filter by tag: transparency
The New, Naked Reality: Insights from #Whatsinyourstuff
The Naked Corporation was written over a decade ago, but there are signs all around us the prophesy is finally coming true. This was the topic of last week’s What’s In Your Stuff event, a panel discussion hosted by Cone Communications, on the topic of transparency, technology, and consumer behavior. As Dara O’Rourke, one of our panelists and the founder of the Good Guide put it, “The age of companies telling us what to believe about their products is going away.” At the same time, Dara acknowledged that this shift is more complex than simply releasing information about the footprint of products because consumer decisions are driven by “habit, status, and manipulation.”
So how are these emotional and functional needs of consumers being “manipulated” for a better world? We are seeing that linking values to both a consumer’s status and their need to belong is working. Celebrities like Leonardo diCaprio and Cameron Diaz who choose sustainability over glitz have helped make the Prius cool. Similarly, the trend of social shopping is making it possible for people to “belong” to groups who are wearing their values on their sleeves, Facebook pages, or wristbands. On the more functional side, according to Julie Wittes Schlack, another panelist and VP of Innovation and Design at Communispace, people are fulfilling their need for frugality by leveraging apps like the Find to help them find the cheapest prices or Good Guide to make sure there are no carcinogens in their sunscreen or lead in their children’s toys.
Companies and the PR agencies that advise them must prepare for this new reality because it means much more than communicating to your consumers, it means disclosing your impacts and engaging them in an authentic dialogue. Timberland, another one of our panelists, is one of the few companies that have embraced the new, naked, reality. Timberland has gone further than most companies by applying transparency at the product level and making it possible for consumers to see the environmental footprint of their shoes on their environmental ‘nutrition labels’.
The final piece of this puzzle, the piece that is fueling the entire phenomenon is technology and design. As Theo Forbath, the VP of strategy innovation at Frog design pointed out, whether its crowdsourcing, smart phone apps, QR codes, or the underlying open-source nature of the internet, all of these are major factors in enabling information to be collected and shared. Design is the icing on the cake that is making complex information accessible in simplified formats.
In coming weeks, Cone’s account staff will be digging deeper into the issues discussed at What’s In Your Stuff and the driving forces behind transparency. We will be posting clips from the panel on the blog and look forward to hearing your feedback!
-Ziba Cranmer, Vice President, Cause Branding and Nonprofit Marketing
Tags: transparency communications consumergoods consumerbehavior
Did you like this post? Please share it:
 |  |  |  |
Email Post
Comments (1)
Supply Chain Regulation Round-up
Supply chain transparency is no longer a CR buzzword, but increasingly, a legal mandate. In the past year, legislation has been enacted to address everything from conflict minerals, to human trafficking and slavery, to bribery. BSR's managing director of Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Peder Michael Pruzan-Jorgensen, notes in his recent Guardian article, “Throughout these regulations and initiatives are two threads: disclosure and due diligence, both of which require increased knowledge about the supply chain and the origin of products and services.”
It’s important to know the ins-and-outs of each piece of recent legislation because regulation from across the globe can affect business operations at home. In fact, while the new California Transparency in Supply Chain Act is state legislation, according to Doug Cahn and Marsha Dickson on CSRlive, “The act applies to nearly every major brand of consumer products sold in the United States."
Pruzan-Jorgensen's Guardian post listed a summary of U.S. and U.K. statutes focused around transparent supply chains. Here’s a round-up of legislation that companies need to be aware of:
• US Dodd-Frank Act: Along with financial reform, the Act also includes conflict mineral regulation requiring companies to determine and report whether their products contain conflict minerals from areas like the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The SEC has yet to submit final regulation on this section, but companies should expect to adapt soon. It is also anticipated the EU will soon follow suit with similar regulation.
• RoHS2: The EU Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) has been extended to prohibit the use of certain elements and chemicals in any product with an electronic function.
• California Transparency in Supply Chains Act: Requires manufacturers and retailers to disclose on their corporate websites what they are doing to eradicate slavery and human trafficking in supply chains.
• UK Bribery Act: Makes companies liable for failing to prevent bribes taking place on behalf of the company in the U.K. or abroad.
The bottom line is that whether or not your company is directly affected by current regulation, new policies may be on the horizon. And they are not to be taken lightly – violating the UK Bribery Act, for example, may result in up to 10 years in jail. Don’t wait for new regulation to hit your industry before you begin making strides towards a transparent and ethical supply chain. Be ahead of the curve and use it as a source of differentiation now.
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency supplychain
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Are QR Codes the Key to Transparency?
Functional, free and even edible, QR (quick response) codes are giving new meaning to “look behind the label.” Marketers are employing QR codes in incredibly creative ways, but one of the most powerful and practical applications may be product and program transparency. A few recent examples:
• A Boston restaurant is whipping up calamari ink QR codes to tell diners about the origins and sustainability of the seafood on their plates.
• And a Boston nonprofit is using a QR code to enhance its cause marketing promotion with iParty and Fuddruckers. The campaign links the code to Quora, a question and answer site, to create what just may be a powerful new cocktail for cause marketing transparency. When consumers scan the QR code on the campaign’s paper icons, they’ll be taken to a unique Quora page where they can post comments, questions or access a list of FAQs pertaining to the program.
The demand for detailed information about cause-related and corporate responsibility efforts is growing, while product packaging is shrinking or disappearing altogether. New media tools help bridge this gap and offer new ways to give consumers the information they need to make informed decisions. QR codes and Quora might be a little premature for all but the savviest consumers, but it is an interesting and necessary experiment in the future of customized transparency.
Tags: transparency newmedia causemarketing innovation
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
Americans Value Honesty Over Perfection In Environmental Marketing
Three years after Cone conducted its 2008 Green Gap Survey, the latest look at Americans’ perceptions of environmental marketing claims proves not much has changed. Sadly, consumers are still confused and overwhelmed, according to the 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker.
The data reveal many consumers misinterpret common phrases used in environmental marketing – thinking terms such as “green” or “environmentally friendly” indicate a positive impact on the environment (41%) – giving products a greater halo than they may deserve. Despite their misinterpretations, consumers don’t take environmental claims lightly. Most say they will punish a company by boycotting a product (71%) or even a company’s entire suite of products (37%) if they find an environmental claim to be misleading.
A recent controversy at risk of consumer backlash is the case of S.C. Johnson’s “Greenlist” label on its Windex and Shout products. A civil lawsuit raised questions about consumer deception, saying the Greenlist label implied third-party verification, when in reality it is a self-imposed label and rating system. Although the 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker found that a majority of consumers (51%) interpret an environmental “certification” on-pack to mean it has been verified by a credible third party, the Greenlist case proves this is not always an accurate assumption.
There is hope for marketers taking an authentic look at their companies’ environmental impacts – a majority of consumers (75%) say a company does not need to be environmentally perfect, as long as it is honest and transparent about its efforts. But consumers do want companies to help them better understand the environmental terms they use (75%), even by providing detailed information on-pack so they can make informed shopping decisions at the point of purchase (79%).
Americans today are interested in environmentally responsible products, yet they clearly need more information to make the right decisions. Generic claims will no longer cut it among discerning consumers; therefore, corporate claims must be accurate and properly aligned with consumer perceptions. Companies must be transparent to garner trust or risk facing the consequences.
The full 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker is free to download on the Cone website.
Posts under the Knowledge Leadership byline come from Knowledge
Leadership team members Sarah Kerkian and Casey Brennan. Follow us on
Twitter: @ConeLLC, @SarahKerkian, @CaseyB
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency environment sustainability marketing labels research cone
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
100% Recycled Paper: The Big Reveal
Last month, Cone wrote about a beta tool called Sourcemap. Below, Cone’s vice president of corporate responsibility, Liz Gorman, takes a deeper look at Office Depot’s plans to offer more transparency to customers, and how it relates back to the company’s own environmental commitments.
In a recent article, Office Depot and one of its suppliers, New Leaf Paper, revealed plans to launch a new kind of app using Sourcemap, which will allow purchasers to trace the source of their 100 percent recycled office paper. The intent is to demonstrate that 100 percent recycled paper originates from a waste paper collection facility and not some pristine forest. For some consumers, accessing this app may be just the impetus they need to spend the premium for 100 percent recycled paper and have peace of mind. If you’re curious about how Sourcemap works to trace paper back to its source, watch the short video in this GreenBiz article.
One thing the Sourcemap video doesn’t answer is how 100 percent recycled paper (meaning it’s made from 100 percent post-consumer recycled content) stacks up against paper made from 100 percent virgin fiber or a blended mixture of virgin and post-consumer content. I think buyers will need to be convinced that 100 percent recycled paper has, when all is said and done, a smaller environmental footprint than other options. Personally, I’m convinced that 100 percent recycled paper is a better option, but I had to do some digging and turn to the experts to find out. Office Depot may want to consider this before officially launching Sourcemap later this year.
As Marc Gunther pointed out in his post, all of this is aimed at selling more recycled paper. Not only will this benefit the bottom line, but it may also help Office Depot demonstrate its environmental leadership around three stated commitments: Buy Green, Be Green and Sell Green. I did some probing to find out more about Office Depot’s environmental responsibility and how 100 percent recycled paper fits into the mix.
The first thing I discovered is that lots of things get tracked and measured at Office Depot, nearly 50 key performance indicators – everything from the estimated average pounds of CO2 per customer delivery, to the number of ink and toner cartridges that customers recycle. So I wasn’t surprised to see that Office Depot tracks its internal paper purchases, including the average amount of post-consumer recycled content that’s in the paper it uses. And guess what? The paper Office Depot used in 2009 for internal purposes contained, on average, 28.8 percent post-consumer recycled content – down from 32.4 percent in 2008. Not a lot of 100 percent recycled paper being used there. (No reporting available yet on 2010 purchases.)
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I do believe when a company pushes an environmentally preferred product by creating a special barcode on the package so buyers will watch a video on their mobile device and be convinced of the product’s benefits, then the company should make the same choice. But I’m also a realist, and I know cost is king, even when you want to be an environmental leader.
- Liz Gorman, Vice President
Tags: corporateresponsibility environment transparency sustainability supplychain
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Out with Transparency: In with Transparent Brands
This week the Sustainable Apparel Coalition – comprised of big brands such as Patagonia, Timberland and H&M – announced efforts to build a database of the environmental impacts along the apparel production supply chain. Eventually, the database will help ensure every garment sold has a consumer-facing sustainability score, clearly communicating impacts to the purchaser in a form they understand.
Companies in the coalition come from different points along the sustainability journey, yet each is willing to share operational challenges and collectively focus on issues that matter to the industry. Engagement with other companies, nonprofits and government organizations to realize shared solutions is a win for all involved. More importantly, it brings corporate operational challenges and innovations to consumers in a relevant and approachable way.
Although transparency can be scary for companies and most organizations are still in the nascent stages, building a transparent brand is the new path to better business and brand trust. Cone’s senior vice president, Jonathan Yohannan, shares his thoughts on what it means to be a transparent brand – including 10 essentials for building one – on our website.
Have you been impressed by how a transparent brand has made operational issues accessible and relevant to consumers or other stakeholders? We welcome you to share your examples below.
Posts under the Knowledge Leadership byline come from Knowledge
Leadership team members Sarah Kerkian and Casey Brennan. Follow us on
Twitter: @ConeLLC, @SarahKerkian, @CaseyB
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency labels sharedresponsibility
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Whole Foods Adopts Transparent Animal Welfare Ratings
This summer I’ll celebrate a decade of being vegetarian (yeah, I’m getting old). Being a veggie isn’t always easy, and I can’t say I haven’t cheated on occasion (for some reason, I really craved buffalo wings when I first started), but year after year the cause has stayed important to me.
But this post isn’t about me; it’s about Whole Foods’ new animal welfare ratings. Last month, the world's largest retailer of natural and organic foods announced the launch of the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards, a new labeling system designed to educate consumers on the living conditions of the meat (pigs, chickens and cattle) they eat.
What does it all mean? The ratings are determined by independent third-party certifiers using auditors trained by the Global Animal Partnership (GAP). Essentially, the higher the step, the better the conditions for the animal. Step 1 equals “no crates, no cages,” meaning the “animals live their lives with space to move around and stretch their legs.” Step 5+ means the animal has enjoyed Step 1-5, including a “pasture-centered” life and living only on one farm.
Though organizations like PETA have been remarkably silent, others have questioned the transparency of these standards, including Certified Humane which compares GAP with other ratings available to Whole Foods. To be fair, Certified Humane offers a competitive rating system to GAP’s so it’s bound to be pushing for the use of its standards, but some of the issues it raises are worth noting. Even at Step 5+, the best rating, GAP does not have standards for slaughtering, does not guarantee animals are allowed dark/sleep periods and does not ensure animals receive disease prevention health care.
Compassion is the number one reason I choose to avoid meat, and, as of 2003, 96% of Americans agree animals deserve "some" protection from harm and exploitation. While I would love to see greater transparency in Whole Foods’ current initiative and a shift from publicizing humane treatment to requiring it across its supply chain, I appreciate the operational challenges that must exist and personally applaud the company for taking this important first step.
In the meantime, I’m eager for Whole Foods to apply these standards to other animal products and bi-products and look forward to a day when Whole Foods expands the program to include Step 6: No animal life was sacrificed to produce this product.
- Jillian Wilson, Account Supervisor
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency labels retail activism
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
Technology Supporting Product Transparency
For consumers who are increasingly concerned about how the products they buy are sourced and made – there’s a (m)app for that. Sourcemap, developed by a team from the MIT Media Lab, is an open-source, volunteer-driven website that maps the supply chains of consumer goods. Individuals will soon be able to determine the carbon footprint of all the goods they consume, from orange juice to Xbox 360s. Sourcemap is in the early stages of adoption and the list of goods that have already been mapped is limited but, fortunately, a partnership between Office Depot and New Leaf Paper is bringing the tool to mass market attention.
Image via Sourcemap.org
Sourcemap is not alone. A new era of technology-aided tools is bolstering corporate transparency and helping consumers understand the source and make-up of their favorite products. Good Guide provides a mobile barcode scanning application that works in real time, telling consumers the health, environmental and social impacts of products. For those who want a more qualitative experience, there is Social Yell – an online community that allows users to search and share information about socially responsible companies.
Disclosure of this caliber can be scary, but it can actually work to a company’s benefit. Cone’s research shows consumers want to be engaged in helping companies become more responsible and tend to be more forgiving of those that have put forth the effort to build a dialogue. Transparent brands will undoubtedly reap the greatest reputational benefits, helping to foster trust and loyalty among current and potential consumers.
Posts under the Knowledge Leadership byline come from Knowledge
Leadership team members Sarah Kerkian and Casey Brennan. Follow us on
Twitter: @ConeLLC, @SarahKerkian, @CaseyB
Tags: supplychain environment enagement newmedia sustainability corporateresponsibility transparency
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
Not Just a Crisis Issue – Transparency as a CR Opportunity
The heated discussion around the Taco Bell lawsuit for using only 36 percent beef in its tacos has been wrongly framed. Although many view it as a crisis communication challenge, it is in fact a symptom of the company’s misaligned corporate responsibility priorities. 
Taco Bell’s punchy response – “Thanks for Suing Us” – reaffirmed its lack of serious commitment to the issues that matter most. Stakeholders today are demanding greater transparency and assurance from the companies they patron. This lawsuit should serve notice to several players in the quick-serve industry – be transparent and honest about ingredients, whether it’s 87 percent turkey or 100 percent beef.
Today’s consumers will embrace Transparent Brands – those that demonstrate a laser-focus on issues that matter, openly share operational challenges without spin and make a commitment to honest engagement as a path to innovation.
Taco Bell can’t promote 100 percent beef like other quick-serve competitors. But the company’s response, indicating that consumers don’t care or expect less, isn’t true or sustainable. Competitors that can offer better ingredients should pounce. Transparency is the new brand opportunity.
- Jonathan Yohannan, Senior Vice President
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency health crisis qsr
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Interactive Tools to Communicate Complex Issues
As interconnected as our world is today, it is still difficult to understand the impact of a natural disaster or serious issue from afar. To help bridge this divide, organizations are creating interactive online tools to better connect individuals to global issues, making them more relevant than ever before. Two disaster-related examples caught our eye this week:
IfItWereMyHome.com – a visualization tool that allows users to overlay the map of an area affected by disaster (the BP oil spill or Pakistan flood) atop a map of their own communities. For example, we can compare the devastated area in Pakistan to our office location in Boston, which shows the flood area would extend along the entire east coast. Suddenly, we realize the true extent of this disaster in proportions we can understand. Once users are attuned to the scope of the disaster, the site offers some further information and opportunities to donate.
The Haiti Aid Map – a collaboration of InterAction, BCLC and FedEx – details NGO efforts in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake. The map pinpoints 486 efforts underway by 77 different organizations, allowing visitors to search by topic, community or organization and learn more about what efforts and progress are happening within each. As the challenges in Haiti persist a year after the earthquake, donors may be questioning whether their dollars are being used effectively. Ideally, this site will bring a heightened level of transparency and coordination to the many efforts on the ground and ensure the continued flow of support.
Interactive “on-the-ground” tools like these are a trend to watch in 2011 as the demand for transparency and accountability in the cause space grows. But they should not be restricted to disaster response. It’s a technique that other large national or global causes should also adopt, as it invites consumer engagement and promotes organizational transparency and accountability – both things sometimes in short supply.
Tags: transparency global trends causebranding crisis newmedia engagement
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
Partnering to Build Your Brand
I recently experienced a missed brand-building opportunity at Staples when I tried to salvage some files from a defunct computer. What happened was a great example of how companies need to make their social contributions clear and actively partner with their customers for even greater impact.
I took an IBM desktop circa 1997 (!) with a frozen hard drive and forgotten passwords to the Tech Services Desk at my local Staples, where I had a GREAT customer experience – the staff was thorough and the job got done quickly for a reasonable price. I would definitely go back and this transaction helped evolve how I thought about the Staples brand (solutions provider for my life vs. seller of pens and paper).
The missed brand-building opportunity came when the tech offered to recycle my computer. Terrific – computers should definitely not end up in landfills. Just one catch: It would cost me $10. I experienced a moment of consumer confusion – it wasn’t clear if Staples was making money off me, breaking even or picking up part of the tab. I ended up walking out with my old IBM, feeling skeptical about Staples’ green effort and figuring I could find a way to junk it responsibly that wouldn’t cost me $10. This ambivalence was cemented when I discovered my town has a program where I could recycle my computer for free (Staples’ website explains that a “recycling fee is charged to cover handling, transport, product disassembly and recycling”).
I applaud Staples’ effort to reduce the environmental impact of technology obsolescence. But here’s the miss: Staples had a chance to cement my loyalty by wrapping a successful, well-executed business transaction in a successful corporate responsibility experience. They missed an opportunity to partner with me to fulfill broader responsibilities vs. simply charging for a service. My good opinion of Staples might have been solidified if they had followed up the offer to recycle with an overture to partner – and put some skin in the game by offering to help me defray the cost of recycling somehow, either through cash, in-store credit, or even a coupon for future use back in their store.
Lesson learned: At a time when consumer expectations are higher than ever, and more and more brands are linking themselves to social causes, it is critical for companies to be fully transparent about the contribution they are making and to approach their customers as genuine partners.
- Craig Bida, Executive Vice President
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency sustainability retail
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (3)
FTC Green Guides – What the Proposed Changes Mean for Marketers
On Wednesday, after more than two years of long-anticipated review, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released proposed changes to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (aka Green Guides). The issues addressed in the two-page synopsis of changes are summed up simply by FTC Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, who said, “…what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things.”
The proposed changes aim to mitigate consumer confusion by requiring companies to provide factual evidence to back up environmental claims. During a media briefing on Wednesday, the commissioners noted they anticipate enforcement of environmental marketing to decline (there were seven enforcement actions taken in 2009), believing many companies want to comply and are seeking more guidance.
The FTC’s rules may change over time, but Cone’s guiding principles for effective environmental marketing stay the same:
Be precise. Make specific claims that provide quantitative impacts.
- Americans say quantifying the actual environmental impact of a product or service is influential in their purchasing decisions. In addition, the more precise an environmental claim, the more convincing Americans believe it to be.
- Americans say providing a clear connection between the product/service and the environmental issue (i.e., a hybrid car and lower emissions) influences their purchasing decisions.
- A website is great, but based on the FTC’s latest comments, be sure to also provide proof at point-of-sale.
- For example, showing an automobile parked in a virgin forest may be seen as insensitive, while a product growing out of a tree may be seen as exaggeration.
Cone’s Chief Reputation Officer, Mike Lawrence, provides his initial reactions to the FTC Green Guides proposal in a video response and post on our blog. What is your reaction to the proposed Green Guides revisions? Share your thoughts by voting in our latest What Do You Stand For? poll.
Tags: Greenwash FTC corporateresponsibility currentevents labels transparency sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
New FTC Environmental Marketing Guidelines – First Impressions…
After a series of hearings and two years of anticipation, the FTC today issued much-needed updated guidance on how to responsibly market and advertise the environmental impact of products.
The top line is this: If a company wants to make a claim, it has to provide data at point of purchase to prove the claim. This means no more general claims, like “We're eco friendly,” unless the marketer defines exactly how, with facts, on the package.
The Commission is proposing to tighten rules for claims about a product’s degradability – by saying how fast something has to degrade and by banning use of the term if a product is headed for a landfill or incinerator.
The FTC also wants to limit the use of the word “recyclable” to describe a product; if recycling programs aren’t widely available where the product is sold, the marketing needs to admit that.
There are similar newly proposed requirements for more specifics around third party environmental “seals of approval,” and claims that products are “free of” certain ingredients or are made with renewable materials or renewable energy.
Here at Cone, overall, we think the Commission's proposed changes are a step in the right direction to solve a problem about which we filed comment to the FTC in its 2008 workshops. We know first-hand from doing environmental communications for companies and from our research that consumers are interested in environmental messages, but are confused about and often misunderstand what those messages mean.
By requiring companies to provide proof of claims, and to provide it at point of purchase, the FTC is taking a step toward helping consumers better understand whether something is good – or just less bad – for the environment and whether the benefit can actually happen when they dispose of the package.
There are, however, some holes in what the Commission is proposing. For example, they did not directly take on the word “sustainable,” one of the most overused and poorly understood environmental marketing terms.
There will no doubt be much debate about the FTC's proposed revisions in the weeks to come. The Commission is welcoming public comment until mid December and then hopes to issue a final version of the new Green Guides by the middle of 2011. Those will then become the “guardrails” for how future marketing on environmental issues can take place.
- Mike Lawrence, Chief Reputation Officer & EVP
Tags: corporateresponsibility currentevents transparency sustainability labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Imitation: Compliment or Cause for Confusion?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But Susan G. Komen for the Cure isn’t taking such compliments lightly. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Komen is taking legal action against several nonprofit organizations that have mirrored its brand attributes, including the “for the cure” term popularized by the breast cancer power brand. Nasty or necessary?
With more than 1.5 million nonprofits in the U.S. alone, nonprofit power brands must work harder than ever to protect their brand positions and assets. At the same time, small nonprofits are leveraging the recognizable branding to break through for similar causes. Some may see Komen’s actions as “picking on the little guys,” however others, including Komen, note that brand-borrowing leads to donor confusion. The article depicted one such case where two veteran-focused nonprofits engaged in a three-year legal battle over $2.2 million in donations thought to be misguided. Millions in erroneous donations is nothing to sneeze at. Consumers are often confused by cause messages, and at times may pull out their checkbooks for the wrong nonprofit.
But can any one nonprofit claim ownership of a color, symbol or phrase broadly associated with a cause movement? Think of the pink ribbon – it has become synonymous with breast cancer support thanks to pioneers Avon and Komen. And although 79% of Americans believe a memorable color, logo or icon helps the cause stand out, overuse has led to the pinking of October, watering down any individual efforts and leading to consumer confusion about whether a pink ribbon equals a financial contribution to the cause.
But imitation is not unique to cause brands or nonprofits. Corporations protect their brands all the time through trademarks and often trademark infringement lawsuits. Are the rules any different for nonprofits, which are focused on benefiting an issue rather than satisfying shareholders? We often expect nonprofits to act more like businesses, so they can maximize reach and impact for the cause, yet are also taken aback when they exert control over their brands like a company would. How can Komen strike the balance of protecting its brand without coming across as a nonprofit bully? Tell us what you think by sharing your comments.
Tags: causebranding nonprofitcausebranding transparency nonprofitpowerbrand100
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (2)
Green Street Cred: Seventh Generation and Walmart
Getting your CPG product on Walmart shelves has long stood as the holy grail of retail visibility. Yet some brands have intentionally avoided Walmart, one being Seventh Generation whose founder Jeffrey Hollender once claimed that "hell would freeze over before Seventh Generation would ever do business with Walmart." As Fast Company reporter Ariel Schwartz noted this week – “hell now sells ice.”
Walmart is making strides toward transparency, aligning well with Seventh Generation’s commitment to do the same. Most notable in the retailer’s push for sustainability disclosure is its membership in the Sustainability Consortium, organized to bring together diverse stakeholders to collaboratively drive innovation and improve consumer product sustainability. Walmart’s main objective moving forward is to develop and implement a Sustainability Index for all products it carries, making it easier for consumers to understand the environmental impacts their purchases.
For Walmart, the agreement marks yet another milestone on its journey from big-box bully to sustainability sultan. For Seventh Generation, it will accelerate efforts to compete with mainstream products and fulfill its mission of radical transparency and inspiring widespread conscious consumption. And let’s not forget about consumers – the partnership will create a widely accessible way to make environmentally conscious purchases. Perhaps Walmart’s tagline will one day read “Save money (and the environment). Live better (and sustainably).”
Tags: corporateresponsibility seventhgeneration transparency sustainability walmart retail
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
2010 Cause Marketing Forum Recap: Engagement is Key
I had the pleasure of attending the 2010 Cause Marketing Forum Conference in Chicago this month, and as always, David Hessekiel and his team did a great job encouraging conversation on hot topics in the industry.
Many of the discussions I heard and was a part of at the conference - and afterward - have been around legal issues (Ed Chansky scared everyone in a good way), transparency (Cone's Mike Lawrence helped to simplify it for everyone) and choosing the right partners (Komen & KFC is still being talked about heavily).
Ultimately, the common thread running through all of these topics is the need to engage stakeholders in your cause branding and corporate responsibility activities. At Cone, we call this "Shared Responsibility" and feel strongly that it's where the industry needs to go.
To have the greatest social impact, companies must move beyond philanthropy and transactional cause marketing toward supporting issues that are material to business growth and allow for stakeholders to be engaged in collaborative solutions.
Margaret Morey-Reuner from Timberland (Cone client) spoke directly to this concept during the “CSR Meets CM” dinner, sharing how Timberland has actively engaged consumers through its Earthkeeper program to provide input and be "Voices of Challenge."
No one company or nonprofit can do it alone. By embracing Shared Responsibility, not only can you better identify and avoid potential legal, transparency and partner selection issues, but you can also empower stakeholders to help drive innovation and become true advocates for your efforts.
- Chris Mann, Account Director
Tags: causebranding cone engagement sharedresponsibility conferences transparency
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Cause Marketing's Dirty Little Secret
Consumers demand it. Cause marketers extol it. Yet some of even the best-known programs fail to live up to it. It’s time to fess up- lack of transparency is the cause marketing industry’s dirty little secret.
It is by no means a new issue, but it’s coming to a head as cause programs multiply in the marketplace and consumers and the media expect answers (fewer than half of consumers think companies and nonprofitsare providing enough details about their partnerships). For this reason, transparency in cause marketing was the focus of a keynote presentation Cone’s Chief Reputation Officer, Mike Lawrence, shared yesterday at the Cause Marketing Forum in Chicago. The landscape is replete with state commercial co-venture regulations and advertising disclosure laws, but these can vary by location and are rarely enforced. To better navigate this tricky terrain, Mike suggested marketers, nonprofits and agencies should remember to think like a consumer and ask a simple question to ensure clarity in their cause marketing promotions: “What is supposed to happen when I buy this – and how do I know it did?”
Language such as “proud supporter of” (Does this insinuate a flat donation? Does the consumer still believe his or her purchase will contribute to this donation?) or “X percent of gross profits” (Will any consumer know what this translates to?) leaves much room for misinterpretation. Instead, strive to provide the program details up front (Who does this benefit? How much of my individual purchase will go to the cause? How long does the program run?) and confirm the total investment in the issue over time so consumers are confident their participation made a difference.
“What is supposed to happen when I buy this – and how do I know it did?” It’s a seemingly simple question – but are you asking it?
Tags: campaigns transparency bestpractices causemarketing causepromotions
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Rising to the Transparency Challenge
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.
Tags: global corporateresponsibility research transparency
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Issue of the Day: Transparency
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.
Tags: corporateresponsibility currentevents transparency newmedia
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Eco-Flair
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.
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency trends labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Setting Standards: Walmart Makes A Move
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.
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency walmart timberland labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Cause Video: Dawn Saves Wildlife
We’ve discussed powerful cause videos in the past, but Dawn’s latest cause commercial is once again tugging at our heart strings. The spot, which shows how Dawn dishwashing liquid can be used to safely wash animals affected by oil spills, coincides with its latest cause promotion. For every bottle of specially marked Dawn purchased and activated online, the company will donate $1 to organizations like The Marine Mammal Center and The International Bird Rescue Research Center.
Dawn nailed many best practices for cause videos with this commercial – it’s the right mix of emotional, uplifting and transparent. Visit Dawn’s wildlife site for more information about this program.
Tags: causebranding campaigns transparency donation
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
The Phantom Cause
It’s troubling, as Dress for Success founder Nancy Lublin argues in her recent Fast Company editorial, that intentionally or not, some companies are learning to cause market without the cause. Lublin cites Macy’s “Shop for a Cause” last fall, which promoted its cause-related shopping day through full-page newspaper ads saying simply, “in support of nonprofit groups.” In reality, Macy’s raised more than $9 million dollars through the promotion which benefited several important charitable organizations (listed on its Web site), but consumers reading the ads wouldn’t know that. The nationwide event benefited local organizations, so logistically, communicating these details may have been complicated. Yet that doesn’t preclude Macy’s from providing its nonprofit beneficiaries with the recognition they deserve. In the end, the organizations benefited from the funding, but they did not have access to the immense awareness and brand building power that a well-marketed cause partnership should provide.
Clearly, insufficient details can quickly undermine the credibility of even well-conceived cause programs and may eventually threaten consumer support. For example, a majority of consumers (91%) want to hear about corporate efforts in supporting causes, but far fewer (58%) believe companies are providing sufficient details about their cause marketing efforts. Mitigate this communication disconnect by providing the detail and transparency consumers and other stakeholders need to believe in your campaign. In many states, legal regulations dictate what must be disclosed, but in general, sufficient details should include the nonprofit partner(s), the amount of the donation, the donation cap and/or the portion of each sale which will go toward the cause, and the length of the promotion.
Tags: causebranding nonprofit transparency
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
