filter by tag: sustainability
Putting Stakeholders to Work
From the raw materials producer to the end consumer, we all know sustainability is ultimately everyone's responsibility. And while companies are feeling the pressure from a variety of stakeholders to address sustainability issues, many are turning the tables to make sure key stakeholders are holding up their ends of the bargain, too.
Unilever Australia has engaged its own internal stakeholders by giving each and every employee a new, very important job title: "Head of Sustainability." To drive the point home, the company has distributed new business cards and job manuals to all employees in Australia and New Zealand, outlining how sustainability is core to everyone's job. And as Bart King of Sustainable Life Media reports, garnering full employee engagement is paramount, since Unilever has plans to double its size, while reducing its environmental footprint by half.
Although supply chain accountability is nothing new, the bar is also being raised for business suppliers. For the first time, the Carbon Disclosure Project, a consortium of more than 50 brands, is integrating a supply chain scoring system into its program. Members originally reported on their own carbon emissions, but the scope has expanded to the companies they do business with who must also analyze their own practices. Now businesses along the supply chain can choose to report and benchmark their progress or risk losing important buyers.
Gone are the days where the EH&S office tackled sustainability alone. Now, it's a concerted effort both inside and outside the company, where through job titles and metrics, everyone is being held accountable for making progress toward a more sustainable world.
Tags: sustainability employees supplychain stakeholders
Did you like this post? Please share it:
 |  |  |  |
Email Post
Comments (4)
Companies Partner for Progress
Sometimes it requires a fresh perspective, expert insight or creative spark to meet ambitious sustainability goals or tackle material issues. That’s why many companies today are embracing corporate responsibility and enlisting some interesting allies along the way.
Companies across the world are inviting partners to help solve some of their toughest business issues. On Sustainable Life Media, Bart King recently cited two examples of inventive collaboration. McDonald’s and Target* enlisted the help of the Environmental Defense Fund’s “Climate Corps” – a group of MBA and MPA fellows who work with individual organizations to unlock energy efficiency savings. Altogether, the group was able to identify $650 million in savings for 78 participating companies, cities and universities. Anheuser-Busch formed a strategic alliance with another company, General Electric, to provide expertise in cutting emissions at its facilities in China. A cross-company “innovation team” is currently tackling issues head-on at one plant and is slated to implement improvements across the region. Nike is even foraying into venture capital in order to spark some new ideas in alternative energy usage and manufacturing efficiency. Olga Kharif and Matt Townsend of Bloomberg Business Week recently interviewed John Taylor, head of research for the National Venture Capital Association, who explained, “With research budgets getting cut, a wider range of companies are now looking to startups to help them maintain their innovation.”
Companies today face incredible pressure from stakeholders to tackle tough sustainability issues. Consumers, employees, investors, activists, customers and others expect to see progress – but fortunately, none are saying companies must achieve it alone.
*Cone Client
Tags: innovation sustainability partnership
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
New Wave of Enlightened Packaging
Have you ever had “wrap rage”? Do you find yourself fighting a clamshell package armed with blades, brains and brawn and still ending up on the losing side? Why are we still in the packaging dark ages?
Only a year ago, The New York Times reported slow uptake on new, easier-to-open, more sustainable packaging options. Though there was some momentum online, big box retailers balked at changing bulky packaging due to theft concerns; yet high oil prices, consumer demand and a growing focus on sustainability have forced companies to change their tune. Today, The New York Times is able to print a different story, one in which retailers are dropping petroleum-based clamshell packages for groundbreaking and eye-catching new options.
Walmart now sells Swiss Army Knives in tamper-evident cardboard and laminate packages instead of the traditional clamshell; Target* is reducing plastic in yogurt, lightbulbs and socks. Dell is experimenting with chemical-free packaging made with agricultural by-products and Puma, which first created the “Clever Little Bag," is making packaging strides again with a shopping bag that dissolves in hot water and breaks down in a home composter. And, these companies are not alone. According to Visiongain, a business information provider, the sustainable and green packaging market will see steady growth in mature markets with above average growth in developing nations in 2011 and 2012.
Companies are now recognizing value is not just what’s inside the shopping bag. In addition to pleasing consumers and other stakeholders, more sustainable packaging can mean a 30 percent reduction in transportation costs and a 30 percent savings in material and labor. The time has come to say goodbye to frustrating clamshells and other wasteful materials and hello to a new wave of enlightened packaging.
*Cone Client
Tags: packaging sustainablepackaging design sustainability green
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Do Execs Grasp Green?
It may not be news that consumers are often unaware of corporate environmental initiatives, but would it surprise you to hear corporate executives may also be out of touch? The 2011 Gibbs & Soell Sense & Sustainability Study revealed 88 percent of FORTUNE 1000 executives report their companies are “going green.” Yet, only 29 percent believe a majority of other businesses are committed to sustainability.
The disconnect is more than a little surprising considering the momentum in the space. New commitments are announced almost daily – from the world’s biggest brands to its smallest enterprises – across product lines, business functions and industries. Environmentally responsible products increasingly line our shelves, corporate environmental stories flood our inboxes and green conferences fill our calendars. So why aren’t executives recognizing these efforts among their peers? Are they truly unaware or are they downplaying other companies’ initiatives, at the same time, perhaps, as they are overestimating their own?
It’s difficult to know what is at the root of this data disconnect, but each of these explanations is troubling and signals a deep communications problem in environmental responsibility. Forget consumers for a moment. Executives should take a look inward and consider whether they are accurately assessing and communicating the depth of their own companies' environmental commitments and whether they are staying abreast of others’ efforts. A little green envy among peers will foster innovation and benefit us all.
Tags: research sustainability green corporateresponsibility executives environment
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
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: sustainability marketing labels research cone corporateresponsibility transparency environment
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: transparency sustainability supplychain corporateresponsibility environment
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
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: enagement newmedia sustainability supplychain environment transparency corporateresponsibility
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: sustainability retail corporateresponsibility transparency
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: FTC Greenwash labels transparency sustainability corporateresponsibility currentevents
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: transparency sustainability labels corporateresponsibility currentevents
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
CR Innovation: Reduce, Reuse, REPLACE
“Reduce, reuse, recycle” is a well-known mantra of socially conscious consumers. It offers a variety of choices leading to the same intention; to lessen personal impact on the environment. Today we see business adhering to a similar model as they work to cut back on harmful materials and develop new products and services. A few recent approaches:
Reduce: Many organizations are looking to benefit the environment by cutting back on the raw materials they use. P&G announced this week it will transition its portfolio of powder laundry detergents to a new compacted formula beginning in 2011. The reduction in materials will save energy and water needed to produce and consume the products, as well as reduce the packaging size – therefore reducing fuel and saving the company additional costs.
Reuse: Other organizations are looking at how to improve their products by reusing old materials in creative new ways. For example, Electrolux has created its Vac from the Sea initiative, which removes and reuses plastic currently polluting oceans to manufacture its latest line of products. Not only is the plastic waste a source of low-cost materials, the process will clean up threatened marine habitats and raise awareness for the plastic waste issue.
Replace: A few standout companies are lessening their impact by choosing completely new materials. While some companies have cut ties with unethical palm oil suppliers, Unilever announced this week it plans to replace palm oil entirely with algae-derived algal oil. The alternative will be incorporated into the organization’s food, soap and lotion products – all of which currently contain the controversial palm material.
We applaud organizations making efforts to reduce their impact on the environment. But we must offer a standing ovation to companies that develop or source alternatives, without compromising quality or failing to meet consumer demands. When all factors can be satisfied without harmful materials, it’s a win for the company, the consumer and the environment.
Tags: environment sustainability corporateresponsibility
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Playing Nice for a Sustainable Future
When it comes to corporate responsibility, sharing with others is at times more valuable than keeping things to yourself – even if it means playing nice with your competitors. In the last couple of weeks, we’ve observed an impressive number of organizations coming together to address long-standing barriers to sustainability. The efforts have been diverse across sectors, yet all require a new level of collaboration with others in their fields.
Solving for Companies: The Accounting for Sustainability Project (A4S) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), two reporting organizations, collaborated to form the International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC). The mission of the new group is to create a global framework for integrated reporting that brings together financial, environmental, social and governance information in a clear, concise, consistent, comparable and integrated format. The IIRC hopes to make this integrated reporting mandatory for large companies.
Solving for Suppliers: Companies within the Outdoor Industry Alliance developed the Eco Index, an environmental assessment tool that provides an environmental footprint benchmark to organizations throughout the supply chain. The tool will help suppliers identify areas for improvement and make informed sourcing and product life cycle decisions.
Solving for Manufacturers: Greenbiz.com and UL Environment are collaborating to create sustainability standards for manufacturing organizations, called ULE 880. The standards will guide manufactures in several areas of sustainability, including governance, environment and community engagement. The draft is currently open for public comment, allowing people to submit thoughts and ideas about the design of the standard – a true demonstration of co-creation.
Solving for Small Businesses: Green America, a nonprofit member organization, announced its Green America Exchange (GAEx), a barter network for small businesses that “promotes trade between America's sustainable and socially responsible enterprises.” The GAEx will help provide its members with a flexible way to purchase goods and services without spending cash, giving a needed boost to small businesses at the heart of America's green economy.
Until now, many sustainability efforts have been individual, disparate and inward-facing. The work of these groups to come together to co-create solutions to problems they all face will push the sustainability needle forward and help eliminate many of the inefficiencies organizations face when they take the journey alone. The road ahead may be difficult to predict, but we foresee playing nice as paying off.
Tags: sustainability trends sharedresponsibility corporateresponsibility
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
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: sustainability walmart retail corporateresponsibility seventhgeneration transparency
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
The Debate of Mandatory CR Reporting
In 1989, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, nonprofit organization CERES developed the CERES Principles (previously “Valdez Principles”), which introduced specific environmental reporting guidelines. These values became the driving force behind the Global Reporting Initiative standards, which, today, 77 percent of the global 250 use to disclose environmental, social and governance data.
Corporate Responsibility (CR) reporting – often referred to as sustainability reporting – is a voluntary tool used to exercise transparency and proactive engagement on key issues. But what if it was mandated, much like financial reporting? Would this be good for companies? Society? These questions were up for debate in a recent BSR article (membership required), which followed a conversation sparked during the annual conference hosted by the organization. Experts from all sides are debating the implications of such mandates. Highlights include:
Pros of Mandating CR Reporting:
- Gives sustainability the same weight of importance as financial performance
- Creates an equal playing field for companies – requiring all to disclose their practices
- Drives corporate action for positive environmental change
- Encourages companies to simply “check the box” – which goes against the value of Shared Responsibility
- Presents challenge to itemize issues material to all companies across all sectors – therefore, hard to create a standard set of reporting criteria
- Puts liability on companies to ensure accuracy
The question also remains about whether reporting can be an effective tool to meet the demands of all stakeholders. Whether you are for or against reporting mandates, Cone’s research shows consumers are looking to companies to solve societal ills. Most (91%) want companies to communicate their commitments, yet two thirds (67%) of consumers are confused by the messages companies use to talk about their commitments. The challenge for companies today is to create reports or other communications that engage and meet the demands of a range of audiences, including those looking for credible data and those seeking the story behind each CR program.
Reporting is no longer about checking the box. So perhaps it’s less important to debate whether reporting should be mandatory, but rather how CR reports should be executed to meet varied stakeholders’ needs for transparent, yet digestible and relevant information.
Tags: engagement sharedresponsibility corporateresponsibility sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (2)
Marks & Spencer Stay on CR-Point with ‘Plan A’
Is the sustainability message sustainable? This is the question posed for a session Cone will lead today for The Conference Board, and as many of us in this space know, the answer is an unabashed “yes.” For those still unconvinced, here are a few supporting points:
- Investment in CR Steady: 86 percent of companies say investments in green products and green product development will be the same or higher in 2010 than 2009. (GreenBiz.com)
- Consumer Expectations Remain High: 85 percent said their expectations of companies to make and sell environmentally responsible products and services during the economic downturn was the same or higher. (Cone)
- Reporting on the Rise: Nearly 40 percent of firms on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index filed non-financial reports last year, a one-third jump over 2008. (Corporate Register)
- Experts Agree Sustainability Works: 88 percent of global thought leaders agree that improving sustainability performance improves overall brand image. (GlobeScan)
There are many telling examples that showcase how sustainability is not just holding steady, but actually gaining steam, but yesterday’s Environmental Leader highlighted a particularly compelling case. U.K.-based Marks & Spencer launched Plan A in 2007, with 100 sustainability-focused commitments to achieve in 5 years. The program has effectively weathered the economic turmoil to stay on point to meet its 2012 goal. In fact, the company has achieved 62 of its original targets and is slated to achieve all except seven by 2010 – two years ahead of its original schedule.
The company this year ALSO added 80 new or extended commitments with a goal of becoming the world’s most sustainable retailer by 2015. The icing on the sustainability cake is that not only is the company meeting or exceeding its original goals, Plan A became cost positive in 2009. This year, Plan A generated a $73 million dollar profit that was reinvested in the company. And if there's one thing that makes a corporate initiative sustainable, it's a financial return.
See Marks & Spencer’s “How We Do Business Report 2010” for complete details about its commitments, including candid stakeholder feedback about the activities – and, yes, responses from the company on how it’s addressing these concerns.
Tags: sustainability conferences bestpractices campaigns research corporateresponsibility cone economy
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
