lot of people who either don’t understand climate change that well and the effects that it’s having, or they want to deny the effect it’s having. These pictures are worth a thousand words. We haven’t done anything to them except print them.”

The photo essay brought home the power of an SLR full of snapshots. Photos have the ability to move us. Whether it’s a Coca-Cola print ad, National Geographic’s photo of the day or a family portrait, our eyes are drawn to images. 

And we’re especially compelled by the unexpected. Amidst a daily inundation of articles hashing and re-hashing the disastrous impact of climate change and human inaction in words, it’s the provocative image that will make us believers, that will cause us to reevaluate our decisions and alter our behaviors.

My roll of film is not useless. It’s a snapshot of history, and we will choose how the image evolves.

Here’s to hope that fifty years from now, my photo will remain unchanged—and a sign of how far we’ve come.

Where O is for...

...Oregon

...Organic

...Once a week

...and Oh my gosh, how many aspects of sustainability can we fit in one business model?

Billing themselves as "the milkmen of soup" and hailing from "Soupistan" (Google says that's somewhere in the middle of Portland's Hawthorne Bridge), the good folks at start-up SoupCycle will deliver organic, locally-sourced soups to "soupscribers" at their homes or offices in the city.

When you boil it down, the SoupCyclists have mixed many of the core ingredients of sustainability--health, transportation, local/responsible sourcing--and so far, so good. The year-and-half-old business appears soupstainable in its own right. But is it scalable? If you ask founders Jed and Shauna (or just check out the website), you might get the impression that scaling up the operations isn't really the primary goal. "We’re still a small company with big dreams like supporting local farmers and inspiring other companies in Portland and beyond to begin bicycle delivery."

The apparently cyclic nature of economic development is fascinating. Any Newsies fan (you know, the 1990s Disney musical) knows New York was riddled with bicycle couriers back in the pre-Ford days (and singing ones, to boot). And Wells Fargo, Budweiser and Calistoga all had wagons. And a dude on horseback in a three piece suit peddled your housewares and elixirs. Is SoupCycle a reversion to this century-old status quo, or is it the standard-bearer of progress instead?

Good business combines the study of history with the lust for improvement, taking the best of the past and making it better. Ford built a car instead of looking for a faster horse. And now SoupCycle shows us it's time for a faster bike. Development isn't as linear as history can make it look, and sometimes it takes an old spoke to inspire the reinvention of the wheel. Back to bike couriers and localized commerce, eh? Looks like progress to me.

"We have to make consumption itself smarter and more sustainable."

Who said this most recently?

I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Obama. It wasn't the Sierra Club. It wasn't Yvon Chouinard. It wasn't Bono. It was none other than the President & CEO of the big box liege, that king of consumerism, Wal-Mart. Check out the context (the unveiling of a new product rating system) here.

The story of the company's transformation from lightning rod to lighthouse is well-trodden ground, and I won't reuse the trope here--mostly because it no longer smacks of irony to hear a Wal-Mart chief say something so forward-thinking. (Of course there were those who never thought it did.)

Smarter, more sustainable consumption is definitely what it's all about--not ascetic self-denial, and not West Egg-ian wanting blindly for wanting's sake. And happily, in this Wal-Mart-style bildungsroman, the enlightenment of one becomes the better living of many. (It's funny how well capitalism works at spreading to the masses what the ability of one company, one corporate leader, one innovator will yield. Take that, Marx-Engels Reader.) 

Onward, Mr. Duke!

When China’s amazing infrastructure juggernaut tunnels 8.9 kilometres under the Yangtze delta, and as if that is not enough, adds on a 10.3 kilometre long cable-stayed bridge to link Shanghai to an island, home to wetlands and a large population of migratory birds, the first instinct you have is of fear.

Fear that greed will swamp (pardon the metaphor) concern for the environment. Fear – justified by the first week visitor count that topped a quarter of a million a day – that all that will remain of a pristine grassland dotted with forest, marsh and rippling streams, will be trampled paths and a sky grey with the smoke from a thousand campfires.

A year later, when the crowds had been distracted by the ongoing spectacle of the Expo, I decided to venture into Chongming Island for a daytrip. I would have liked to take my bicycle, but with a 75 year old mum and a 2 year old son to mind, I decided that my sustainable behavior would be limited to carrying our trash out.

The color of the sky changed in hue from gray to blue as we crossed the mighty Yangtze bridge. As we bought the entry tickets for Dongping Forest Park and found a wheelchair for my mum, I looked up at a sight that took my breath away: the trees reached up into the sky and formed a star.

Traditional Chinese stone bridges flanked a pond,

while the directions to the myriad sights in the park were etched on signs carved onto wooden cranes.

The water pumps used by park maintenance staff to keep the lawns and floral sprays verdant were powered by windmills.

Nary a barbecue fire did sully the air, as a gentle breeze sent aloft the colorful dragon kites flown by old men and teenagers alike. This was the time of the Dragon Boat Festival, and what better tribute to pay to the protector than this! Outside the park, local farmers lined the road, selling juicy watermelon at half the price you’d pay in Shanghai.

We dug into our picnic basket. My daughter brought out her sketch pad, while my son got his hands dirty. Simple pleasures.

Chongming is a large island, and it seemed a shame not to explore it a bit. So, we made our way to the newly opened Dongtan Wetland Park. An electric cart transported us over a gravel path, to a bird-watching tower in the heart of the marsh. There were yet more windmills en route.

In a space as large as this, there seemed to be enough room in the sky for the birds to avoid their gently rotating blades. A path made of wooden slats took us deep inside the wetland.

We walked over wooden bridges,

An occasional crayfish clawed its way up to the path, and my daughter eased it back into the water.

There were no candy wrappers, ice cream sticks, soda or beer cans in sight. Whatever was used found its way into the designated recycling bins. Just being in such a pristine locale reminded daytrippers to use them.

Fear gave way to respect. Respect for the far-thinking urban planners who had created an accessible escape without destroying a natural habitat. Respect for the visitors who shed their nonchalance about their surroundings and took pains to keep it all well preserved.

We’ll be back perhaps, with a tent, sleeping bags and bug repellent, but without a cookstove. I’m sure we can survive the night on fresh watermelon.

I'm a little slow on the uptake here, but a belated shout out is due OgilvyEarth's Pauline Desforges from the Paris office; she spoke at the Green Week 2010 conference in Brussels on the theme of "Changing Consumer Behaviour to Protect Biodiversity."

The conversation covered the tough questions, e.g. "Could economic instruments such as pricing and tax incentives be used to get consumers to act in support of biodiversity? How can we make consumers more aware of its value? Will consumers be ready to pay the 'right price' for their natural resource use? Which social measures are needed to prevent new 'biodiversity poverty'?" And as I've seen Pauline's perspective up the sustainability IQ of this blog many times, I know what inspired enlightenment she conferred on her Green Week audience.

And as for "the answers," I will let Pauline speak for herself. You can watch the panel discussion here.

Hats off to Unilever for its "superb" emissions slashing programs and bold carbon reduction targets, which the new FTSE carbon strategy index hailed as the "carbon risk and performance" beau ideal among a field of the UK's 350 largest companies. (The index measures firms on emissions reduction track record, product energy efficiency, and efficacy of benchmarking systems and goals.) With the ambitious aim of cutting emissions by 25% by 2012, innovative product improvements and a slate of past reduction successes, Unilever handily beat out other sustainability heavyweights Tesco and BT Group for the vaunted top spot.

And which major UK companies are in danger of relegation? Bringing up the rear of the index rankings are coal-fired power company Drax and EasyJet, the growing discount airliner which has done little to manage its carbon risk despite new EU emissions regulation.  (We think it's time for the Greyhound of the skies to shift investment from emissions permits to cutting edge hybrid jet engine technology.)

As a brunch-loving, teetotaling tightwad, I cheered when Burger King announced its new brunch menu last year, complete with Mimosas that trade in the Andre for the Sprite. But, boy oh boy, the good news just kept coming; in the more professional guise of a solar panel loving sustainability consultant, I gave a yet more enthusiastic standing O when PFSK reported that "a new Burger King restaurant in Germany is powered by wind and solar power" and "is expected to slash the restaurant’s energy bill by almost half" with the help of more than 720 photovoltaic modules and a wind turbine. Pretty innovative for a multinational burger joint.

Indeed, it's the most tangible exposition yet of BK's increasingly strong corporate responsibility platform, "Positive Steps." This impressively holistic menu of goals and efforts is communicated with substance and flare on the website. But of course, it's seeing that's believing – and that’s why BK’s joint in Germany is so genius. We're big advocates of the "show, don't tell" strategy here at OgilvyEarth, and nothing conveys authenticity so well as a tangible, visible show of commitment, especially at the primary consumer-brand interface (whether that's packaging, a customer service rep, or the drive-thru).

I will be curious to see if BK makes a concerted effort to outfit other brick & mortars around the globe with renewable energy systems; I think it would be a brilliant move. It would not only be a visible differentiator for BK, serve as a palpable proofpoint of a strong sustainability ethos, and win the King big kudos; it would save the company money, too.  It’s the perfect convergence of business case and broader benefit. And that’s my favorite combo meal.

I attended the Sustainable Brands Conference last week in Monterey (and spoke on a panel moderated by EarthSky on the theme of scientific brand equity), and I was inspired by the sheer scale of it, along with all that scale implied about the expansion and salience of sustainability in the business world. Hundreds of representatives from companies big and small gathered to talk about how sustainability was shaping, driving, reconstituting, grounding, inspiring, challenging, re-energizing, and defining not just what they do but why they do it and how they talk about it. 

In short, it was OgilvyEarth’s version of utopia—that special kind of utopia that doesn’t offer some kind of cliché, rest-warranting apotheosis but instead spurs us to do more—more work, more aspiring, more partnering, more thinking, more leading.

(And it clearly inspired the unedited use of more verbs.)

The theme of the conference was the appropriately thought-provoking “Power of &”—the idea that in every tension is a dialectic waiting to be resolved through innovation. To use a branded example, when a Coca-Cola or a Nike grapples with the tension between portable beverage bottles (now plastic) and emptier landfills (now plastic-filled) and says bravely that we can have both, we end up with pioneering innovations like PlantBottle and sustainably-sourced World Cup football jerseys.

Without a doubt, appreciating the power of “&” lets us see opportunities where once we saw antagonists (e.g. business & government, Timberland & Greenpeace, Clorox & Sierra Club, environmental sustainability & revenue). But it also eschews the equally indubitable necessity of “or”; because, after all, great leaders know no concept so well as opportunity cost. They see crossroads as clearly as intersections and turn impossible choices into right choices with brutal prioritization. This, too, deserves reverence. Where resources are finite, “or” becomes sustainability’s best friend, prompting businesses to choose the more environmentally and socially-conscious supplier instead of the change-averse incumbent, to sponsor Rainforest Alliance instead of Formula 1, to upgrade buildings to Platinum LEED Certification instead of persisting with the status quo, to invest in a line of hybrid vehicles instead of Hummers.

It’s okay to seek the strength and clarity that comes from drawing lines in the sand and acknowledging that the best of both worlds may not exist—that only one of those worlds is the best, and that’s the one we must create tirelessly, fearlessly, and with lucid understanding that there is always an opportunity cost; it’s clear priorities and uncompromising values that allow leaders to judge when the benefits justify it. “&” would be impotent indeed if it weren’t undergirded by this decidedly less feel-good but arguably more significant power of “or.”

It’s a fair question, given the gap that exists between green attitudes and green actions.

It’s also the title of Geoffrey Beattie’s new book, Why Aren’t We Saving the Planet?  A Psychologist’s Perspective. Geoffrey’s claim to fame is that he’s the resident psychologist on Big Brother in the UK. He also has a proper job; he’s head of the School of Psychological Sciences at the University of Manchester. 

The book is able to throw light on some of these questions. In particular, it demonstrates how people are commonly ‘conflicted’ in the way they feel about the environment. There’s a gap between their explicit attitudes and feelings (what they consciously think and say) and their implicit beliefs (the underlying feelings, sometimes hidden and unconscious). This is illustrated using the psychologist’s toolkit – in particular the way that gestures and eye movements betray hidden sentiments that may contradict what we say and indeed what we think we believe.

This points the way towards better research into peoples’ real motivations – going beyond how they think or say they are motivated. It’s clearly important when we ask questions about issues like sustainability which have ethical and judgmental implications. It may also have a broader application for marketing research. For decades we have used models of behaviour (awareness, attitude shift, behaviour change) that aren’t very realistic but seemed necessary to create some kind of evaluative framework. This new line of thinking (which actually harks back to motivational research from the 60s) – harnessing the tools of psychology experiments – could inspire alternatives… if imaginative research practitioners can rise to the challenge.  

Sustainability not matter? That's blasphemous. Philosophically inconsistent. Misguided. And hopefully pardonable when written in reference to the World Cup.

 

I have been itching to write something about the World Cup. It's the globe’s best-loved sporting event and its infrastructural scale rivals the Olympics, so from both cultural and sustainability perspectives, it merits keen attention. But it’s a bit of a tricky subject.

Why? Because South Africa’s World Cup won’t be terribly green, and that brings up some sticky questions. This from Environmental Leader: “The ‘carbon footprint’ for this year’s tournament is estimated at 2.75 million tons of carbon dioxide, nine times higher than the World Cup in Germany in 2006 and more than twice as high as the Beijing Olympics, reports the Telegraph. Emission levels are high because fans will have to fly between the host cities and because the nation uses coal for most of its electricity.”

Yikes. When the world’s best footballers hit the pitch on June 11, it will be on some of the greenest grass in the world, but sustainability-focused folks may see only irony. The world’s game should really be ahead of the game at this point, right? Stadiums should be retrofitting like crazy to lower energy bills and carbon footprints, right? FIFA should really make sustainable infrastructure—or at least the promise to build one—a requisite of host selection, right? The South African government really should have built monorails between the ten venues and spent the millions they don’t have in the coffers to offset projected emissions, right?

As I sit here in my organic cotton t-shirt popping Kashi, it’s easy to say yes to all of the above—to criticize a World Cup 2010 that doesn’t live up to the environmental standards set by sporting events hosted in fully developed nations (or in one recent case, a command-controlled country fixated on its international reputation). I’m all for high standards. I’m all for hard lines and no excuses. In fact, these maxims align nicely with intrinsic aspects of the game of football itself.

But there’s an equally important aspect of football that such criticisms about the merits of where it’s played certainly miss.  The rare beauty of the world’s game, besides its reverence for heavenly footwork, demand for superhuman efforts, and heart-on-the-sleeve demonstrations of the best of the earthly emotions, is the very fact that anyone, anywhere can play. No fancy equipment or venues required. Pure conjecture here, but at the micro level, it’s probably one of the least carbon intensive sports. All you need is a ball. And that's why at the international level, it’s a sport in which, say, Senegal can vanquish an “unbeatable” French squad in game one of the World Cup, and in which the US can be a long-time underdog.

So, South Africa “is struggling to find ways to offset the huge amounts of carbon emissions that will be generated by the tournament.” And sure, the US wouldn’t have struggled to host the greenest World Cup in history—someday I’m sure it will—but this is not the time for comparison. This is the world’s game and the world’s tournament, and that means some of the world’s disparities will apply. The magic of football is the level playing field—where suddenly those disparities don’t matter, if just for a month. Football thrives in places that have farther to go on the road to sustainable development—like South Africa, the nation that will shine on June 11, offsets or not. Let’s not let the environmental shortcomings mar the moment.

Besides, for those of us disposed to pay attention to anything but the drama on the pitch, we’ll be heartened by the fact that “nine host cities for South Africa’s first World Cup have built new stadiums that feature natural ventilation, rain water capture and energy efficiency.” And of course, Nike has made those slick recycled plastic jerseys for nine national teams and countless fans, which removed some 13 million plastic bottles from landfills.

Bottom line: I openly acknowledge the environmental imperfections of the event, but I huzzah the examples of progress where I find them (and the brands that have recognized the opportunity to create them). Then, with yet greater interest, I turn my attention where it should be: to the games.

Green-blushing. It's not what Shrek does when Fiona pays a compliment. Neither is it Kermit with rouge. According to the media, it’s the colorful characterization of a company's decision to refrain from open discussion of its green initiatives. 

(See what Michael Dunn, director of OgilvyEarth in Hong Kong, has to say about it here.)

Innately humble brands like DuPont, UPS, Maersk and Siemens—to name but a few—often walk a fine line between well-considered reticence and confounded silence when it comes to their strong sustainability platforms. And who can blame them? They’ve watched peers get eaten alive by the greenwash police—sometimes for good reason, sometimes not—and they’re understandably wary of risking the criticism. My man Emerson said, “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons,” and in this case, shrewd companies know their faults are likely to be counted right along with the utensils.  

Not surprisingly, modesty also predisposes these companies to a keener appreciation of just how many “faults” they have yet to correct on their sustainability journeys. While they really should be applauded for this kind of honest self-appraisal, not all critics appreciate the wisdom of the “progress-over-perfection” mindset (which has been OgilvyEarth’s favorite little alliteration of late).         

These green-blushers are soldiering on in near-silence, but we would like to take this moment to suggest that that does almost as much harm to the sustainability movement as greenwashing. True story. Greenwashing teaches consumers to distrust all green claims. Green-blushing prevents them from learning to do otherwise. It also misses the great capitalist opportunity to inspire a competitive race to the top. If a company’s wonderful sustainability initiatives aren’t communicated, competitors don’t try to outdo them.

Really, when it comes to brand-building, since when has mum been the word? Companies must communicate. And great companies with great green platforms owe it to themselves, no less than the sustainability movement as a whole, to do so. The key is to communicate with flawless integrity, using only the smartest practices…

So, have I mentioned that OgilvyEarth authored a guide to Great Green Marketing?

There is a powerful resource sitting under the nose of every CEO and government department that seeks change. Employees; they have a new found importance when it comes to driving progress both internally and in society. New avenues for expression such as social media have already enhanced the influence of that marketeers’ holy grail—‘word of mouth'—but companies need not rely on external channels to drive internal change.

We have watched our OgilvyEarth employee programs work magic, prompting remarkable shifts in behaviours that many ‘social marketing programs’ would jump skyscrapers for (e.g. between 8-12% reductions in energy use within twelve months by adding in an employee engagement program to existing initiatives). It is because in general, the internal channels of communication—dare we say ‘traditional’ ones, as opposed to external social media platforms—are trusted by employees, and trust leads to compliance. That's why calls-to-action transmitted straight from leaders to colleagues have proven to be highly effective in driving new behaviours. And when employees feel engaged and yes, even ‘empowered’ to shape the organization, they will be much more likely to go out into the external social media communities to spread the good word. Thus, by focusing on internal programming first, strong employee referral and ‘word of mouth’ will follow.

Walmart, controversial pioneer of employee programming, encourages employees to rock the stage at shareholders' meeting

Photo courtesy of WSJ

In Australia, the working population is right around 11 million people (Aust. Bureau of Statistics April 2010), and in the US it’s more than 80 million (US Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2010). Imagine using the power of internal communication to turn that many employees on to more sustainable behaviours in the workplace and at home. What if this direct channel could be harnessed to develop a program that drove broader social change? Through our internal research with employees across different organisations from varied industries, we consistently found high receptivity to internal communication and programming. And great outcomes proved that there is a huge opportunity yet to be explored—that of getting  whole working populations to move in concert towards sustainable goals.

When employees in Australia were asked in a recent sustainability study, “What initiatives would you be interested in having at work?” the top choice was “Guidebook for work and home” and  “Company sponsored actions at home” ranked fourth.

If companies responded with direct support and incentives for the sustainable actions employees took at home and in their communities, not only would it bring about a greater impact on the speed of social change; it would also add the business benefits of cost reductions (as those sustainable behaviours were transferred to the workplace), reputation enhancement, employee morale, increased net promoter scores via employees and positive social media feedback. (And, similarly, if there was a greater commitment to the employee channel in government-funded social programs there could be increased return on investment and the benefit to the sponsoring political party of a direct relationship with employees.)

Ask any CEO if he or she wants to improve corporate reputation within the community. The answer is obvious: “Yes. High standing in the community is vital to the long term success of my business.” And when such is the case, there’s only one place to start. With the employees.

If you haven't already, check out the latest innovation from Puma.

I know, I know, this is old news. It’s just so smartly conceived and well communicated, I had to re-blog it. I love me some Nike Considered, but it seems to me the folks out in Just Do It land just got outdone.

And putting shoes in a clever little bag isn't all the cats at Puma are up to: during the Business for the Environment Summit in April, Puma announced that it will offset 100% of its global CO2 emissions (including the travel of all of the football – er, soccer teams it sponsors in the World Cup), making it the first carbon neutral company in the sports-lifestyle industry. This is on top of a commitment to reduce energy and water consumption by 25% in advance of 2015.

Puma may not be the first company you think of when it comes to deep sustainability ethos or commanding leadership in the sports-lifestyle category, but CEO Jochen Zeitz, eager to invigorate his company with the green ‘zeitz’geist, is planning to change that.

After being weaned on Track Town, USA legends, it’s hard to admit that the world of gear-making for athletes and those who want to dress like them extends beyond the limits of the Willamette Valley (how’s that for bias), but Puma is expanding my horizon.

And since nobody knows better than the titans of this category that competition makes us all work harder, faster, smarter, better, I will be looking West for copycat innovations.

Over and over again, sustainability-marketing research has reinforced a particularly logical nugget of wisdom in this, the Age of the Egotist: successful sustainability communications couch green benefits in terms of the “here and now,” keeping the focus squarely on the consumer, her family and their immediate desires and needs. “Protect earth for the sake of the future” messages haven’t held much sway as far purchase-driving is concerned.

That’s why we were surprised when we saw Hanes’ new green ad. Launched during Earth Week, the spot follows two cool-looking twenty-something guys as they cruise the local mall. While James is swaggering along in his recycled-fiber socks and an undershirt made at a facility powered by renewable energy—details not lost on our narrator—Pete is getting increasingly discomfited by the evident ire of a bunch of creepy-eyed kids. Why no toddler-love for Pete? “In little ways, James and Hanes are helping the planet for future generations. And Pete is not.”

Overall, it’s a hilarious ad. It does a nice job of taking all the holier-than-thou worthiness out of a too-often pedantic “save the planet on behalf of unborn generations” idea. (And it drives to a simple, not uninteresting site where consumers can learn more about Hanes commitment to sustainability.)

But these merits aside, we have to wonder if a typical “Pete” would really care about engaging in such altruism—even if the opportunity is communicated in an LOL-worthy way. For us, the strange juxtaposition of young male characters with a “future generation” punch line seems ill-fitting. (And Hanes should know better than anyone that nobody likes a chafe.) We suppose Hanes must be banking on the fact that Pete’s mom does his shopping, and that she will be inspired by the thought of helping the planet on her son’s behalf.

It’s a stretch, Hanes—maybe more than even your forgiving waistbands can handle—but we’re all for the levity, and we’ll be curious to see how you do. After all, sales speak louder than market research any day.

For all those visual and auditory learners out there - or even if you just crave a little aesthetic pleasure with your intellectually-stimulating copypoints, OgilvyEarth has something special planned for you this Wednesday. Please join OgilvyEarth's worldwide planning director, Freya Williams, as she discusses some of the core insights and strategies from the Guide to Great Green Marketing (without the Greenwash). Andrew Winston, author of Green Recovery and co-author of Green to Gold, and Jeff Seabright, VP of Environment and Water Resources for The Coca-Cola Company, will be shedding additional light on the subject and taking your questions.

Sign up for the webinar here!

Many Chinese couples consider it auspicious to marry during the Labor Day holidays. This year, twenty couples in Wuhan City, Hubei Province - avid proponents of a low carbon lifestyle - chose to ditch the traditional limousine and rode pedal powered carts on their way to their collective wedding ceremony.

Photo courtesy of Shanghai Daily

Elsewhere, in Hangzhou, private electric cars made by Zotye Auto (featured in my May 5 2009 blog) have hit the streets – with an interesting business model.

Because of the relatively high cost - a battery alone costs 60,000 yuan (USD 8823) - the cars are not on sale but for lease to make them financially attractive. A standard lease is 2,500 yuan (USD 367) a month, around 500 yuan lower than the cost to lease a Volkswagen Santana. The Zotye 2008EV autos can reach a top speed of 110kph, with a range of 200km when fully charged.

"The lease approach means the carmaker bears the high cost and reduces the risk to consumers purchasing new energy cars," says Wu Jianzhong, the CEO of Zotye Auto. "We can get an understanding of the market response quickly, and consumers have better access to low-carbon driving."

Happy Earth Day!

For a little extra excitement on this wonderful day of celebration, check out the Earth Day Summit, hosted by the NYSE and Yale, with special guest appearances by OgilvyEarth's own Seth Farbman and, perhaps even more notably, Elmo. (No offense, Seth.) Indeed, besides ringing the opening bell of the stock exchange, Elmo has given us the most memorable, aspirational quote of the day so far. Quoth the muppet: "I want the Earth to stay sassy."

Agreed. Stay sassy, Earth.

It's finally here. I teased this thing nearly six months ago, and for those of you who've hardly been able to sleep since then for all the anticipation, I have good news: 

You can download OgilvyEarth's From Greenwash to Great: A Practical Guide to Green Marketing (without the Greenwash) here! Now! (And you don't even have to trade us your best marble for the privilege.)

Image courtesy of Mark Twain, Aunt Polly & Norman Rockwell

Volcanoes are huge emitters of CO2, no doubt about it, and living under an ash cloud is no picnic. (Makes us sympathetic to dinosaurs and Britons alike.) But even while we lament for all the stranded folks at Heathrow, we're happy to report that Earth breathed easier for a day.

Natural pollution in context, coutesy of InformationIsBeautiful.net

Happy Earth Week!

OgilvyEarth advisor Andrew Winston (whose many other credits include authoring Green Recovery, founding Winston Eco-Strategies and co-authoring Green to Gold) just published a compelling piece in the Harvard Business Review called "Avoiding Greenwash and its Dangers." It teases some great advice for brands which draws in part on OgilvyEarth's forthcoming From Greenwash to Great: A Practical Guide to Great Green Marketing (without the Greenwash). Check out his post here. And look out for a link to the e-version of From Greenwash to Great in the thought leadership section of OgilvyEarth.com in the days to come.

Image borrowed from Earth & Industry

UPS is set to add 200 hybrids to its fleet (50 are already in use), making it the green leader in the commercial delivery category. While hybrids have a higher upfront cost than their conventional counterparts, operating costs can be significantly lower over time, which makes this a forward-thinking investment for ol' Brown.

FedEx meanwhile, planned to upgrade its entire medium-duty fleet (30,000 vehicles) to alternative-fuel trucks by 2013. But the process is likely to take much longer (a blow to an otherwise impressive on-time rate) - and may even stall until vehicle emissions legislation levels the playing field. (In the meantime, we suggest more right turns.)

McKinsey says the green economy (which would be propelled by a stronger clean-tech sector) isn’t the job machine government leaders keep insisting.

(What? Suspect advertising from the government? Couldn’t be!)

Comparing it to the computer chip industry of yore, McKinsey suggests that the clean energy industry will be more mechanized than the heavy, carbon-intensive version it will replace, which means jobs lost, not gained. But when cost savings, yielded by greater efficiencies and price-stability, are passed on to energy consumers, those beneficiaries will grow and add jobs. Or so we hope.

In the meantime, McKinsey suggests that the government could redouble efforts to promote those “green” activities that are more direct corollaries to job growth. Instead of pouring benjamins into corn-based ethanol and other ahead-of-market energy projects, capital should be shifted to building-weatherization, installation of energy efficient appliances, and the like.

The broader goal of a clean-energy based economy may be achieved incrementally and indirectly, with job contraction before job gains, but it is still on its way – especially if the government stays out of it.

In one of the all-time great children's books, Joe Lasker tells of a little boy who runs away from home because his family doesn't seem to need his help with anything. Once he gets out in that proverbial "real world," he finds lots of kindly folks who value his work...

Back at the apogee of the climate change conversation last year (aka COP15), the major climate movements faced criticism for not doing anything but proselytizing. Governments faced criticism for not doing anything but pussyfooting. Activists faced criticism for not doing anything but bantering. Scientists faced criticism for not doing anything but theorizing. And meanwhile the "family" of global citizens was waiting, breathless, for these groups to lead - i.e. do something courageously on all of our behalves and start to right this ship.

We just sent out a survey to the Hopenhagen community and heard back from 6,600 of its citizens. When asked which entities give them the clearest vision of the road to a sustainable economy, two-thirds of respondents ranked business leaders last, saying they offer no clear vision of the road to a sustainable economy, while two-thirds said that NGOs and climate campaigns gave them a very clear vision. When asked which entities offered the most compelling ideas about how to live sustainably, nearly 40% ranked business leaders last (45% ranked governments last), while the same number ranked NGOs and climate campaigns first.

These representatives of the global "family" are clearly not waiting for businesses to lead. And a number of businesses will likely take this as a cue to run away, say "nuts to them," and presume that the fam isn’t expecting its Mac & Cheese or its bed linens or its internet provider to inspire or contribute to a new sustainable way of life.

But that's the short-sighted approach to these low expectations. IBM has a better one: get out in the world and prove mettle. Demonstrate that you’ve got immediately-actionable solutions, and that you’re not waiting for a mandate; you’re taking the leadership mantle of your own accord. The family can’t help but be impressed when you come back from your do-something day with a picture from the White House and a blueprint for a Smarter City, which you already started building. (Check out the fruits of IBM’s do-something day here.)

Low expectations do not give businesses an excuse to justify them. On the contrary, they should give us the gusto we need to leap over them. While not all of us are going to have the panoply of tech tools required to actually rebuild the city when we decide to venture forth and prove greater worth, we can all do something.  And when we do, oh, what a day that will be.

Three months have passed since COP15, and even if the conversations about the results have turned gloomy (similar to the “Yeah, whatever coach” attitude of a sports team that has trained a lot but then fails to pass the second stage of a tournament), it seems things can get better if we focus on the plans for COP16, to be held in Cancún, Mexico at the end of this year.

There is great potential for success, but it won't be all tequila and smooth-sailing.

While COP15 was being held, I wrote in this blog about the weighty role Mexico must play in inspiring the world to find an agreement regarding the monumental (and finally globally-acknowledged) twin-challenges of global warming and sustainable development.

At that time I was wondering if we Mexicans could be as inspiring as the Danes when it came to sustainability projects, lifestyles and future plans. I had my doubts, but at the same time I had hope that Mexico could start doing things to speed up its green evolution and become the source of inspiration for global agreements.

In the last months, listening to Mexican President Felipe Calderón (check out his recent speech for a Columbia University Earth Institute Event), I realized that Mexico could be even more successful than Denmark in inspiring a global agreement. And this is not because of our bike paths or squeaky clean cities; in fact, it’s the complete opposite. Our ability to inspire stems from a simple but powerful reason: the immensity of our need.

I.                    Addressing Poverty

II.                  Gaining Competitiveness

III.                Protecting Resources

While helping people and “profits” comes first, stanching the effects of global warming remains core to the mission of sustainable development. The evidence is definitive: Poor and developing countries are the most affected by global warming’s disastrous effects. (Last year, for example, Mexico suffered its worst drought and worst flood in 70 years.) President Calderón has been very direct on this topic, asserting that it’s much cheaper to invest in preparation and prevention than rescue and reconstruction.

Not only that, but the natural resources in several of the developing countries are among the most crucial and biodiverse in the world. Interest in preserving rare environments is both a matter of global significance and local need. From biomimicry-based science to tourism to agriculture, all of us depend on the existence of these ecosystems. Tourism happens to be the third biggest industry in Mexico (- lots of Danes come to the tropical forests and beaches of Mexico for holidays!), so keeping them alive and healthy is extremely important for the Mexican government and its economic plans.

IV.                Providing for All

V.                    Solving Energy Shortages

The energy crisis threatens Mexico’s stability. Mexico is part of the group of countries that depend heavily on oil exports to support its economy. (We’re no Venezuela, but still). With the productivity of oil fields falling in the last years, it’s not a matter of how to support a thirst for energy (like in the US), but how to support the balance of trade. One solution is wind power. “La Ventosa” (”the windy”) is a wind-rich region in Mexico with huge potential to become a central hub in a new clean energy industry, but finding global support and investment will be key.

VI.                  Asserting Leadership

Indeed, we have lots of reasons to prepare zealously for the COP16 “moment” and capitalize on it with all due haste.  Even so, some experts, such as Sweden’s Environment Minister, Andreas Carlgren, have doubts regarding the success of COP16 in Mexico. But I believe that these six reasons – a faithful list of at least all the ones I could think of! – demonstrate that the alternative is possible: COP16 can be a successful meeting and Mexico a superlative host. All thanks to the urgency of our need. Need, after all, is the strongest driver of deep change.

President Calderón, the Mexican Government, and we as Mexicans (who have that hope-filled “can” right in the name) will be committed to success. We have to be. And we will push to the extreme to make global agreements manifest.

I have been making spelling errors lateley. Not a lot of them. In fact, I’m a purty good speller. But, like a basketball player at the free throw line during the Big Dance, it hardly matters that most of the time I’m in good form; what both supporters and detractors really care about (and with good reason) is the untimely miss. In the aftermath, all I can do is learn from the error and absorb constructive critiques in the good faith expectation that my techniques will come out better for them.  

It has become fashionable to blame China for the entire world’s (or should we say America’s) problems, hasn’t it? US trade deficit? Blame it on China keeping the value of the yuan low. Global warming? Of course, we all know – it’s because of the smokestacks in China. Job losses? Again, that familiar scapegoat.

Writing in Spiked, Tim Black describes the mindset rather well: “Demoralized, anxious and desperately wanting purpose, Western elites have sought ever-deeper refuge in the semblance of a rationale offered by environmentalism. In such a context, economic growth and development, once the source of capitalist legitimacy, have acquired a threatening aspect. As one of the most rapidly developing nations on earth, under Western eyes, China appears as merely the most potent symbol of baleful modernity.”

But as the politicians drum up the anti-China sentiment, isn’t it quite predictable that businesses will embrace the opportunity?

The latest to try to cash in is Virginia based vitamin brand Opurity. O, Purity! Unsullied by the hands of dirty, low paid workers who have no qualms about mixing chalk with Vitamin C! With a blog aggregator dedicated to the worst of fear-mongering, the brand’s makers hope to fan the waves of fear that were ignited last year by the lead-painted toys and melamine tainted baby food.

Fear-based appeals have their place in the communications discourse. But OgilvyEarth is founded on Hope. On a simple premise that sustainability can be achieved by engagement, not rejection and finger-pointing.

If Opurity is OgilvyEarth's antithesis, whose confrontationist approach makes my blood boil, Bambu is a concomitant that makes me feel better. Much better.

So, would you rather fear China or do business there? And would you rather emulate Opurity of Bambu?

The answer to both is easy.

Green. (You saw that coming.)

What substance is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide?

con·sump·tion [kuh n-suhmp-shuh n] –noun

While the planet continues to warm, Australian politicians are using the science around climate change as a political football. The question has to be asked, is this political “static” causing the issue to slip off the agenda in the world of C Level decision-makers?

• Climate Change. In 2009, 26% identified it as a concern. In 2010, that percentage rose to 37%. Far from tossed overboard, the issue is growing in importance and ranks even higher than terrorism.

• Energy Costs. In 2009, 50% registered concern, and in 2010 that number rose to 54%. Clearly a high level of concern. (To help companies address this issue, OgilvyEarth has created internal programs that reduce operational energy use by 8- 12% over a twelve-month period, with the added benefit of high levels of employee engagement and improved employer reputation. It’s a win-win proposition for brand character and cost-saving, so why would any company shun the opportunity?) The same report showed that 75% of these CEOs saw employee engagement as a key issue after the GFC. Strong internal programming is an easy win.

The Center for American Progress just issued a new article on “green job” growth (a term that includes "everyone from energy-efficiency consultants to wastewater plant operators" according to the NYT) – and the news for green job seekers is good. A Pew Research Study found that the number of green jobs rose at a rate of 9.1% between 1998 and 2007 (dare we speculate about these two most recent years?) compared to a 3.7% growth rate overall.

Five municipalities lead the green charge. (Good thing, too, as these same five municipalities faced some of the most severe unemployment rates in the country in 2009.)

The biggest day in advertising – I mean American football – has come and gone. The last calories from that foot-tall pile of nachos have been burned (or stored in and around essential arteries), the Monday morning hangover is a distant memory, and the Drew Brees love-meter has returned to sub-stalker levels. As post-bowl normalcy returns, we can begin to reflect dispassionately on what came to pass: Yes, Roger Daltrey still has pipes. No, Peyton Manning is not God. Yes, a “green” commercial held its own in the ad parade.

I know I shouldn’t let it get to me, but there’s just a faint hint of a rant bubbling under the surface. It happens whenever a new report crosses my desk with a title something like “public attitudes to green issues”. The report tells us nothing about public attitudes to green issues, but a lot about the way we do market research. In a previous life, I was a market researcher (yes I know but I was young, I needed the money) and one of the things you learn is how to write questionnaires. It’s not rocket science but it seems to be a lost art. One of the basic principles of designing questionnaires is that you have to ensure questions are neutral – it doesn’t matter to the respondent whether they answer A or B except that one of them happens to be true.

I recently discovered that a number of my friends are avowed climate sceptics. Not an earth-shattering revelation but it made me think. They’re not card-carrying placard-waving zealots, just, well, sceptical. They don’t claim to grasp the science – but then how many of us really do? It wouldn’t make much difference anyway. Scientists and experts of all kinds change the orthodoxy from time to time – once upon a time, smoking was good for you. I think it’s down to the fact they don’t want to feel like they’re being told what to think.

And it occurred to me that I do believe the climate science, without having the confidence of having done the experiments myself. Why? Could it be because we need something overwhelming to believe in? I don’t have God so maybe that’s why I have climate change? Makes you think.

I can’t deny it. I have become one of the thousands of fans of the award-winning TV drama, MADMEN. It’s hard not to fall for this show. First, the story is interesting; the characters break the pattern of the typical archetypes. Second, the music and the perfect sets and scenarios really transport you to the 60’s (which some of us dig). Third (the main reason), it’s a TV show about the advertising world, and it opens to the public domain all those little secrets about the world I work in that used to be realities only known by those of us in the industry. And finally, I was getting a bit fed up with lawyer and doctor TV shows.

 

(To confess all, I guess there’s one more reason: I really like how Mr. Don Draper, manages his relationships with his clients. Maybe not the love affairs he had with a couple of them. But in the real day to day client-agency relationship – whew, he’s a master).

 

 
Ok, ok, ok, but what does all this have to do with sustainability? Well, I was reading a very interesting article in the latest edition of Rolling Stone Magazine (you can read it here) in which they list the most “evil” enemies of the environment. The mag’s pariah list includes “drill baby drill” politicians and oil tycoons. To be honest, I admired the way, with absolutely no equivocation, Rolling Stone called these people out by name.

 

The article recalled something I had just read in an interview with James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Dean Speth said, “This greening of consumption is only the first step because it’s still consumption. And it’s still very high levels of consumption. You have to be very careful. People insist on more energy efficient refrigerators and then they have two refrigerators. Or they insist on more fuel efficient automobiles and then drive a lot more”. He adds: “Consumers can make decisions that could dramatically change the economy. They need however good information, and they don’t have it now”

 

According to Mr. Speth, consumption is one of the biggest enemies of a sustainable economy (and I do agree with him). So shouldn’t we, advertising people, be on that Rolling Stone list too?

 

Just as an example (one of millions that exist around the world), check out this campaign from a fancy Mexican department store, El Palacio de Hierro (think NK in Scandinavia or Brown Thomas in Ireland): 

 

 

 

 

 

Rough translation: “Everything in excess. Nothing measured”

 

It’s easy to talk (and talk smack) about others in a blog – but shouldn’t we look deeper into our own actions and responsibilities before pointing fingers?

 

There’s a popular saying in Mexico: “Tanta culpa tiene el que mata a la vaca, como el que le detiene la pata”. I’ll try to translate (of course it won’t rhyme): He who holds the cows leg is as guilty as he who kills the cow. I think in advertising, we have not only been the ones holding the leg; we’ve even showed our clients new ways to do away with the cow. 

 

I am still amazed by the number of young people who want to work in advertising. Sometimes I think they are still attracted by the supposed “glamour” of the industry. (…I think the glamour in advertising was at its peak in the 60’s and died in the 90’s – I don’t see much glamour at all anymore). But at the same time, I’ve also noticed a change in the intentions of young people working in advertising; (as cliché as it may sound) they want to make this world a truly better place (not a Wall Street version of it).

 

As admen (and women), we have made consumption “sexy”. Now it’s time to make conscious consumption sexy, too. We probably could get some inspiration from design. Think of the luxury dichotomy: some consider luxury a lobby in a hotel in Las Vegas (with all its golden chandeliers); others consider luxury a cozy Swedish home.

 

Could we call our new marketing raison d’etre “Minimalist Communication”?

 

Advertising people: Enemies or allies of sustainability? We really have to seriously re-think the use of our “power”. I believe OgilvyEarth is a step in the right direction. Thankfully, we’re not the only shop pursuing new goals.

 

Don, we need your inspiration…

 

In the wake of COP15 (and what a wake it is… many of those who were heavily invested in unrealized outcomes are just now emerging from the malaise), we have been both taking stock of our OgilvyEarth position and considering how to guide the next phase of Hopenhagen.

OgilvyEarth has a point of view about business, sustainability, and the leadership and innovation inspired by their convergence. And like any worthwhile point of view, this one responds to a broader context as surely as it shapes it.

While our sustainability-business convictions weren't necessarily rocked by anything said in President Obama's State of the Union Address, it's worth taking a gander at how the contours of the American political landscape changed (or didn't) last night.

And because one angle does not a holistic perspective make, have a look at the GOP response from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Last week, Nike issued its annual CSR Report. And in characteristic Bill Bowerman fashion, it delivered big news without bravado. Splash #1 was the announcement that the company reduced its GHG emissions to 2007 levels while continuing to grow its operations. (A 15 percent drop in CO2 spew from Nike-owned and operated facilities despite a 41 percent growth in square footage in the facilities – to be exact.) Splash #2 was the decision to cease all carbon offset activities in favor of more concerted efforts in organic reduction. Why? Living up to the name of its new line, Nike offered some very well considered rationale:

• - "Materiality: Embedded energy in materials and manufacturing are the largest part of our footprint so we are focusing resources on them.
• - "Investment Strategy: Rather than purchase renewable energy certificates to achieve climate neutrality, which have become increasingly controversial, we believe it is more meaningful to invest in energy efficiency and in distributed energy projects that reduce our reliance on grid energy and help stabilize energy costs for the long term.
• - "Clarity: Climate neutrality is not a scientifically agreed upon term or standard.
• - "Access to renewable energy: The lack of a market price for carbon has limited NIKE, Inc.'s ability to access and deploy clean energy across our operations. Our approach to addressing this is through advocacy with coalitions including BICEP. Specifically, we support a cap-and-trade system with 100-percent auction of allowance and a suite of other elements such as science-based targets, renewable portfolio standards and investment in clean energy jobs. Together, we believe that these changes will enable a transition to a low-carbon economy."

Bacon everywhere. Zombie mania. Airline biofuel. Silent dance parties. The Wal-Mart Effect. What do all these things have in common? They’ve been cited as phenomena to watch in 2010.

On the 5^th of January, H&M made headlines, denounced by a New York student for apparently destroying and throwing away unsold clothing rather than distributing it to those in need. This single dissenting voice inspired a chorus of reproof almost instantly. How? Social Media. Soon after the student decried H&M on Twitter, a host of outraged twitterers commented, pushing the topic to number two on the list of “current topics” and spurring a reaction from the company.  

As the speculation continues about the ramifications of COP15, the prospects of COP16 and the likelihood of a Waxman-Markey (or Kerry-Boxer?) coup in the US Congress, the marvelous din of democratic disagreement is reaching an increasingly feverish pitch.  If the ENGOs thought they were the only ones who recognized the urgency of figuring out the question du décennie – "uh, what now?" – they’re getting their due wake-up call. The folks hawking the other side of the climate change story are equally eager to move the world on their terms; they don’t think global warming will sink us – but they do think the “solutions” might, and they too are afeard.

Did you nail sustainability marketing in the last decade? Or did the complexities of the sustainability landscape leave you cold? Either way, keep yesteryear’s lessons in your back pocket, but relish the fact that we’ve got new terrain to explore.

“Climate Change will leave 5 Million Indian children malnourished,” screamed one Indian newspaper headline a week back while top global leaders were undecided what to do at COP15. A study on agricultural impact due to climate change projects that prices of essential foods would go up by 100% by 2020.

December 16th. 10 days of COP15. Experts say that obtaining an agreement in the “What we should do as a global community to tackle global warming” category would be an excellent result from the Copenhagen Conference.

I found some interesting facts and figures in the largest Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, last

Let us not hide from the fact: negotiations in the runup to COP 15 have been a complete fiasco. The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum, which includes the US, China, Japan and Russia, deleted the commitment from the final version of the official communiqué issued after a two-day meeting in Singapore in mid-November. The commitment had been made by G8 leaders at L’Aquila in Italy in July and the decision to remove was seen as a retrograde step. Few world leaders seem to have the resolve to take firm action on climate change. President Obama has already confirmed that there would be no legally binding deal at the UN summit in Copenhagen. He won’t be there at the summit at the same time as Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao either.

COP15 has started and despite the optimistic mood conveyed by some media outlets, there are still a lot of pessimistic players and hidden cards. There are still countries waiting for others to play, to present their strategy and to give their official opinions and perspectives before they show their hand. But saving the Earth is not a game.  

It has been a worrying week if you were following the news in the UK. A good deal of air time and column inches have been devoted to the leaked 'climate science' emails from the University of East Anglia. Some have claimed the questionable practises and issues raised over their data and software casts doubt on the general consensus that climate change is influenced by man. 

This news was promptly followed by reports that the authorities in Saudi Arabia were never convinced man had contributed to climate change anyway and this proved they were right. Never mind the fact that there are several other long term data sets and decades of observation all pointing in the same direction. 

It's difficult not to reach for the book of conspiracy theories at this point. Can this - the leaking of emails, seemingly deliberately to fuel a climate-skeptic news story - really be a ploy to undermine agreement at COP15? Is it just a game to some people? Or is it more sinister?

It’s been feeling at times like we’re acting out a scenario in a James Bond film. The villain, in his underground headquarters, is going to pursue what he wants at any cost, even if that means allowing a catastrophe that imperils all of mankind.  He strokes his cat, menacingly. 

Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?"

Sinister villain: "No Mr Bond, I expect you to die. Mwah ha ha. Mwah ha ha.”

I’m just hoping that we citizens of Planet Earth can be as successful as Mr. Bond when it comes to getting out of mortal scrapes.

Welcome to Day One of COP15.

This morning, we heard from a friend of ours in the Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen, and she shared some great news:

“Just wanted to drop a line and say hello from Copenhagen where the weather is gloomy but the mood hopeful. The Hopenhagen posters are ubiquitous and the name "Hopenhagen" is being used in a lot of the speeches given by dignitaries and ministers (Mayor of Copenhagen, Dr. Pachauri, etc).

Something’s amiss in the realm of climate science. And this time it's not the level of GHGs. It’s the science itself.

David Ogilvy said, "Big ideas are usually simple ideas." We love living by his mantras and offering up proof of their truth as homage.

"All hope is choral." The phrase is our current obsession, the concept our daily pursuit. And we're quite pleased to report that the Hopenhagen chorus is singing multi-part harmony with the help of some amazing friends.

Recently, Syracuse University's student advertising agency, The NewHouse, launched the Hopenhagen movement on campus. Read about their contribution to the choral effort and take in some sage advice about how to get your campus involved:

To our fellow college students,

As the leaders of tomorrow, we must find ways to influence the leaders of today. The United Nations Climate Change Conference will determine the fate of our planet, the future landscape of our lives. We as a generation cannot afford to take a passive stance. We must proactively demand the right decisions from our leaders, demonstrate how small acts can accumulate to produce monumental changes, and ensure we are ahead of the race when the baton is passed. We must lead today’s leaders so our future will witness more hopeful days.

We at The NewHouse, a student-run advertising agency from Syracuse University, put our mark on Hopenhagen by bringing the global campaign to a local level. Our agency aimed to educate the college student on COP15 and inspire the SU community to pledge a message of hope on the online petition. To launch our efforts on campus, on Nov. 11 we took note of a flash mob event in Copenhagen and mimicked the demonstration in our own Quad. Social media vehicles garnered over 1,000 impressions of our buzz-generating message, and the event, coined “11/11. 12:07”, gathered students, faculty, and local media to watch as volunteers sunbathed on a brisk New York day. The point of this flash mob was to demonstrate the growing impact of global warming—a point we successfully conveyed to the Syracuse University community.

Following this event, The NewHouse continues reaching out with the objective of increasing awareness of Hopenhagen and COP15 among the student body. Our efforts include Hopenhagen media on every television screen across campus, presentations in courses focused on sustainability and green initiatives, Facebook and Twitter messages, discussions with over 200 student organizations, petition hubs around campus, and mass emails sent by campus leaders including Chancellor Cantor, ESF President Murphy, Green Campus Initiative, and SU Sustainability.

In evaluating the state of our planet, we are at a breaking point. However, it is up to this generation and this world to decide what is next—either we continue on the same downward spiral or we step in a new direction, a direction fostered by hope for a better planet. This is the time for change.

To the leaders of tomorrow: The NewHouse challenges each of you to demonstrate your own message of hope on your respective campuses. Unify your student body under the mission of Hopenhagen, and inspire a hope that can create a community that leads our leaders into making the right decisions. Hopenhagen means change— and that change will be driven by all of us.

–

The NewHouse is a student-run advertising agency from Syracuse University in New York.  The NewHouse management team includes President Joe Misiewicz, Director of Strategy Emily Hicks, Creative Director Kate Overholt and New Business Director Helen Liang. Ed Russell, assistant professor of advertising, is the faculty advisor to The NewHouse.

A heavy smog hangs over Wuhan. Not once in the four days I have just spent in the capital of Hubei province, equidistant from Shanghai and Beijing but in the west, did it ever lift.

Through the haze, I could see the First Bridge on the Yangtze – this was where Chairman Mao swam across and decided the river just had to be conquered by engineering just as he had with muscle.

 

Driving to work, I caught the most powerful talkback radio commentator in Australia ranting about how disgusted he is that children are being taught about climate change at school. His main point: the Government is running a propaganda campaign to reinforce its drive for emissions trading legislation. My reaction: proper climate education should be supported as a great driver of positive change. But it’s his view that’s hitting the popular airwaves – not mine. And amidst his tirade, he went so far as to claim that any use of the term ‘green’ automatically cues distrust.

Almost one month and ten days from now, world leaders will make their way to Copenhagen for a two-week-long meeting. Their mission: to hammer out an agreement on ways to save Planet Earth from global warming. There is mounting pressure to get specific commitments from countries to curb emission levels and reverse climate change. As India’s premier daily, The Times of India, noted—"On the face of it, this meeting is meant to save our children’s future." It should have been viewed by countries – rich and poor – as a noble endeavor. Instead it’s being approached with trepidation and skepticism.

We’ve all been there. You’re in the foyer, sipping coffee politely, waiting for the workshop to start and the nice person you’re chatting with suddenly realizes you work in advertising. You are now the enemy. The evils of the capitalist economy, over-consumption, obesity, the rape of the third world, the greenhouse effect – it’s all your fault.

It seems deliciously inconsistent that America at large can be chastised by its European counterparts for climate delinquency - not doing enough to correct our behaviour, not paying enough so that others can avoid our sins - even while our President can be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at least in part for his climate bodhi. The Nobel committee sees no disconnect: “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”

At our recent Global Advisory Board Meeting, we had an intriguing discussion about what constitutes greenwash. Is it just a “know it when you see it” sort of thing, or are there a set of standards and principles that ads can clearly uphold or transgress?

Ever heard of the companies who made the horse whips, the coaches and the carriages in the 19th century? Probably not. If ever there were any big corporations manufacturing horse whips, coaches and carriages, they are long forgotten. Gentlemen such as Otto Daimler, Carl Benz, Henry Ford and Louis Chevrolet effaced the memory of their predecessors when they first invented and later perfected the manufacturing process of the car.

There are, according to a recent study, two types of environmental thought leaders: The first group is comprised of societal transformers. With these guys, the conversation tends towards the kind of society we need to create in order to safeguard our future. They are likely to cite our consumption-driven economy as the fundamental problem we need to overcome. Until we can get away from a world in which we all strive to have more stuff, progress can only ever be marginal. They have a point.

When I fall into this reflective mode, it’s generally a recipe for despair. But I’m happy to report that lately that despair has given way to inspiration, thanks to a couple of people whose stories I would like to share. 

At this particular juncture in world history, this groundswell of collective pessimism strikes us as singularly unhelpful.  If the past twelve months have reminded us of anything, it is both the power and the fragility of consumer confidence. 

Climate Week, Advertising Week, the Climate Summit, the UN General Assembly, The Clinton Global Initiative, the official launch of Hopenhagen and Ogilvy Earth’s first Global Advisory Board meeting…no wonder there was total gridlock on the streets of New York this week.

It promises to be the biggest show on Earth. If you thought the Beijing Olympics were China’s coming out party, you were just watching the trailer. It is one thing to keep Beijing’s skies clear for two weeks. Managing the ecological impact of a six month event is an entirely different challenge. And if Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was supremely alarmist, everything about the Shanghai Expo could fill the world with hope. Hope about sustainability.

 

 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF VISION-SELLING

It’s seems like you can toss “eco” in front of about just about any word to score a few quick green points. When you read you begin with A-B-C, and when you evolve your brand – or do just about anything else these days – you begin with e-c-o. I offer an illustrative ditty (and if the alpen spirit of Maria joins you through these next few lines, blame it on the green drapery she made the Von Trapp kids wear; the outfits screamed eco-chic well ahead of their time):                

            Eco-energy (harnessing the sun)

Responsibility. It would be strange to leave this topic out of all the entries on this blog. It’s not a new concept, sure, but at the end of the day we support Responsible Marketing, so we better have a point of view.

Yep, Spiderman said it (ok, he probably wasn’t the first to say it, but he was definitely the most influential!). Recalling Spidey’s immortal words made me reflect anew on the concept of “power.” We normally associate power with resources, assets, capital – the visible trappings of affluence. But there’s something wrong with this correlation, and I think we’re beginning to see a shift in perspective.