Mainstreaming Sustainability

Sustainable Life Media has a great article about Tesco’s (UK’s largest supermarket chain) CEO Sir Terry Leahy wanting to “create a mass movement in green consumption” by making it easier and more affordable for customers to buy green products.

A few years ago I would have put this down to a publicity stunt. I was verging on anti consumerism and toying with the idea of boycotting large companies. Now, I applaud this initiative whole-heartedly.

For every person who decides to boycott a company like Tesco’s, there are tens of thousands who choose to shop there. The only way people are gong to change their consumption habits is if they are given viable alternatives to the way they consume now. The greatest opportunity to do that is through organizations that touch the greatest amount of people. The single most effective method of changing the way we consume is to change the way we produce.

The majority of people are driven to consume based upon price, availability, convenience and habit.

Organizations such as The Rocky Mountain Institute have known this for years and as a result have spent their energy on engaging producers and researching viable alternatives to the way we produce, yet we are only now seeing the start of the shift.

This idea has been rattling around in my head for a bit, but the person who first articulated it for me in a way that brought it all together was Carl Pope from the Sierra Club. I was attending a talk at the ad:tech conference in San Francisco in April this year entitled Green Marketing in the Digital Age and he was one of the panellists.

Carl was defending Sierra Clubs decision to attach their seal of approval to Clorox’s new Green Works cleaning products label. He asked the audience if they had ever heard of several “green” products that Sierra Club had put their label to in the past. Most people had not. The reason given by Carl was they had all had the best intentions, they were formed on the best principles with the soundest eco practices, yet they had failed to take off because they did not have the backing of mainstream distribution and marketing, nor the muscle or financial backing to produce on a scale that made it a viable prospect cost wise for consumers.

“Green” products have to stop being a sub category. They need to be brought into the mainstream to compete with all other products. For this to happen their case has to be built upon established rules of business offering competitive advantages over other mainstream products. They need to be available, affordable and convenient. These are the principles that Tesco have built their empire on.

 

http://twitter.com/ajmunn

I Want it All

“I want it all and I want it now,” written by Queen and released in the late 1980’s, sums up where we are today in the US. We relate everything to self. “What does it mean to me?” “What can I get out of it?”

We apply this mantra to our lives with gusto. This same philosophy applies to our approach to the environment and sustainability. “Yes, I want to be green, but it must not inconvenience me. It must not stop me from living the lifestyle I am striving for.”

Supporters of the environment and sustainable practices find themselves selling the financial benefits of “going green” over and above the obvious moral and global need to change the way we abuse the environment and those third world communities that slave to meet our consuming need for cheap imports. We have found that in order to save the environment, we needed to give it a face. The face we have chosen is the face of the individual consumer. This is an easier sell.

There are many real and compelling added benefits to “going green”. The savings for organisations can be enormous. The reduction of waste, streamlined work practices and supply chains, employee health and moral…. all these make for a compelling argument. The personal or organizational savings have become the “Green Story.” A green revolution is being staged, but the central characters are not the ice caps, the Amazon Forest and global warming. They are profit, corporate efficiencies, and immediate personal and family health benefits.

No wonder there is a growing green scepticism, a green fatigue. The message we are communicating is a self-serving message. Green means money. It is linked to profit and manipulation. Our very principles are being toyed with and not very subtly either. Yet this is the world that we live in: You are not gong to change people’s habits without first showing them a personal benefit.

So how do we counter this scepticism? What should we, as Green Advocates, be doing to ensure that the message gets through? Is it just a means to an end? Are we diluting the message through this cynical approach?

“Going green” should not be a means to an end. Rather, we should direct and formulate persuasive arguments to our audience that are based in integrity. By all means use the economic “hook”—but your audience must truly buy into a holistic sustainability and green practices paradigm.

This is especially relevant for organizations that have already chosen to adopt green practices. It does not matter what their motivation is, the role out of their green practices has to be well executed if it is to be believed by their customers/stakeholders. For that to happen, the organization has to be sincere and they need to communicate that sincerity. Here are a few checkpoints that an organization can look to implement when “going green”. To a lesser degree we could all do well following these principles.

  1. Be Transparent
  2. Define your green story
  3. Create an internal Green integrated communication plan
  4. Crete an external Green integrated communication plan.
  5. Implement your strategy in a phased approach
  6. Have measurable data that can account for the company’s sustainable efforts and green product claims
  7. Above all, do not lie or mislead.
    Here is a link to tcg’s Landmines to Avoid when Going Green one pager that maps this out in more detail.

    http://tcgagency.com/about/LandminesToAvoid_080416.pdf

    There is a tension between our necessity to educate through stealth and the absolute need to keep the green message intact. The messenger has to be squeaky clean or the message gets tainted too.