Green Street Cred: Seventh Generation and Walmart
July 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM by Knowledge Leadership
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.”
The agreement to carry Seventh Generation products in Walmart came as a shock to industry media, yet it illustrates the progress Walmart has made in breaking into the sustainability scene. As Hollender himself notes, "Walmart is not the same company it was even five years ago. It's a much different organization that has fairly dramatically and with little fanfare transformed itself into a serious sustainability leader.”
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: walmart retail corporateresponsibility seventhgeneration transparency sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
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: walmart retail corporateresponsibility seventhgeneration transparency sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
 |  |  |  |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Trash Talking Good Deeds
July 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM by Knowledge Leadership
From philanthropy to cause marketing to CSR, no good deeds went unpunished this week in opinion news. Professor Angela Eikenberry says in The Conference Board Review that cause marketing “distracts our attention and resources” from the issues. Writer Chrystia Freeland in The Washington Post called CSR a “cult” that “muddies the waters” of core business needs. The Wall Street Journal Europe’s opinion columnist Jamie Whyte writes “corporate philanthropy is tantamount to theft.”
These arguments would sting if they weren’t so tired and misinformed. Esteemed bloggers immediately went on the defensive to highlight the fallacies in these arguments, including Fast Company expert blogger Alice Korngold, who put it nicely – “CSR isn't about puppy dogs and ice cream. CSR is about conducting business with integrity and attention to the community in a way that benefits shareholders.”
Freeland and Whyte pulled the old Milton Friedman card, writing, “The job of business is to make money.” No arguments there. But this is just part of the story: corporate philanthropy, cause marketing and responsible business build reputation and drive shareholder returns. Here is even more proof: according to APCO Worldwide’s latest research, addressing business issues such as philanthropy, community engagement and energy efficiency spur reputation growth. And a better reputation translates into bottom-line benefits: the study notes that with a mere 1 point increase on its Reputation Index, the average consumer will spend an additional $133.05 every year. What will the shareholders think of this?
The big picture these criticisms are revealing is this: Cause marketing, CSR and philanthropy are so engrained in the way businesses should – and in many cases, do – operate today, that a critic can get valuable column inches just by offering a dissenting opinion. It gets attention and starts a flurry of letters to the editor, blog posts and tweets. But as long as efforts are authentic, sustainable and core to business values and operations, leading companies will rise above the dissenters, disprove the naysayers and continue to focus on meeting the demands of the increasingly conscious stakeholders with both business and societal returns. The critics have spoken, but your actions continue to speak louder.
Did you read any of these articles? What did you think?
Tags: research corporategiving corporateresponsibility causebranding philanthropy
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (3)
From philanthropy to cause marketing to CSR, no good deeds went unpunished this week in opinion news. Professor Angela Eikenberry says in The Conference Board Review that cause marketing “distracts our attention and resources” from the issues. Writer Chrystia Freeland in The Washington Post called CSR a “cult” that “muddies the waters” of core business needs. The Wall Street Journal Europe’s opinion columnist Jamie Whyte writes “corporate philanthropy is tantamount to theft.”
These arguments would sting if they weren’t so tired and misinformed. Esteemed bloggers immediately went on the defensive to highlight the fallacies in these arguments, including Fast Company expert blogger Alice Korngold, who put it nicely – “CSR isn't about puppy dogs and ice cream. CSR is about conducting business with integrity and attention to the community in a way that benefits shareholders.”
Freeland and Whyte pulled the old Milton Friedman card, writing, “The job of business is to make money.” No arguments there. But this is just part of the story: corporate philanthropy, cause marketing and responsible business build reputation and drive shareholder returns. Here is even more proof: according to APCO Worldwide’s latest research, addressing business issues such as philanthropy, community engagement and energy efficiency spur reputation growth. And a better reputation translates into bottom-line benefits: the study notes that with a mere 1 point increase on its Reputation Index, the average consumer will spend an additional $133.05 every year. What will the shareholders think of this?
The big picture these criticisms are revealing is this: Cause marketing, CSR and philanthropy are so engrained in the way businesses should – and in many cases, do – operate today, that a critic can get valuable column inches just by offering a dissenting opinion. It gets attention and starts a flurry of letters to the editor, blog posts and tweets. But as long as efforts are authentic, sustainable and core to business values and operations, leading companies will rise above the dissenters, disprove the naysayers and continue to focus on meeting the demands of the increasingly conscious stakeholders with both business and societal returns. The critics have spoken, but your actions continue to speak louder.
Did you read any of these articles? What did you think?
Tags: research corporategiving corporateresponsibility causebranding philanthropy
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (3)
YMCA Rebrands: Say Hello to the Y
July 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM by Cone
The Y’s refreshed brand represents a new day for the organization. The new name aligns with how most people refer to it, and this alignment will help the Y become “warmer, more genuine” and “more welcoming,” according to Kate Coleman, the organization’s senior vice president and chief marketing officer quoted in a New York Times article.
But does “the Y” really do a better job of representing an organization that has traditionally been known as the neighborhood “swim and gym”? Other nonprofits have changed their names (Christian Children’s Fund became Child Fund in 2008) and refreshed their brands (Girl Scouts of the USA launched its new brand strategy July 7). These updates have been, at least in part, an effort to broaden donor appeal, boost membership and compete for corporate dollars in the increasingly marketing-savvy nonprofit industry.
For other organizations, updating the external brand – perhaps adding a new visual cue or making a change to the name – is only part of the story. In the Y’s case, the new brand also includes a reorganization of programs and services, so that everything they offer rolls up to one of three focus areas: youth development, healthy living and social responsibility. This realignment will help the Y concisely define what it stands for, a critical piece of organizational DNA and yet also a daunting challenge to identify for nonprofits, like the Y, who seem to do everything.
Tags: marketing nonprofitpowerbrand100 nonprofitcausebranding campaigns
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (0)
The YMCA of the USA’s announcement that it will now be known as “the Y” has received widespread coverage, including the requisite quote from the Village People. (Let’s get this out of the way: The Village People said they will continue to perform their hit song with the full four letters.) The launch of the new brand, the organization’s first in more than 40 years, was developed to better reflect the work it does and more clearly organize its programming, according to a June 12 YMCA of the USA press release.
But does “the Y” really do a better job of representing an organization that has traditionally been known as the neighborhood “swim and gym”? Other nonprofits have changed their names (Christian Children’s Fund became Child Fund in 2008) and refreshed their brands (Girl Scouts of the USA launched its new brand strategy July 7). These updates have been, at least in part, an effort to broaden donor appeal, boost membership and compete for corporate dollars in the increasingly marketing-savvy nonprofit industry.
For other organizations, updating the external brand – perhaps adding a new visual cue or making a change to the name – is only part of the story. In the Y’s case, the new brand also includes a reorganization of programs and services, so that everything they offer rolls up to one of three focus areas: youth development, healthy living and social responsibility. This realignment will help the Y concisely define what it stands for, a critical piece of organizational DNA and yet also a daunting challenge to identify for nonprofits, like the Y, who seem to do everything.
- Kate Dyer, Account Executive
Tags: marketing nonprofitpowerbrand100 nonprofitcausebranding campaigns
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Good Competition
July 16, 2010 at 12:32 PM by Knowledge Leadership
Get your game face on because this summer, companies, government agencies and nonprofits are all offering big bucks for game-changing ideas that contribute to the greater good. Conscious consumers and innovators are suiting up to compete for the opportunity to make an impact.
Leading companies know corporate responsibility is more than just handing over a check. If some friendly competition is what it takes to captivate stakeholders and foster a sense of shared responsibility to solve pressing social and environmental issues – then game on!
Tags: engagment campaigns sharedresponsibility contests corporateresponsibility causebranding
Did you like this post? Please share it:
Email Post
Comments (1)
Get your game face on because this summer, companies, government agencies and nonprofits are all offering big bucks for game-changing ideas that contribute to the greater good. Conscious consumers and innovators are suiting up to compete for the opportunity to make an impact.
- This week, GE announced the Ecomagination Challenge, which invites inventors, entrepreneurs and startups to compete to develop the next-generation of power grid technologies. The $200 million in prize funding will be doled out in $50,000 to $500,000 increments starting this September.
- The EPA recently announced a National Building Competition, where commercial buildings will compete to shed the most energy waste. Fourteen buildings across the country have been selected to contend for the winner’s title.
- Pepsi extended its Refresh Project by issuing a special Do Good for the Gulf Initiative. Starting this week, participants compete for part of the $1.3 million in grants the beverage giant has set aside for projects that help Gulf residents.
- Also seeking to aid the Gulf crisis, the X PRIZE Foundation is developing a multi-million dollar competition for ideas that will help alleviate the effects of the BP oil spill. Although planning is still underway, oil-cleanup innovators are ramping up for what will likely be a fierce competition.
Leading companies know corporate responsibility is more than just handing over a check. If some friendly competition is what it takes to captivate stakeholders and foster a sense of shared responsibility to solve pressing social and environmental issues – then game on!
Tags: engagment campaigns sharedresponsibility contests corporateresponsibility causebranding
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
The Debate of Mandatory CR Reporting
July 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM by Knowledge Leadership
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:
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)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ... 62 << Previous Next >>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)
Home