filter by tag: corporateresponsibility

Transparency is a critical issue for corporate leaders, one that separates the compliers from the leaders in corporate responsibility reporting. It is a difficult aspect to measure, but Corporate Knights has tried to do just that with a new and improved release of its annual study, The Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World.

The Corporate Knights added a unique measure this year, called a Transparency Indicator. The number quantifies how easy it was to find information for the 10 other Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), therefore indicating the level of disclosure companies are practicing. As Corporate Knights' editor-in-chief Toby Heaps notes, "You need to have transparency if you want people to take you seriously. Then you can get beyond platitudes and discuss issues that people really care about."

But Corporate Knights is not the first to incorporate transparency. In 2009, CRO based its analysis of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens on data that was publicly disclosed, but Corporate Knights took it to the next level by creating a transparency metric that factored into the overall scoring.

What effect does transparency have on the final rankings? At #1, GE had a 73 percent transparency rank and at #2, PG&E had a 25 percent transparency rank. It's difficult to say without further analysis, but could decreasing the transparency gap have helped PG&E rise to the top? Fortunately, Corporate Knights walked its own talk by publishing complete data tables on its Web site for you to review.

Despite what the pundits may say, few of us are really certain what 2010 will bring – will the economy bounce back or get worse? Will nonprofits survive or fold under the fundraising pressure? Will the environmentally conscious lifestyle continue to resonate? So instead of predicting the future, we’d like to pause and look back at what has occurred in our portfolio of research – these highlights show powerful growth in just a couple of years for cause-related and corporate responsibility initiatives and may signal a positive outlook for the year ahead.

Cause Research:
Growth in Cause Acceptance: Americans’ acceptance of cause marketing increased from 66% in 1993 to 85% in 2008.
Growth in Global Focus: Since 1993, there has been a 6% decrease in consumers indicating they want companies to focus on the quality of life locally, within local communities and a 5% increase in desire for companies to support the quality of life globally, in countries around the world.
Growth in Differentiation: Americans' likeliness to switch to brands associated with a cause increased from 66% in 1993 to 79% in 2008.
Growth in Purchase: Consumers’ cause purchases almost doubled between 1993 and 2008, rising from 20% to 38%.

Environmental Research:
More Interest: 35% of Americans have greater interest in the environment today than they did one year ago.
Higher Expectations: 35% of Americans have higher expectations for companies to make and sell environmentally responsible products and services during the economic downturn.
They’re Watching You: 70% of Americans indicate they are paying attention to what companies are doing with regard to the environment today, even if they cannot buy until the future.

New Media Research:
More Interaction: 78% of new media users now interact with companies or brands via new media sites and tools, an increase of 32% from 2008.
Better Service: 68% feel better served by companies or brands present in new media, up from 57% in 2008.
Stronger Loyalty: 72% feel a stronger connection when companies or brands are present in new media, up from 56% in 2008.
Marketing is Okay: Consumer willingness to be marketed to via new media increased a dramatic 72% in one year - from 25% to 48%.

If the past year is any indication of what the year ahead holds, bring it on! As you plan for 2010, what questions do you have? What are you curious about? We’re listening to your comments - please share your outlook below.

With COP15 in full swing, climate change discussions are heating up – and environmentally conscious companies are joining the conversation. Several big players, including Timberland (Cone’s client) and Coke have launched consumer-focused campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of COP15, which aims to secure a new global climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol.

Image via www.donttellusitcantbedone.com

Because Timberland’s business is the environment, the company has a vested interest in proving companies can make a profit and save the planet – without passing the cost to the consumer. Through its global “Don’t Tell Us It Can’t Be Done” campaign, Timberland hopes to bring the importance of climate change, and the need for binding legislation, to the forefront by giving the public a forum to let their voices be heard. Consumers are invited to get involved by signing an online petition at www.donttellusitcantbedone.com and staying up-to-date on conference happenings with an on-the-ground reporting team, comprised of environmental journalist Olivia Zaleski and Found Objects Films founder Gabriel London, who will post daily recaps and exclusive interviews at www.earthkeeper.com/ActionCenter.

In addition to the “Don’t Tell Us It Can’t Be Done” online campaign, Timberland is connecting with consumers on climate change through global advertising, in-store displays and social networks like Twitter and Facebook. And the campaign doesn’t end after the COP15 conference. No matter the result of the conference, Timberland will continue to call for commitment to the long-term outcome. The company has already achieved a 27 percent reduction in emissions since 2006, committed to building all new U.S. stores to LEED standards and implemented the Green Index, which measures and reports on products’ environmental impact, to help inform the design process.

What’s more, Timberland’s sincere attempts to drive social justice through commerce are paying off. President and CEO Jeff Swartz has appeared in the New York Times, Newsweek, Fast Company and The Sunday Times, and on Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard and several major UK stations to discuss the company’s environmental commitments. And Timberland’s Earthkeeper collection, comprised of eco-friendly gear, now accounts for about 5 percent of total sales—proof that companies don’t have to choose between making a profit and doing good.

- Erin Zwaska, Account Executive

Cone’s latest research, the 2009 Cone Consumer New Media Study, shows consumers are actively engaging with companies and nonprofits through new media channels … but are they putting their money where their mouse is? The answer is divided.

When it comes to corporate responsibility practices, 62 percent of new media users polled believe they can influence business decisions by voicing opinions via new media channels. And although they report contributing their point-of-view on an issue (24%) or contacting a company directly to share feedback and grievances (23%), new media users are equally or more likely to bypass dialogue and act with their wallets:

• 30 percent indicate they have made a purchase based on POSITIVE information learned about a product, company or brand; and,
• 23 percent indicate they have switched brands or boycotted a company based on NEGATIVE information learned about a product, company or brand.

Yet, in the area of cause, consumer engagement and awareness is not fully translating into dollars. Although nearly eight-in-10 (79%) new media users believe companies and nonprofits should use these channels to raise money and awareness for causes, fewer than one-in-five (18%) have made a donation.

And some argue that’s quite OK.

As About.com’s nonprofit expert Joanne Fritz points out, using new media is “about making friends, not getting donations. If nonprofits focus on engagement first, the donations will come.” A sentiment nonprofit blogger Nancy Schwartz shares, saying she sees new media as “more about friendraising than fundraising.”

Do you agree – is it sufficient that new media is driving powerful awareness today, even if donations aren’t always quick to follow? Share your point-of-view by casting your vote in our latest blog poll.

For more information about the study, read the press release and download the fact sheets.

Do consumers want to engage with companies and brands through new media?
Do they think they can influence corporate responsibility practices online?
Are they supporting social and environmental causes via new media?

According to the 2009 Cone Consumer New Media Study, the answer is a resounding yes … with a few caveats along the way. The new research released today explores American new media users’ interactions with brands, their engagement with corporate responsibility practices and their support of social and environmental issues.

This survey builds on Cone’s 2008 Business in Social Media Study, but this year, we expanded the research to explore the diverse ways in which consumers are engaging with companies and nonprofits through new media.

Key findings include:

• Brand Marketing: Almost 80 percent (78%) of new media users interact with companies or brands via new media sites and tools, an increase of 32 percent from 2008 (59%).
• Corporate Responsibility: Sixty-two percent of users polled believe they can influence business decisions by voicing opinions via new media channels.
• Cause Branding: Nearly eight-in-10 (79%) Americans who are active on new media believe companies and nonprofits should use these channels to raise money and awareness for causes. Yet, fewer than one-in-five users (18%) have made a donation through new media.

Read the complete release here, and visit www.coneinc.com/consumernewmediastudy to download all three fact sheets.

Blog Action Day is an annual event held every October 15 that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. The 2009 topic is climate change.

Corporate managers are very used to working within budgets. They carefully plan for the costs associated with meeting their departments’ annual objectives and executing strategies. Their budgets likely include the costs of employees traveling across the country or around the world. But what about the carbon emissions associated with this type of travel? Who’s accounting for these?

If emissions associated with corporate travel were regularly included in carbon footprints, they could account for some 20 percent of a company’s total emissions. In fact, Motorola included business travel in its most recent carbon footprint. If my math is correct, the company’s business travel accounted for 20.5 percent of its overall footprint.

Today, most companies calculate their carbon footprints by only including direct and indirect emissions from their manufacturing facilities and internal operations – known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 – while not including emissions from corporate travel, which falls into Scope 3. But things may change soon, as new emissions regulation and carbon disclosure standards are on the horizon.

For now, corporate managers may want to start rethinking how they budget for employee travel expenses by including a cost associated with travel-related carbon emissions. The city of San Francisco is ahead of this curve. Last February, the mayor ordered all city departments to not only declare how much they plan to spend on air travel, but to also pay 13 percent of their air-travel costs into a city carbon-offset fund, which will be used to pay for local emission reduction projects. This is a good tactic that may actually work to trim corporate travel – and related emissions – in the future.

- Liz Gorman, Vice President

Blog Action Day is an annual event held every October 15 that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. The 2009 topic is climate change.

Is climate change today’s Y2K? A hyped-up, get-on-the-bandwagon cause that is misguiding our limited attention and dollars? Or, is it the struggle of our generation which will be the root cause of expanding poverty and political instability? We know it’s the latter, so how can any of us make a difference and ensure consumers see it with the same urgency? It’s our responsibility to go beyond the numbers, beyond 350 parts per million, to inspire people to believe that they too can have an impact on something that feels so big and intangible.

The threat is real, the science is in, and we must change our perspective and our actions. As consumers, we need to rethink how we consume - from the products we buy for our kids to the investments we make in our homes. As marketers, we need to build the case for urgent action. Our new sense of pragmatism with the economy is today's opportunity. If cost savings is the driver, let it reign. Whatever it takes to make a difference for planet Earth.

Shared Responsibility is a new What Do You Stand For? series from Cone’s Corporate Responsibility team that focuses on addressing the sustainability challenges of our time.

Cause-related promotions and light-hearted campaigns have dominated much of the cause landscape this year as many companies took a “back-to-basics” approach to cause to drive short-term sales and loyalty. However, amid all the creative cause campaigns are the stirrings of a new crop of companies who, understanding their shared role in addressing crucial world issues, are stepping up to the plate to understand, to engage, to collaborate and to solve. These are the game-changers.

Two examples in the news this week:

P&G – No question, P&G is a cause leader with many of its brands executing some of the most creative and powerful campaigns in the marketplace today (e.g., Pampers’ One Pack = One Vaccine). But these campaigns all have their roots in a deeper corporate philosophy - P&G’s “purpose-inspired growth” strategy, which emphasizes the company’s culture and values as drivers for innovation and sales. New CEO Bob McDonald states, “We will provide branded products of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come. As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creations, allowing our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we live and work to prosper.”

Merck & Co. – The pharmaceutical giant announced a partnership with British nonprofit the Wellcome Trust, to create affordable vaccines against diseases common in underdeveloped countries. Both partners will make equal cash contributions for the project, but what is most powerful is the “shared responsibility” approach this project requires. It will engage governments, charities, universities and other for-profit pharmaceutical companies for additional funding and solutions. Merck spokeswoman Amy Rose says, "The goal here is to involve a number of parties that would be interested in the success of vaccines in the developing world.”

“Shared responsibility” is about identifying the right opportunities to engage stakeholders and to collaborate to solve the world’s most pressing issues. It’s about being part of the solution, without going it alone. In these examples, company goals are not lost, but rather enhanced through collaboration, stakeholder engagement and a focus on innovation. These companies are not only supporting important social or environmental issues. They are also changing the way they – and others – do business.

If there is an upside to the economic turmoil that’s plagued 2009, it is that it has renewed Americans’ spirit of service to others. And the icing on the giving-back cake is that, as part of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, September 11 is now recognized as the annual National Day of Service and Remembrance. A date already engraved in the memories of Americans, September 11 is well-suited for a day of service, to remember those lost and to celebrate those who volunteered time and even risked their lives to save others during the tragedy of 2001.

Photo credit: http://image.guardian.co.uk

However, the national call-to-service is not only aimed at individuals. It is also motivation for businesses and organizations to address the needs of the communities where they operate. Many organizations have already responded, establishing programs that motivate employees to roll up their sleeves and get to work for their neighbors.

To spur the business community’s involvement in economic recovery, the U.S. Chamber’s Business Civic Leadership Center (BCLC) created a collaborative campaign called “Together For Recovery.” And today, the BCLC is featuring various community service projects that companies are undertaking to celebrate the first annual National Day of Service and Remembrance. To name a few:

• IBM employees will volunteer in Washington, D.C., making quilts for children of deployed service members with Greater DC Cares.
• GlaxoSmithKline will host an employee volunteer project in the Harlem Children's Zone, during which GSK employees will lead class discussions with school children about H1N1 prevention and other healthy lifestyle topics.
• Hasbro’s employee volunteers will come together to assemble much-needed kits for two worthy organizations – World Vision and Birthday Wishes.

Although ranging in sector and scale, these organizations can serve as inspiration for others to come together for social good. When businesses or organizations encourage volunteerism, individual contributions can be elevated to an effective, collective effort for change. Are you doing something special to celebrate this day of service? Tell us about it by leaving a comment.

Even cold water can’t douse the fire that reusable water bottle company SIGG found itself under this week. The company was berated in the news for deceptive claims after its CEO acknowledged that the liners of bottles produced before August 2008 contain traces of BPA, a substance that has raised significant health concerns in recent years. Elaine Shannon, editor-in-chief of the Environmental Working Group, notes SIGG’s current crisis is less about the actual presence of BPA and more about how the company chose to address the issue. Although company officials knew of the traces of BPA since June 2006, they did not address it publicly until last month.

The lack of transparency set off a torrent of angry blog posts, tweets and online articles by consumers who felt betrayed. The company has already begun to fight the damaging criticism through letters from the CEO and by establishing a program where consumers can opt to exchange their old bottle for a new one. However, the long-term damage to the brand and business will probably be deep.

Today’s 24/7 new media environment is forcing companies into greater transparency about their products, services and business practices, but just as some dig in their heels, there are also those companies who are going quite willingly. In the cleaning products and alcohol industries, not without their share of judgment for the social and environmental impacts of their products, two companies are raising the bar.

SC Johnson – Early in 2009, the company began voluntarily disclosing product ingredients via a Web site, toll-free hotline and on product labels. It will continue to add products over the next three years, aiming to have all ingredients for air care and home cleaning products available to the public by January 2012.

Brown-Forman – The spirits maker recently launched a Web site dedicated to addressing leading alcohol-related social issues, such as youth and alcohol and marketing and access. The site will serve as a forum for the company to share its own positions on the issues and also invites dialogue by allowing visitors to submit comments. Although it remains to be seen how it will use this public feedback, the company is nonetheless demonstrating its willingness to proactively acknowledge difficult issues and work toward collective solutions. According to Jim Bareuther, executive vice president of global business development, “It is an opportunity for us – and for all interested parties – to contribute to the ongoing dialogue and discussion about the role of alcohol in society and how to curtail abuse and promote responsible consumption.”

Those companies who take an active stance in providing concerned stakeholders with complete and accurate information and an opportunity to voice their positions will reap reputational benefits over the long-term, as well as the opportunity to continually innovate and improve their products, services and communications.

The need for transparency is not limited to the area of corporate responsibility and reputation. In its September 2009 brief, Trendwatching.com discusses “Transparency Triumph” as an important consumer trend, shaping both the marketplace and society.

Products on shelves today have more eco-label flair than a casual-dining restaurant’s employee of the month. This week alone, announcements for a Good Company Seal and a new “Clean Water Wash” label for Gap Inc. jeans were announced, adding to the explosion of new certifications. As organizations create countless standards using different measures and methodologies, how can consumers know which products are “best” or which companies are truly “good?” And with so many certification options, how do companies themselves know which to pursue?

For companies or products that focus on environmental responsibility and value the credibility certifications can provide, any new standard or label is something they will examine. But which are the best? Which are most relevant to your consumer? And how many is too many? At some point, your target customers become overwhelmed and unaffected, so it is important to qualify all the options before jumping in. It won’t make sense to chase after every “latest and greatest” environmental label or certification, as most require a rigorous verification process that companies must commit to, which can mean a large investment of time and money.

When deciding which certification to pursue for your organization or product, do your research. Consider the criteria Consumer Reports uses to evaluate eco-labels which include:

• Meaningful and verifiable: Check for an independent 3rd party inspection organization.
  
• Consistent and clear: Standards should be written in a way that can be verified in a consistent manner so that the label is consistent in meaning among different products.
  
• Transparent: The organization behind an eco-label should make information about organizational structure, funding, board of directors, and certification standards available to the public.

Don’t treat your eco-labels as flair on your sash. Think strategically to determine which label is the best fit for your organization.

Shared Responsibility is a new What Do You Stand For? series from Cone’s Corporate Responsibility team that focuses on addressing the sustainability challenges of our time.

I’ve spent the past year attending many conferences. Green conferences. Sustainability conferences. I’ve also spent time counseling clients on corporate responsibility thought leadership strategies and how to engage with key influencers. Some of these discussions go down to the pedantic, such as being appropriate in terms of the brand’s presence at shows.

At every show, there are branded reusable shopping bags. I have so many – too many – strategically placed in my office, in my car, etc. There are also a variety of other tchotchkes. I use the word because its definition is: inexpensive, showy trinket. I wonder if we could do ourselves a favor and not buy trinkets for the sake of branding, but instead spend time, money and resources on doing, connecting and making a collective difference in the issues that matter.

Instead of another pin, bag or magnet, why not sponsor an extra networking session, a special guest speaker or a donation to an important cause on behalf of attendees? Your company will still benefit from the brand recognition, but instead it will be tied to a thought-provoking discussion or issue, not desk drawer clutter. We can and do work with companies, NGOs and others to make this world a better place – one less trinket at a time.

- Jonathan Yohannan, Senior Vice President 

As the economy struggles to rebound, it’s inspiring to see the number of organizations, programs and projects dedicated to social and environmental issues continue to multiply. This week alone, Macy’s, Nestlé Pure Life, Kmart and PNC all announced new campaigns or projects:

• Macy’s is kicking off a star-studded campaign encouraging consumers to host a dinner party and donate money to Feeding America in lieu of the traditional host gift.
• Nestlé Pure Life is encouraging families to adopt new, healthy habits with ongoing efforts within its Pure Life/Best Life campaign.
• Kmart has partnered with TIME for Kids to develop a curriculum that teachers and parents can use to help teach kids about managing money.
• PNC announced the installation of North America’s largest soil-based living wall on the exterior of its Pittsburgh headquarters, enhancing it's existing efforts to be a world leader in green building.

The economy can be good, bad or downright ugly, but no matter because doing good has staying power. Goodness builds trust, trust fosters reputation and reputation drives sales. What’s more, 78 percent of consumers expect corporate contributions to social and environmental causes to remain the same or grow, indicating it’s more important than ever to be committed to the greater good in order to stay relevant and profitable. Stated simply - perseverance pays.

Like a proud parent, we couldn’t be happier knowing our client, PNC Financial Services Group Inc., has both social and environmental commitments. PNC, who has made an unprecedented 10-year, $100 million investment in school readiness, recently announced plans to install a soil-based living wall on the exterior of the company's Pittsburgh headquarters building. The living wall, which will be installed September 2009, will be the largest green living wall in North America, and just in time for the G20 summit, which will be taking place in Pittsburg this fall.

Certainly, the wall will provide cooling benefits for the building, but by timing it with the G20 event, it will also draw notice to the bank’s large inventory of green buildings and bank branches. PNC Director of Corporate Real Estate Gary Saulson commented, "The wall will be a fitting reminder that PNC is the world-leader in green building."

Cone has been working with PNC on its cause program, Grow Up Great, for six years, and we are thrilled that it also recognizes the importance of committing to the environment.

The following originally appeared in Cone’s inConetext quarterly newsletter. To read current or past issues, visit our Web site.

Sustainability, corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility are just a few of the words used by C-suite executives to describe how businesses provide social, environmental and financial value for key stakeholders and society. It’s no wonder so many companies struggle with the sheer volume and complexity of corporate responsibility issues and stakeholder expectations when they can’t even agree on what to call it.

And today, new media have only complicated everything further by accelerating the communications process. The power of stakeholders is much stronger than ever before given their ability to assemble online, wresting control over the message away from companies. So, how does a company keep up? Creating a Facebook page or adding a widget is not going to cut it among today’s tech-savvy consumers and stakeholders, nor will it satisfy their skeptical stance on corporate responsibility marketing efforts. Like all other communications, a new media presence must have the right mix of strategy, messaging and audience to be a success. Cone helps companies navigate this journey from strategy and reporting to engagement and new media communications.

- Jonathan Yohanan, Senior Vice President

Worldwide, a record number of companies are reporting on their sustainability performance. Whether these companies are reaching their employees with these messages is another story.

Two new studies uncover a disconnect between corporate responsibility efforts and employee awareness. According to a Public Policy Polling survey, nearly one-quarter (24%) of survey participants indicated their company has made sustainability a top priority in business decisions, yet only 17 percent said sustainability efforts are frequently communicated to the workforce. The 2009 Corporate Citizenship Survey, conducted by a group of firms, found a more startling figure – a full 70 percent of employees say they are not aware of any socially responsible practices their own employer is taking. A company’s social and environmental practices can affect everything from recruitment to employee pride, loyalty and retention, so inadequate communication has far-reaching implications inside a company’s own walls.

What’s more, employees serve as natural brand ambassadors for their organizations. Failure to adequately educate them about corporate responsibility efforts and initiatives hinders a powerful, cost-effective and credible channel for reaching consumers and other external stakeholders.

The media was abuzz with industry-changing news from retail giant Walmart this week. The company has begun the tricky process of establishing a worldwide “sustainable product index” for its suppliers, with the goal of eventually displaying this on all products it carries. The concept is not new – other companies such as Timberland and Nike have already created their own product evaluation systems – but the goal is to develop the first comprehensive source of data for evaluating sustainability across all products. In the final phase of the process, the company intends to equip consumers with a simple rating system that will disclose product sustainability, allowing consumers to make more informed purchase decisions. As Walmart CEO Mike Duke stated, the company wants to “create a new retail standard for the 21st century.”

Although the consumer-facing label will take a few years to develop, the company will begin the process by first surveying its more than 100,000 suppliers on current practices using a 15 question survey focused on energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources and people and community. Walmart chief merchandising officer John Fleming explained, “The questions aren’t complicated but we’ve never before systematically asked for this kind of information. The survey is a key first step toward establishing real transparency in our supply chain.” Following this, Walmart will collaborate with several universities, governments, suppliers and other retailers to develop a global sustainability index.

Suppliers whose products are currently on Walmart shelves will no doubt be scrambling to shine light on their sustainability initiatives. This will be an exciting opportunity for those companies already working to reduce their impacts to display their environmental stewardship. Those not already operating with the environment and society in mind, and/or those not measuring such data, will have a lot of work to do in the coming months. And yet, the generality of Walmart’s questionnaire, which doesn’t delve into product-specific or even industry-specific nuances, just skims the sustainability surface. It leaves lots of room for interpretation, and it is not clear how – or if – Walmart will verify the data.

That said, Walmart’s vision is a worthy one and establishing a shared baseline for the industry is a monumental step indeed. The retailing giant, already credited with helping set the standard for items like concentrated laundry detergent, likely has the wherewithal to bring something this complex to life. If the rest of the retail industry joins this effort, it could be gamechanging.

Organic, non-GMO, 100% recycled, “oh my!” By default, supermarkets are getting a rapid makeover as companies strive to become more responsible.

To start, shoppers can likely expect an influx of organics on local shelves, as it’s been identified as the No. 1 food trend of the coming decade, far surpassing easy meals and low-calorie labeling. With a market already estimated at more than $23 billion annually, there is no doubt that continued consumer interest will have companies rushing to capture a piece of the expanding pie.

Not to be outdone, Whole Foods is adopting a non-GMO verification for all its private-label products and is expected to begin rolling out new packaging later this year. Executives note that although the verification is not required, they hope it will help consumers make more informed purchase decisions.

And the momentum in the supermarket doesn’t end with the product itself. Earthbound Farm and Naked Juice separately announced they are raising the bar by converting to 100% post-consumer recycled plastic packaging. "These are major consumer brands using recycled content," says Anne Johnson, director of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, in an article in USA Today. "It's a big deal." For its part, Earthbound Farms explains the move is about marrying its organic food with a responsible image. The switch has happened in light of research that found environmental packaging by food companies to be the third most important purchasing factor for North American consumers — ranking slightly below freshness of ingredients and additional health benefits.

In 2008, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began a series of public workshops to review its “Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.” Initial sessions focused on carbon offsets, product packaging (for which Cone shared findings from its 2008 Green Gap Survey) and buildings and textiles. But since then, momentum seemed to slow.

Until this week, that is, when rhetoric turned to action as the FTC cracked down on Kmart and two other companies for making deceptive biodegradability claims. Kmart claimed that its American Fare private label brand of paper plates was biodegradable. The FTC challenged the retailer not because it questioned whether the paper plates actually decompose, but instead because of the way Americans typically dispose of their trash- in landfills where the plates have little hope of degrading. In essence, the FTC is indicating that it is not just about the inherent accuracy of the claim, but whether consumers can realistically act upon it.

At the same time, the House subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection held a hearing entitled “It’s Too Easy Being Green.” In testimony, James Kohm of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection explained:

“Competition based on green claims drives businesses to greater innovation, which ultimately benefits consumers by increasing the availability of the types of green products and services they desire. For the marketplace to thrive, however, companies must compete on the basis of legitimate advertising claims and consumers must be able to rely on those claims.”

Kmart may be under fire today, but as the FTC continues to investigate instances of greenwashing, we can expect that more companies will follow.

Cone VP Liz Gorman expands upon the Kmart case in her post.

For much more news on this topic, please see our weekly newsletter. Click to subscribe to Cone's newsletter.

Business leaders who hold traditional beliefs about the role of business in society continue to use the economic crisis to espouse their conviction that the primary responsibility is to do well, not good. In their recent BusinessWeek column, Jack and Suzy Welch argue just this. It’s not as one-sided of an argument as we often see, but the point is clear: profit begets purpose, not the other way around. If a rash of new M.B.A. programs is any barometer, however, fresh thinking is on its way in.

Case in point—a story this week about Harvard Business School’s creation of “The M.B.A. Oath.” This promise “to serve the greater good” was organized by students and 20 percent of the program’s 2009 graduating class has opted to take it. Student advocates of the oath hope to establish a formal code that all future graduates will be required to uphold, similar to the Hippocratic Oath for physicians or the pledge taken by lawyers to uphold the law and Constitution.

M.B.A. professors, too, are recognizing the shift in attitudes among today’s students, and schools have ramped up courses and created new centers focused on ethics and corporate responsibility to satisfy the increased demand. Business school professors agree “they are seeing a generational shift away from viewing an M.B.A. as simply an on-ramp to the road to riches” and are viewing “business as more than a money-making enterprise, but part of a large social community.” This trend shows that future leaders may well care about more than just profits, and feel a stronger sense of responsibility for the good of society.

It’s not just corporate responsibility seeing this shift in thinking. Enrollment in climate-focused M.B.A. programs is surging, graduates are opting for careers in community organizing and public service agencies such as Teach For America and the Peace Corps are experiencing a swell in applications. In fact, research shows that M.B.A. students are willing to sacrifice an average of 14.4 percent of their expected compensation to work for a responsible company.

There is little doubt that corporate America’s attitudes will shift even further when these graduates become leaders. Dare we predict consumer perceptions of corporate America will follow?

Spring is in the air, and Cone is revving up for an exciting (and busy) conference season. Here is a sneak peek of where you can find us in the next two months:

The Better Business Bureau of NY

CSR Forum II: Leading the Recovery and Restoring Transparency and Trust in Business

May 12, 2009

Carol Cone will be moderating a panel entitled “Responsibility Strategies for Rough Times.” The discussion will include representatives from Verizon, Time Warner and Pfizer.

Sustainability 50

May 12, 2009

Jonathan Yohannan, SVP, will join a candid discussion among business leaders about effective environmental communications.

Entrepreneurs Foundation

May 14, 2009

Carol Cone will lead a roundtable discussion entitled “Anatomy of the Corporate Soul.”

The Bulldog Reporter Media Relations Summit

Expanding the Value of PR in the Digital Age

May 18, 2009

Mike Lawrence, EVP and Chief Reputation Officer, will speak on a panel entitled “Lightning Response: Surviving the First 24 Hours of Crisis.”

The 2009 Cause Marketing Forum Conference

May 27, 2009

Carol Cone will help kick off the event with a keynote at the opening dinner about trends in cause marketing and Cone’s latest cause research.

CECP’s Corporate Philanthropy Summit

Under a New Lens: Corporate Philanthropy in a Changed Economy

June 2, 2009

Carol Cone will moderate a panel entitled “Beyond Cash: Leveraging Your Resources.” The discussion will include representatives from Cisco, American Express Foundation and The Eli Lilly and Company Foundation.

Sustainable Brands 2009

June 4, 2009

Mike Hollywood, Director of New Media and Jonathan Yohannan, SVP, will lead a half-day workshop on “Sustainable New Media” where participants will learn how to successfully integrate new media into corporate responsibility communications strategies.

We are honored to be speaking at these leading conferences and hope you can join us!

This week Sony joined a roster of companies providing in-store recycling kiosks for any electronic product, regardless of its brand. Waste Management also launched a new CFL bulb that comes packaged in a postage-paid box. Consumers can use the container to return dead CFLs to a recycling center, ensuring the bulbs, which contain a small amount of mercury, will be properly discarded. And earlier this month, the Estee Lauder brand Origins announced it will accept and recycle used cosmetic containers from any manufacturer (cosmetics packaging like lipstick tubes and shampoo bottles account for a third of landfill waste!) at all of its stores and counters nationwide. What does this mean for consumers? It’s getting easier to be “green.”

Step one was creating and providing environmentally responsible products, but the cost of a corporate environmental commitment today goes far beyond the store shelf. Companies are stepping up to help ease the common barriers which prevent consumers from proper use and disposal of their products. They are extending their commitments by offering turn-key solutions for responsible engagement throughout the product life cycle, minimizing not only the manufacturing impact of their products, but also accommodating the safe disposal or reuse of materials they contain. And frankly, they are eliminating, one-by-one, the excuses consumers have for not being green.

It is refreshing to see goodness still bursting through in this bruising world economy. Nike, for the second year in a row, has teamed with Ashoka, a nonprofit that stimulates social entrepreneurism, to search globally for sports programs fostering social change. Both share a philosophy that philanthropy should be driven by innovation. The search takes place online at GameChangers: change the game for Women in Sport.

Last year three winners each received $5,000. Projects included Grassroots Soccer, a program leveraging soccer's popularity to educate young South Africans about HIV and AIDS, and in the U.S., Sports4Kids which provides physical activity and conflict resolution training to underserved children.

This year, the contest focuses on innovative programs targeting women's issues. By tying its philanthropy to key consumer segments, brand attributes such as innovation and its sustainable commitment to building girls' and women's self esteem through sport, Nike strategically links its "goodness" to its business. In these highly challenging times, creating "shared value," as Michael Porter calls it, is a smart business decision to enhance the effectiveness of giving, linking it to core business growth strategies. Interestingly, the potential for social change, not pure commerce, excites Nike through this contest. "If sport can be a major strategy for reducing HIV prevalence, then that's huge," says Ziba Cranmer, senior manager of social innovation at Nike.

Kudos to Nike for aligning its innovation in products with its international philanthropy. It is encouraging to see its constant creation of cutting-edge, sport-social impact programs. And, it is perhaps even more encouraging to see the words of Chairman and Founder Phil Knight come to life: “The performance of Nike and every other global company in the 21st century will be measured as much by their impact on quality of life, as it is by revenue growth and profit margins.”

A new report confirms short-term price cuts do little to breed customer trust or loyalty. In fact, the Yankelovich poll says, they can actually be damaging to your brand. Seventy percent of respondents said that price cuts probably mean the brand is overpriced to begin with or the company is just trying to move old product. “People are suspicious if you significantly discount your brand,” explained J. Walker Smith, president of Yankelovich Monitor. “If you make significant changes in your value proposition it can confuse them. You have to give them reasons to buy stuff as opposed to just lowering prices as a knee jerk reaction to the economy.”

But how can companies appeal to penny-pinching consumers who, at the same time, are seeking greater value? Forbes reports on several alternative ways companies are helping recession-weary Americans get back on their feet:

• FedEx, hoping to help those affected by layoffs, offered to print 25 free resumes for customers looking for a new job
• Hyundai offered to buy back cars purchased before a layoff
• The New Jersey Nets offered free tickets to unemployed fans who posted their resume to the team’s online job site
• JetBlue is refunding tickets for customers who lose their jobs after booking flights
• CitiMortgage (subsidiary of CitiGroup) offers three months of reduced mortgage payments for newly laid-off borrowers
• Various restaurants are running “Pink Slip” promotions, including Laiola Restaurant in San Francisco who offered a free meal to anyone who was recently laid off

Rather than slashing prices across the board, these companies are zeroing in on opportunities to show they care and to make life a little easier for consumers. For their effort, they will reap the reward of having a loyal customer base once the market turns around. Consumers who take advantage of companies’ generosity in their time of need are likely to return when they do have money to spend.

Have you seen other examples of companies stepping up? Tell us about it!

Business and consumer news could hardly be more grim, but corporate environmental efforts seem to be coming through relatively unscathed. Companies are maintaining their investments and consumers continue to buy.

So why is “green purchasing” proving so resilient?

Three driving forces:

• Small Change – Companies are providing easy, cost-effective opportunities for consumers to make a difference through everyday purchases and activities (e.g, Marriott’s “Celestial Seasonings Trees for the Future” and the ongoing success of Clorox Green Works).
• True Value – Consumers evaluate much more than price when determining a product’s “value.”
• EcO-bama – The Obama administration’s continued attention to environmental policies and green stimulus spending have brought complex environmental issues into living rooms across America.

Trendspotting.com also lists 12 of its own eco-trends fueling today’s “eco-bounty” in its latest trends report, but we want to know what you think. Why does consumer environmental purchasing continue to grow despite the economy? Vote in our poll, located on the blog sidebar, and share your thoughts on what is motivating consumers to shop with the environment in mind even as they pinch pennies.

Economy does not eclipse environment. It’s not a tongue-twister; it’s the very real, very encouraging takeaway from Cone’s newly released research, the 2009 Cone Consumer Environmental Survey. The brief survey explored the environmental attitudes and shopping behaviors of American consumers during today’s economic crisis and found that American interest, shopping habits and expectations of companies to act responsibly have not been blunted by the state of the economy. Key findings include:

• Purchasing: 34 percent of American consumers indicate they are more likely to buy environmentally responsible products today, and another 44 percent indicate their environmental shopping habits have not changed as a result of the economy
• Interest: 35 percent of Americans have higher interest in the environment today than they did one year ago
• Expectations: 35 percent of Americans have higher expectations for companies to make and sell environmentally responsible products and services during the economic downturn

Another key takeaway: Even if they are not buying today, consumers are still holding companies accountable for their sustainability efforts over time. A full seven in 10 Americans say they are paying attention to what companies are doing regarding the environment today, even if they cannot buy until the future.

As Andrea Learned states on her blog, “Don’t assume your brand can give up on ‘green’ to ride out these tough times. If your customers are sticking to their environmental ways through thick and thin (or at least trying very hard to so do), they’ll expect you to do the same.”

Please click here to access the complete 2009 Cone Consumer Environmental Survey release and fact sheet.

To see Cone’s past consumer environmental research, including the 2007 Cone Consumer Environmental Survey and the 2008 Green Gap Survey, please visit www.coneinc.com/research.

The recession seems to be bringing critics of corporate responsibility out of the woodwork.  Recent media coverage has dismissed corporate responsibility as everything from "hot air" to "unsustainability."  A column in the Financial Times, in particular, made this disparaging remark, "Thank goodness, now the recession’s here we can forget all that nonsense about corporate social responsibility (CSR) and get back to trying to make some money." Diane Osgood, VP of CSR Strategy for BSR, shares a compelling counterargument to these antiquated claims on the BSR blog.  Read her commentary here.

Ethical Performance (subscription required) reports that layoffs among corporate responsibility professionals have begun to trickle in as JPMorgan, Citigroup and the global law firm Eversheds integrate their functions and make some of their lead CR posts redundant.

For a growing number of companies, however, corporate responsibility continues to prove recession-proof. Fortune reports this week that despite harsh financial realities, many major companies, including Intel, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Wal-Mart, GE and Starbucks have no plans to abandon their commitments. Intel, for example, saw its stock price fall 42 percent in 2008 and had a weak fourth quarter, but pledges to continue its green investments and its commitments to global education programs in 2009, including the recent launch of the “Small Things Challenge,” an investment of up to $300,000 in education and development in a number of countries. “You can’t save your way out of a recession,” says Intel chairman Craig Barret. “You have to invest your way out.”

A long-term vision and a refusal to allow today’s short-termism to hamper progress and future sustainability may be the driving force behind these decisions. As GE’s chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt explained at the BSR conference last November, “When we come out of this fog, this notion that companies need to stand for something – they need to be accountable for more than just the money they earn – is going to be profound.”

 What do you stand for?

Need proof that corporate responsibility initiatives can withstand the recession?  Consider this:  According to a new study from Panel Intelligence, 80 percent of sustainability leaders surveyed (65 execs from Fortune 500 companies) in November say they intend to maintain or increase spending in areas related to sustainability next year.  In fact, they reported that sustainability and clean technology spending, as a percentage of corporate revenues, is expected to increase 73 percent through 2010. 

And well it should.  Another recent study by A.T. Kearney reveals that, as a result of “ecoflation” (based on future analysis of increases in commodity prices, environmental  and governmental policy and climate situations), packaged goods companies may expect a reduction in earnings of 19 to 47 percent in the next decade if they do not implement adequate sustainability measures.  That’s nothing short of startling.  Thankfully, unlike much of the rest of the business world of late, optimism and sound business sense do not seem to be in short supply among corporate responsibility leaders of some of the world’s leading companies. 

Many people have been asking my opinion of the recent Forbes Opinion piece, “CSR Doesn’t Pay,”   David Vogel concludes that a company’s responsible business practices will not positively impact its bottom line.  He bases this on roughly evaluating a handful of Fortune 500 companies.
My response is, in short, that for every CSR proponent, there is a detractor.  Like Vogel, others have undertaken similar analyses, but the conclusions are very different:

• A 2007 Goldman Sachs report showed that among the six sectors covered – energy, mining, steel, food, beverages, and media – companies that are considered leaders in implementing environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies to create sustained competitive advantage have outperformed the general stock market by 25 percent since August 2005. Additionally, 72% of these companies have outperformed their peers over the same period.
  
• According to the Domini 400 Social Index , companies with positive ESG performance have compared stronger than the S&P over the last 18 years.

While Cone agrees that the business case for CSR cannot be directly linked to improved financial performance, there is a broader business case to be made for CSR (when done right); namely, that it can increase engagement among employees, bolster corporate reputation, lead to product innovation and differentiation, help manage risk, decrease environmental impact and contribute to solving social problems. 

At the end of the day, however, as Vogel points out and the current situation among financial institutions is a telling example, CSR is not going to save a company that has made poor business decisions.

- Alison DaSilva, EVP, Knowledge Leadership and Insights

Liz Gorman, Cone's VP of Corporate Responsibility, teamed with Amy Anderson of Starbucks at the recent 2008 IABC conference in New York to present the latest in corporate responsiblilty reporting trends and best practices.  Read what Kelly Kass, editor of Simply-Communicate.com , learned from their presentation. 

Or, view a clip of the presentation here .

In an article for the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, Ken Freitas, VP of Corporate Responsibility at Cone, talks about the rush by today's corporate citizens to tell their stories.  While a more informed conversation will advance the field, there is still reason to be wary, he warns.

To read the complete article, visit the Center's Web Site . 

The proof that corporate responsibility has a demonstrable return on investment continues to add up.  The Wall Street Journal released new research this week confirming consumers will pay a premium for products made with high ethical standards (defined as progressive stakeholder relations and environmental practices and demonstrated respect for human rights). 

Of a random survey of 97 adult coffee drinkers (admittedly, a small sample size), those who believed the coffee was produced ethically said they would pay $9.71 per pound, $1.40 more than the control group.  Perhaps more telling, consumers who were presented with information indicating the coffee was produced using unethical standards said they would pay only $5.89 a pound.  The moral of the story?  Consumers will not only reward responsible companies for their efforts, they will punish companies whose ethical standards are subpar.  This is sound support that a company’s responsible business practices can have a noted impact on sales, but the implications don’t stop there.  Cone’s own research has consistently found that, from brand loyalty to job loyalty to investments, Americans are likely to reward or punish companies for their corporate responsibility practices in a variety of ways.

This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly roundup of cause, corporate responsibility, philanthropy and volunteerism news.  To subscribe, please email skerkian@coneinc.com . 

Are bells and whistles key, or is it what’s under the hood that counts?  A recent Environmental Leader column, “CSR Reporting:  Rainbows Versus ROI” by Timberland’s Alex Hausman addresses this very conundrum that companies face as they try to determine whether powerful visuals and inspirational stories are more or less warranted than hard, quantifiable data in describing a company’s responsibility efforts.  The truth, as the article points out, is that it’s a combination of both.  We should also recognize that the CR report is just one tool around which a company can build a broader communications strategy.  As part of this strategy, Cone recommends that companies:

1. Map and prioritize stakeholder audiences: As every company faces resource constraints, this prioritization allows you to focus limited dollars on those objectives with the highest potential return.

2. Engage with stakeholders: Through meetings, surveys, e-mail and telephone feedback, find out what your stakeholders are thinking about your company's CR activities. Build in this dialogue as an ongoing part of your communications strategy.

3. Develop a CR message guide: Different stakeholders have varying degrees of CR issue knowledge and needs. By developing a comprehensive guide with key messages tailored for each stakeholder group, companies are able to deliver consistent messages that resonate with each audience.

4. Identify communications vehicles based on determined objectives: In most cases, existing vehicles may be the most appropriate way to communicate your CR commitments as stakeholders are already expecting to hear from you through those channels.

5. Execute: Communicate with multiple audiences at the same time to ensure an integrated approach. During execution, keep in close contact with the operations side of your company to make sure your company is 'walking the talk,' and you are apprised of any issues that arise, so you can respond accordingly. Use feedback from your efforts and from stakeholder engagement to evolve messaging and look for new CR opportunities.

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

What follows is an article written by Mike Lawrence, Cone's Executive Vice President of CR, for PR News .  It highlights the leading trends and insights regarding consumers, the role of business and CR regulation in the UK that emerged from 'The Responsible Retailing Summit' he attended recently in London.  

Corporate Responsibility (CR) issues are picking up steam, with expectations of businesses becoming increasingly public, especially those in the environmental sector. Consumers feel confused about the issues and the role they as individuals can play. They are looking to business to help them.

Those were major themes at an in-depth conference called 'The Responsible Retailing Summit,' sponsored by The Retail Bulletin and held in London on January 30-31. The conference provided rich detail about changing consumer attitudes, and about how businesses should structure, carry out and communicate CR efforts. It also identified some trends expected during the next few years. Smart companies should plan now to address these trends. It also spotlighted similarities and differences in the way corporate responsibility issues are evolving in the UK and U.S.

At Cone, “greenlash” and “karma offsetting” (coined by the Cassandra Report to describe those individuals who purchase carbon offsets as a way to assuage guilt about their environmental impact without actually changing their lifestyles) are just two of the new words we’re using when we discuss trends in the environmental movement.  So, admittedly, we were more than a little surprised to hear the Today Show’s Al Roker and Meredith Viera introduce an upcoming segment with the acknowledgement that they had never heard the term “greenwashing,” let alone know what it meant.  As members of the media, they are presumably more informed than the average American consumer, so their naiveté in this area is telling.  The lesson for those of us who work in this space is that we are so immersed in the news and trends, the terminology, the advances and the setbacks, that it is easy to forget not all Americans live and breathe this stuff (yet).  In this lies both the opportunity and the challenge for business and environmental organizations. 

The charge is to meet consumers where they are with simple, powerful messages, and, at the same time, drive the playing field forward through education and awareness-building.  It’s about finding the difficult balance between simplifying the information and still advancing the agenda, between not overwhelming your audience and not underestimating it, either. 

Clearly, it’s not an easy undertaking, but it’s a critical one.  While some consumers may still be in the nascent stage when it comes to the environment, they won’t stay there for long.  Companies are all vying for their attention, and sites such as the Greenwashing Index , that allow consumers to judge for themselves green claims made by advertisers, are taking hold. Those organizations that deliver credible information while demonstrating an authentic and substantial commitment to the environment will serve as trusted resources to Americans in the coming years as new environmental complexities emerge, as “greenlash” intensifies and as all things “green” become as intertwined with Americans’ lives as “pink” is with breast cancer.

-Sarah Kerkian, Insights Associate

In the final episode of my Net Impact Conference Podcast Series, I share conversations with a number of the conference's student attendees.  Their interests range from international development to the environment, but they are all similar in one key way- they are some of the most passionate and engaged young people you'll meet, and they're at the conference to learn how to merge social justice and sustainability issues with business.

If you missed my first two podcasts from this year's Net Impact conference, please check them out in our "Podcast" section.  You will also find a special "bonus" track featuring Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia.

-Carol

The millions of toys recalled this year due to lead and other hazards continue to have a long tail. While the toys may have been cleared from store shelves, they are still showing up in the donation boxes of charities across the country .  These organizations and their volunteers are now tasked with carefully sorting and inspecting holiday donations to ensure the gifts they will provide to the nation’s families in need this year will not bring more harm than holiday cheer.  Some organizations have brought in extra volunteers to assist in the process while others, such as 150 Salvation Army locations in the south, have stopped accepting toy donations altogether.  It’s a telling example of the damage that can result from an industry’s failure to effectively manage and monitor its supply chain, one that affects not only consumers, but a number of other indirect stakeholders, as well.  The consequences may be unintentional, but they are no less dangerous and far reaching. 

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

In the second episode of my 2007 Net Impact Conference Podcast Series, I interview three of the conference's presenters, including: Marcus Chung of Gap, Andrew Pierson of Resource Generation and Yasmina Zaidman of the Acumen Fund.  Each talks candidly about the passion they bring to their social responsibility careers and even share some tips on getting a job.  As Yasmina says, it's about "crossing the threshold" in life to make a positive difference in the world. 

If you missed my first podcast, please check it out under our "Podcast" section.

-Carol

Environmental news continues to dominate the media and marketplace—just this week, the Wall Street Journal issued its “ Consumer’s Guide to Going Green ,” the nation’s largest institutional investors sent a letter to Congress urging passage of a national energy bill, Wal-Mart issued its first environmental report and major retailer Kohl’s announced it will pursue LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for every store opening in 2008.  And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

As “green” has gone mainstream, Americans are increasingly looking to make a difference by incorporating environmental practices into their lives.  And, according to the 2007 Cone Holiday Environmental Study released yesterday, it seems there is no better time to capture this group of motivated consumers, 48 percent of whom will try to buy fewer gifts or holiday products this season because they are concerned about the effect their consumption may have on the environment.  Of those Americans we surveyed:

• Almost six in 10 (59%) are more likely to buy green products this year than in the past
• More than half (54%) are willing to pay more for a holiday gift or product if it is environmentally responsible
• A similar number (55%) proactively seek opportunities to buy green gifts and products around the holidays, with 42% purchasing gift wrap made from recycled paper and 32% decorating with energy efficient holiday lighting

Consumers are looking for easy ways to become environmentally responsible, particularly around the holidays.  During the remaining weeks of the season, companies should take the opportunity to clearly communicate to these motivated consumers what green gifts and other products they may purchase to lighten the environmental footprint of their celebrations.

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .