By Caitlin Looby from the Akron Beacon Journal • Reposted: March 19, 2023
It’s the middle of March and the Great Lakes are virtually ice-free.
Ice has been far below average this year, with only 7% of the lakes covered as of last Monday — and no ice at all on Lake Erie. Lake Erie’s average ice coverage for this time of year is 40%, based on measurements over the past half-century. The lake typically freezes over the quickest and has the most ice cover because it’s the shallowest of the five Great Lakes.
But communities along Ohio’s north coast, including Cleveland, Sandusky and Port Clinton, have seen considerably less ice forming on Lake Erie in recent years.
No ice isn’t a good thing for the lakes’ ecosystem. It can even stir up dangerous waves and lake-effect snowstorms. So, what happens when the lakes are ice-free? What does it mean for the lakes’ food web? Is climate change to blame?
Little ice cover can be disastrous
This winter has already proved how dangerous lake-effect snow can be.
At the end of November, more than 6 feet of snow fell on Buffalo, New York, which sits on the shores of Lake Erie. A few weeks later on Dec. 23, more than 4 feet of snow covered the city and surrounding areas once again. The storm resulted in 44 deaths in Erie and Niagara counties, which sit on Lakes Erie and Ontario, respectively.
Cleveland and Sandusky reside on the shores of Lake Erie as well. The 2022 storm that swept the region on Dec. 23 dropped relatively little snow, only about 2-4 inches, but created dangerous conditions nonetheless.
In some places in Northeast Ohio, temperatures dropped from nearly 40 degrees to zero and below. Wind chills fueled by hurricane-force winds dragged the temperature even lower to minus 30 or even 35 below zero. This storm was the first time in almost a decade that the Cleveland Weather Forecast Office issued a blizzard warning. A 46-vehicle pileup on the Ohio Turnpike near Sandusky claimed four lives.
During stormy winter months, ice cover tempers waves. When there is low ice cover, waves can be much larger, leading to lakeshore flooding and erosion. That happened in January 2020 along Lake Michigan’s southwestern shoreline. Record high lake levels mixed with winds whipped up 15-foot waves that flooded shorelines, leading Gov. Tony Evers to declare a state of emergency for Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha counties.
And while less ice may seem like a good thing for the lakes’ shipping industry, those waves can create dangerous conditions.
The Great Lakes are losing ice with climate change
The Great Lakes have been losing ice for the past five decades, a trend that scientists say will likely continue.
Of the last 25 years, 64% had below-average ice, said Michael Notaro, the director of the Center on Climatic Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The steepest declines have been in the north, including Lake Superior, northern Lake Michigan and Huron, and in nearshore areas.
But this also comes with a lot of ups and downs, largely because warming is causing the jet stream to “meander,” said Ayumi Fujisaki Manome, a scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research at the University of Michigan who models ice cover and hazardous weather across the lakes.
There is a lot of year-to-year variability with ice cover spiking in years like 2014, 2015 and 2019 where the lakes were almost completely iced over.
No ice makes waves in the lakes’ ecosystems
A downturn in ice coverage due to climate change will likely have cascading effects on the lakes’ ecosystems.
Lake whitefish, a mainstay in the lakes’ fishing industry and an important food source for other fish like walleye, are one of the many Great Lakes fish that will be affected, said Ed Rutherford, a fishery biologist who also works at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.
Lake whitefish spawn in the fall in nearshore areas, leaving the eggs to incubate over the winter months. When ice isn’t there, strong winds and waves can stir up the sediment, reducing the number of fish that are hatched in the spring, Rutherford said.
Walleye and yellow perch also need extended winters, he said. If they don’t get enough time to overwinter in cold water, their eggs will be a lot smaller, making it harder for them to survive.
Declining ice cover on the lakes is also delaying the southward migration of dabbling ducks, a group of ducks that include mallards, out of the Great Lakes in the fall and winter, Notaro said. And if the ducks spend more time in the region it will increase the foraging pressure on inland wetlands.
Warming lakes and a loss of ice cover over time also will be coupled with more extreme rainfall, likely inciting more harmful algae blooms, said Notaro. These blooms largely form from agricultural runoff, creating thick, green mats on the lake surface that can be toxic to humans and pets.
Lakes Erie and Michigan are plagued with these blooms every summer. And now, blooms cropping up in Lake Superior for the first time are raising alarm.
“Even deep, cold Lake Superior has been experiencing significant algae blooms since 2018, which is quite atypical,” Notaro said.
There is still a big question mark on the extent of the changes that will happen to the lakes’ ecosystem and food web as ice cover continues to decline. That’s because scientists can’t get out and sample the lakes in the harsh winter months.
“Unless we can keep climate change in check … it will have changes that we anticipate and others that we don’t know about yet,” Rutherford said.
Caitlin Looby is a Report for America corps member who writes about the environment and the Great Lakes. Reach her at clooby@gannett.com or follow her on Twitter @caitlooby. Beacon Journal reporter Derek Kreider contributed to this article.
Influencers on social media have long been known for pushing products and promoting brands for cash or perks. However, a new trend is emerging on social media, with the hashtag “de-influencing” gaining popularity.
The de-influencing movement is all about discouraging purchases, and it’s gaining traction among social media influencers. In part, the conversation is around a rejection of overconsumption.
“It’s become another part of influencing,” says brand collaborator coach Kahlea Nicole Wade. She has taken to social media to post about de-influencing to her followers.
Wade has been vocal about de-influencing on her platform. She believes that telling someone not to buy something is the same as telling them to buy it, as it’s still a form of influencing.
Under this new trend, some influencers are advocating for their followers to swap expensive products for less expensive alternatives. By doing so, they are encouraging a cheaper purchase while still promoting products that align with their values.
According to social media expert Ruby Kristen, there are several factors contributing to the de-influencing trend. Firstly, the economy is a significant factor. With financial uncertainty on the rise, people are being more cautious with their spending.
Secondly, people are starting to question whether the products they’re buying are worth the money.
Lastly, transparency is becoming increasingly important to social media users, and they’re demanding more accountability from influencers.
The de-influencing movement is an interesting departure from the traditional influencer model. As influencers continue to encourage their followers to make more conscious and responsible purchases, it will be interesting to see how brands respond and whether this trend will continue to gain momentum.
By MARY RIDDLE FROM TRIPLEPUNDIT.COM • Reposted: March 18, 2023
We know shoppers are increasingly interested in more sustainable products, and new research indicates many are ready to leave their standby brands behind. Half of all U.S. consumers, including 70 percent of millennials, have changed food and grocery brands based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations, according to new polling.
For its latest sustainability benchmark report, the research technology company Glow surveyed 33,000 U.S. adults to get their take on the ESG performance of more than 150 food and grocery brands. Across the board, consumers report changing their spending habits to better align with their personal values — and forward-looking brands are reaping the benefits. Almost 90 percent of respondents believe it’s important for businesses to be environmentally and socially responsible, and two-thirds said they’re willing to pay more for products that support vulnerable groups and communities.
“It is vitally important for companies to contribute to supporting society and the planet. And there is a growing body of evidence that doing so is more than the right thing to do, it is good for business,” said Julia Collins, CEO of Planet FWD, a carbon management platform for consumer brands, in a statement. “This report provides further evidence … that those who are leading in consumers’ minds are already reaping the commercial benefits and are best placed for future success.” Indeed, 8 in 10 respondents said they feel more loyalty to purpose-driven brands.
ESG performance is correlated with revenue growth
Glow also found a positive correlation between ESG performance and revenue growth. Even in a troubled economy with a cost-of-living crisis, environmentally- and socially-responsible companies are seeing the economic benefits of standing for their values: 20 percent of consumers rank sustainability in their top three considerations when shopping at the grocery store, and 10 percent of millennials said sustainability is the single most important factor when making a purchase.
Additionally, while 70 percent of consumers are actively switching food and grocery brands to save money, many consider sustainability a key reason not to do so, particularly among younger shoppers.
“Now more than ever, if brands want to retain and win consumers, they must stand for something,” Mike Johnston, managing director of data products at Glow, said in a statement. “All consumers are looking for ways to save money. They will need a compelling reason why they shouldn’t walk away from your brand for a cheaper alternative. Along with quality, sustainability is a key barrier to change, especially for millennials.”
It’s worth noting that what consumers view as “sustainable” will vary based on the product. Consumers report that plastic and waste issues are of greater importance in the household goods department, for example, while health and wellbeing is a top concern for consumers when choosing beverages and beauty products.
Still, across all categories, products with ESG-related claims on their packaging grew an average 1.7 percent faster than those without. Labels and messaging associated with regenerative agriculture, plastic-free products, cruelty-free operations, water footprint, and renewable energy caught consumers’ attention the most.
Consumer expectations are high
U.S. consumers widely perceived the food and grocery industry as a leader in corporate sustainability, Glow’s data revealed, but the industry still faces significant barriers to meeting consumer expectations in a few key areas. For example, almost a third of responding consumers are dissatisfied with the industry’s efforts to reduce emissions, mitigate climate change, protect wildlife and ensure the welfare of suppliers.
While being misaligned with consumer expectations is never ideal for a company or sector, this gap presents an opportunity for brands to re-engage with this growing segment of consumers and stakeholders. By aligning ESG priorities with consumer expectations, companies can take advantage of a growth opportunity, while reducing risk and improving impacts on the environment.
“There’s a role of education here that’s critical for businesses,” Tim Clover, founder and CEO of Glow, told TriplePundit. “Consumers really want to understand the issues in more detail, to understand some of the science and the lengths to which companies are going to solve these problems. Companies that are brave enough to go and take the time to explain the depth of these issues and educate the market, they’re leading. They’re winning.”
By Jerry Anderson, Dean and Professor of Law, Drake University via The Conversation • Reposted: March 16, 2023
It’s expensive to pollute the water in Colorado. The state’s median fine for companies caught violating the federal Clean Water Act is over US$30,000, and violators can be charged much more. In Montana, however, most violators get barely a slap on the wrist – the median fine there is $300.
Similarly, in Virginia, the typical Clean Water Act violation issued by the state is $9,000, while across the border in North Carolina, the median is around $600.
Even federal penalties vary significantly among regions. In the South (EPA Region 6) the median Clean Water Act penalty issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office is $10,000, while in EPA Region 9 (including California, Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii), the median is over six times as high.
We discovered just how startling the differences are in a new study, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal. My colleague Amy Vaughan and I reviewed 10 years of EPA data on penalties issued under the Clean Water Act.
The degree of disparity we found in environmental enforcement is disturbing for many reasons. Persistent lenient penalties can lead to lower compliance rates and, therefore, more pollution. At the extreme, a lax enforcement regime can lead to environmental disasters. Disparate enforcement is also unfair, leaving some companies paying far more than others for the same behavior. Without a level playing field, competitive pressure may lead companies to locate in areas with more lenient enforcement.
There is a relatively simple solution, and another good reason to implement it: These disparities may violate the U.S. Constitution.
Why such big differences?
We think the main reason for the differences is that the EPA has not fulfilled its duty to require robust state enforcement.
Many federal environmental statutes – including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and toxic substances laws – enable the EPA to delegate enforcement to state agencies. In fact, state agencies undertake the vast majority of enforcement actions of these federal laws.
However, the EPA is supposed to delegate enforcement only to states that are deemed capable of taking on this responsibility, including having the ability to issue permits and conduct inspections. Importantly, the states must have laws authorizing an agency or the courts to impose sufficient penalties on violators.
Federal laws like the Clean Water Act helped end corporate practices of pouring toxic wastewater into rivers, as this paper plant was doing near International Falls, Minn., in 1937. Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images
Most state delegations occurred long ago, in the 1970s and ‘80s, shortly after Congress passed these major environmental statutes. In 1978, EPA decided that it would require states to have a minimum of $5,000-per-day penalty authority before they would be delegated enforcement power for the Clean Water Act. Forty-five years later, that required minimum is still the same.
In contrast, the Clean Water Act gives the EPA and federal courts much higher penalty authority – it started at $25,000 per day and, because of congressionally mandated annual inflation adjustments, had risen to $56,540 by the end of 2022.
That difference shows up in the fines: We found the average penalty issued by states is about $35,000, while the average penalty issued by the federal EPA is over five times as high at $186,000. The median state penalty is $4,000, while the median federal penalty is almost $30,000. While the EPA tends to be involved in the most serious cases, we believe low state penalties can also be traced to more lenient state penalty provisions.
There is also a wide disparity among state penalty statutes. At one end, Idaho law limits civil penalties to $5,000 per day, while Colorado’s law allows for penalties of up to $54,833 per day.
In some cases, penalty differences might have a legitimate explanation. However, the degree of disparity among statutes and penalties that we found with the Clean Water Act suggests the U.S. doesn’t have uniform federal environmental law. And that can run afoul of the Constitution.
A question of unconstitutional unfairness
The EPA has the power to require states to have more robust penalty provisions, more in line with federal penalties. The EPA also can provide better guidance to the states about how those penalties should be calculated. Without guidance, virtually any penalty could be justified.
As an environmental law expert, I believe the U.S. Constitution requires EPA to take these steps.
A basic tenet of fairness holds that like cases should be treated alike. In federal criminal law, for example, sentencing guidelines help limit the disparity that can result from unlimited judicial discretion.
Unfortunately, environmental law doesn’t have a similar system to provide uniform treatment of pollution violations by government agencies. Extreme penalties, at both the high and low ends, may result.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that disparate fines can reach a degree of randomness that violates the fairness norms embodied in the due process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
In a case in the 1990s, the Supreme Court determined that a $4 million punitive damage award in a complaint involving only $4,000 in actual damages violated the due process clause. The court held that the amount of punitive damages imposed must bear some relationship to the actual harm caused by the conduct. Moreover, the court noted that punitive damages must be reasonable when compared to penalties imposed on others for comparable misconduct.
I believe the same test should apply to environmental penalties.
Unless we have some uniform system of calculating penalty amounts, the discretion allowed results in vastly different penalties for similar conduct. Our study focused on the Clean Water Act, but the results should trigger more research to determine whether these issues arise in other environmental areas, such as the Clean Air Act or hazardous waste laws.
The comparatively lenient enforcement we discovered in some states is not only unfair, it’s ultimately bad for the environment.
The Stakeholder Model of Purpose. Graphic: CONSPIRACY OF LOVE
The Stakeholder Model Of Purpose: How Cause Marketing, CSR, Sustainability, DEI And ESG Can Operate Harmoniously In This New Age Of Purpose. By Afdhel Aziz, Contributor, Co-Founder, Conspiracy Of Love, And Good Is The New Cool via Forbes. Reposted: March 16, 2023
One of the biggest questions in the global movement of business as a force for good is how the different disciplines of CSR, ESG, sustainability, cause marketing, and diversity and inclusion all fit with the idea of Purpose.
I propose this simple model to show how they can all work in harmony.
Purpose is the Next Digital
A good analogy to start with comes from the quote ‘Purpose is the next Digital’ by Max Lenderman. In the same way that businesses had to transform themselves in every aspect (from the supply chains to their marketing) with the arrival of digital technology, the same evolution is happening with the advent of Purpose.
We see the emergence of the term ‘Purpose’ – the overarching umbrella term now increasingly being used to describe the idea of business as a force for good – in much the same way as we see the term ‘Digital.’ Just as ‘Digital’ now covers a myriad of different channels and technologies (from CRM, to supply chain management, to social media), so too does Purpose now encompass a wide range of different disciplines that preceded it (like CSR, ESG, DEI, etc).
Moving from Shareholder to Stakeholder Capitalism
The evolution of business we are seeing has also often been described as a move away from purely Shareholder-driven capitalism (where only the needs of investors were taken into account) towards a more Stakeholder-driven model (where the needs of multiple stakeholders including employees, consumers, investors, communities and the planet are also considered).
As such, mapping different manifestations of Purpose against these stakeholder groups provides a simple way to understand how they can all work in harmony, towards the higher order purpose.
Purpose at the core: The higher order reason for a company’s existence that inspires action to profitably solve the problems of the world. This exists as the core organizing principle of a truly Purpose-driven company, acting as a North Star around which to align all of the following.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity (DEI) is an Employee-focused manifestation of Purpose, ensuring that there are systems and processes in place in order to ensure a culture of belonging and opportunity, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability or neurodiversity. Inclusion should be baked into every aspect of the employee experience from recruitment to retention to Governance. If done right, it can not only lead to employee motivation and engagement but also innovation that leads to inclusive growth, through identifying new opportunities that less diverse cultures cannot envision.
Of course, DEI is only one manifestation of Purpose as it pertains to employees: there are so many more avenues (from inspiring personal purpose, to volunteering, giving, innovation and more generally, building it into the talent value proposition (TVP) and activating it at every stage from recruitment to onboarding to retention and career planning.
Cause marketing (or Purpose-driven marketing) is the legacy term for the manifestation of Purpose towards Consumers. This has now blossomed into many forms beyond its original basic models of the past.
This could take the form of initiatives that engage consumers via simply buying the product (eg TOM’s famous 1 for 1 model or Product (Red) which helped raise money for HIV/AIDS prevention.
At retail, this could manifest in a portion of revenue from products going to good causes (for instance, see Chips Ahoy raising money for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America).
Or indeed in digital or physical activations (for instance, Airbnb’s Open Homes initiative which invited hosts to donate their homes to refugees and victims of natural disasters).
Corporate Social Responsibility (or CSR) is the manifestation of Purpose towards the Communities a company serves – whether they be geographically contextual (like helping communities in the cities the company is based in) or issue focused (like The North Face funding non-profits that help make the outdoors more diverse via their Explore Fund grant).
This has always been a form of corporate philanthropy that a company has practiced in a more ‘defensive’ mode to deflect criticism of them not being a good corporate citizen. But in recent years, progressive companies have seen the benefit of treating CSR in a more enlightened way. By representing the voice of community to the company, and building deep relationships with non-profits and other partners, it can become a vital force helping drive authenticity, innovation and growth.
Sustainability is the manifestation of Purpose towards the Planet, pertaining to everything from how a company utilizes resources efficiently (like reducing their carbon footprint, stripping plastic out of their supply chain or managing waste) to how it obtains the resources (eg agricultural or mineral) with an ethical supply chain that is respectful not only to the Earth but the people who help them obtain it (eg farmers)
ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) is the manifestation of all of the above in a codified way towards Investors and Shareholders, in a transparent and measurable way, in a way that allows for comparison between companies. Despite attempts to politicize and demonize it, when done correctly it can become a useful tool to help articulate Commitments the company is making in service of environmental and social goals (people and planet) in an accountable and tangible way.
The key to success in this new world of Purpose is orchestration. When all these disparate disciplines are re-aligned around a powerful and inspiring Purpose, the effect is so much stronger than if they were focused on a myriad of different objectives and issues. They become parts of an orchestra playing a harmonious single theme rather than instruments operating on a discordant solo basis.
Sustainability strategy can be complicated. Here are five key elements to creating a successful one. By Mike Hower from GreenBiz.com • March 14, 2023
Strategy is a term thrown around without much thought or rigor. And this sometimes seems doubly true in the world of corporate sustainability. As more companies embark on their sustainability journey, everybody seems to be talking about the importance of creating a sustainability and ESG strategy — yet what this means exactly remains nebulous.
At its core, strategy is about choices. In a world of limited time and resources, it’s about deciding what to do and what not to do because you have a clear vision of what you want to achieve.
To create some clarity on this important topic, I gathered several sustainability and ESG leaders from across industries for a panel at GreenBiz 23 called “The Non-Negotiables: 5 Key Facets of a Strong ESG and Sustainability Strategy.” The session included Gail Grimmett, senior vice president of sustainability and corporate iInnovation at Delta Air Lines; Annabelle Stamm, director of sustainability strategy at Edison Energy; Blake McGowan, solutions executive at VelocityEHS; and Nancy Mahon, senior vice president of global corporate citizenship and sustainability at The Esteé Lauder Companies.
The breakout room was packed (standing room only, like many of the GreenBiz 23 sessions), with hundreds of attendees curious to learn more from and help contribute to our conversation. After much debate and discussion, the panelists and I — with heavy input from the audience — discussed five key facets of a strong sustainability strategy. Here they are:
1. Be agile, and integrate sustainability into your corporate strategy
The best sustainability strategy is a business strategy that advances sustainability. That’s to say, in a perfect world, a company’s business strategy is focused on creating long-term social, environmental and financial value — making a separate sustainability strategy redundant.
“We always say that we’re trying to work ourselves out of a job,” Mahon said. “But I don’t think we’ll ultimately be able to do that.”
At The Esteé Lauder Companies, the organization integrates sustainability into its business strategy by assigning senior executives to committees covering the environmental, social and governance pillars. The head of supply chain is involved with environment, human resources with social and the CFO with governance. While the committees are led by people at the highest levels, they are made up of practitioners.
We’re all in this together, and in a role that requires some sort of disruptive thinking.
Delta also used a committee system to better align its sustainability strategy with business strategy, Grimmett said. “We’re all in this together, and in a role that requires some sort of disruptive thinking.”
While a company might have a solid sustainability strategy, the world is changing so fast that flexibility must be baked in. All of the panelists agreed that agility and adaptation is critical to sustainability strategy success.
2. Set targets, and know how you’ll measure progress
The next non-negotiable practice is establishing clear targets and a plan for getting there. While setting targets is easy, establishing the right ones isn’t always so simple.
Setting fuel efficiency targets, for example, can be tricky, according to Grimmett, because the airline can’t always directly control every factor impacting fuel efficiency. That’s why Delta has several different councils that encourage integration of all the players responsible for improving fuel efficiency. This could include everyone from airport operations control, which might cause an airplane to burn more fuel when requesting it fly a holding pattern, to technical operations teams that might make technical adjustments to planes to improve efficiency,
“In some ways, we have control over nothing and influence over everything,” said Grimmett.
While many companies set 2030 or 2050 targets, they must also remain focused on the immediate needs of running a business. Setting shorter-term milestones can help companies stay on track and also encourage disruptive technology, Grimmett said. Often, the technology doesn’t yet exist for companies to meet their ambitious sustainability targets, and creating milestones can help unlock entrepreneurial innovation to meet the moment, Grimmett said.
3. Data quality over quantity
We live in an era where sustainability data is plentiful, but its quality is questionable. Rather than focusing on collecting as much information as possible, sustainability teams should focus on finding the right data, the panelists said.
“Good data is fundamental to a successful sustainability strategy,” Stamm said. “Data that drives decarbonization is key.”
We don’t have decades to collect and analyze data, the panelists agreed. We need metrics that can be acted on immediately, so we can implement measures that drive decarbonization and advance sustainability goals.
4. Bring your stakeholders along for the ride
Sustainability teams tend to be small with limited immediate spheres of influence — to be successful, they must rely on stakeholders throughout the organization. One of the best ways to do this is by engaging these folks during strategy creation.
With the language of sustainability being wonky, sustainability leads need to translate things into a language that people understand and link it to a strong value proposition, Stamm said. It’s also important to take cultural differences into account. When it comes to sustainability action, the United States is very carrot-driven while Europe tends to be more about the stick, she added.
The key is to identify those key people who are going to be the influencers … and who is going to be your biggest champion.
“The key is to identify those key people who are going to be the influencers … and who is going to be your biggest champion,” McGowan said. These internal champions will help ensure that your sustainability strategy is effectively implemented, he said.
Another key point is that often when an internal stakeholder says “no” to something, it really means they need more information, McGowan added.
5. Ensure philosophical consistency throughout the organization
Toward the end of the panel, a member of the audience suggested a fifth non-negotiable: achieving a philosophical consensus throughout your organization: To be successful, the same sustainability ethos must be maintained across departments and teams.
If, for example, a company has a strong corporate sustainability strategy yet has a government relations strategy that doesn’t match, this weakens the organization’s overall effectiveness for achieving its sustainability ambitions.
At these words, the audience erupted into applause and the panelists nodded in agreement. Show comments for this story.
By Kristen Philipkoski, Contributor from Forbes.com • Reposted: March 13, 2023
Eco-conscious fashion is on the rise, but one of the most environmentally damaging industry practices—overproduction—is still common.
Fashion brands routinely produce up to 40% more clothing than they think they’ll ever sell, according to severalreports. Clothing companies hope overzealous consumers will surprise them and buy more than forecasts predict. But, as frenzied as shoppers can get, they never buy all the goods manufactured.
As a result, many designers destroy extra merchandise to prevent it from winding up on the racks of off-price retailers and potentially devaluing the brand. Burberry was outed for burning $37.8 million in clothing in 2018. Chanel, Louis Vuitton, and Coach have also been caught in the act.
A new online marketplace called Otrium is providing a safe space for designers to sell their extra, previous-season merchandise at up to 70% off without diluting brand identity. With more than 400 brands already signed on, it’s the responsible shopper’s best kept secret—but it may not be that way for long.
“Every person I tell about this is like ‘how have I not heard of this before?’ This is the year we plan to make that no longer the case,” Otrium’s president and COO Zuhairah Scott Washington said during a recent press call.
Otrium was founded in 2015 by Milan Daniels and Max Klijnstra in Amsterdam and launched it’s American presence in 2021. Business in the states is quickly ramping up, with new brands consistently signing on—Closed and Rosie Assoulinebeing two of their most recent additions. In 2022, Otrium featured more than 5 million products, grew revenue by 1,000% year over year, and grew new members by 500%.
Its growth is thanks to its coveted designers and great prices, certainly, but also because of the unique business to business solutions it offers brands. The company prides itself on giving its partners access to tools that allow them to control their merchandizing, creating less of a warehouse feel and more of a luxury experience.
Brands can also track customer behavior and sales in real time.
“Partners are floored by the level of detail and data that they get about their businesses on our platform,” Washington said. “We really want them to see Otrium as their outlet and another channel for them… to help make better decisions about replenishing on our platform or even reproductions from their own core line of clothing.”
Otrium hosts both mass brands like Diane von Furstenburg and Tommy Hilfiger alongside higher-end (in the Designer Edit section) and cultish ones: Farm Rio is viral on Instagram, Reiss and Belstaff products are hard to find in the states, and Daily Paper is an edgy, inclusive favorite of the avant-fashion set, just to name a few examples.
This is not an entirely new concept—brands like Bluefly, Gilt, and RueLaLa pioneered the concept of selling past-season designer goods at lower prices—and all of those brands struggled to become profitable, eventually pursuing acquisitions in the early 2000s.
But Otrium hopes to differentiate its business by focusing on the sustainability angle and becoming a go-to for both brands and consumers who want to make more conscious consumption decisions.
Otrium also facilitates discovery across brands and hopes to guide customers to current-season, full-price products.
“We connect our consumers to a curated selection of brands they either already know and love, or brands they can discover with a great incentive to try them at a discount,” Mariah Celestine, Otrium’s U.S. General Manager said in an emailed comment. “This ease of discovery may also lead customers to pay full price for a brand’s regular collections, thereby preventing additional fashion waste and furthering our purpose.”
Celestine added that 60% of Otrium customers have tried a brand they’ve never heard of just because it’s on sale.
Fast Company recently named Otrium one of the most innovative companies of 2023 in the fashion and apparel category, “For convincing luxury brands to sell, rather than burn, last season’s merchandise.”
Industry experts say innovation is key to solving fashion’s pollution problem.
“Fashion has always been a hotbed for innovation, as well as a catalyst for social change; it’s time to leverage the industry’s creative energy to design better business models—ones that operate within the means of the planet rather than a take-make-waste approach,” wrote Angela Adams, a senior sustainability consultant at Quantis in 2021. “These could include rental, resale and repair schemes; pre-order models of production, print on demand and a departure from the traditional seasonal cycle; and a greater emphasis on product quality and durability, which is often compromised to fuel the industry’s unsustainable business model.”
Otrium’s tagline states that it wants to ensure “every piece of clothing that’s made is worn.” It’s a lofty goal, considering the literal mountains of unwanted clothing clogging African beaches, and considering Otrium does not partner with the fast fashion brands responsible for much of that detritus.
Otrium’s “code of conduct” requires partners commit to several environmental, social and government factors including fur-free garments, prohibiting human trafficking, child labor, slavery, discrimination in all forms as well as abiding by laws and regulations.
“Our aim is two-fold: to empower brands to improve their environmental impact and connect them to a base of conscious shoppers, and to help consumers build a timeless wardrobe of quality pieces that can be worn again and again, thus reducing the reliance on a ‘trend-driven’ consumption cycle,” Washington said. “This is not what fast fashion companies are known for.”
Shunning fast fashion just might be the way to go. A “total abandonment of the fast-fashion model, linked to a decline in overproduction and overconsumption, and a corresponding decrease in material,” is essential for reducing environmental damage, according to a 2020 paper published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.
Other experts say even small changes can make a big difference when it comes to the enormous problem or overproduction.
Washington hopes that by helping consumers see fashion as a creative expression instead of a cycle of trend-driven consumption, they can be a catalyst for real change in the fashion industry.
“Fashion is the largest art form in the world,” she said. “And we’re really excited about providing an opportunity that allows individuals to determine their own style—not just take what people say is the hottest today but really giving them a sustainable alternative to find items that speak to them and their own personal style.”
By Sean Ashcroft from supplychaindigital.com • Reposted: March 12, 2023
Capgemini Global Retail Lead Lindsey Mazza says retailers need not sacrifice affordability or profitability to meet their sustainability goals. “Our own research shows 41% of consumers globally are willing to pay more for a product they believe to be sustainable,” she says. Submitted photo
Capgemini Global Retail Lead Lindsey Mazza on how a systems engineering background is helping her service the supply chain needs of value chain customers
Your professional background?
I started my career in systems engineering and, over the years, have expanded my solutions to include everything from supplier to consumer.
I currently work with leading retailers to reimagine how they fulfil consumer promises. An exciting part of my role is leveraging AI, analytics, and emerging technology to reinvent operations and meet consumer expectations.
What are the challenges of your Capgemini role?
I help retailers navigate today’s many challenges and transform their businesses. I rely on my systems engineering background to research and learn where opportunities exist, then collaborate with our immensely talented teams to deliver solutions that drive business outcomes.
That might be creating intelligent, adaptive supply chain ecosystems, fulfilment options, unlocking channel growth, underpinned with technology and analytics that deliver personalised and engaging consumer experiences.
How can retailers counter rising operational costs?
Automation, AI, and other leading technologies can make all the difference, and I am seeing the benefits with our clients. Data and analytics, AI, and automation in product and supply chain planning processes – not to mention that last-mile consumer fulfilment can support optimised costs – maximise use of labour, and further sustainability objectives.
For example, analytics can be used to reduce inventory, identify underperforming areas, and recommend solutions to increase efficiency. Using real-time data and intelligent integrated planning, consumer products companies and retailers can customise the right assortment mix, and have the right inventory for each store or channel.
And autonomous vehicle delivery – although early in development – could transform the last-mile delivery cost model.
How can firms best develop sustainable products?
Sustainability can be embedded throughout the entire product lifecycle, starting from the design process and selection of materials to end-of-life management.
To address Scope 3 emissions, businesses need to consider the system as a whole. It’s also important to conduct a life-cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of a product – from raw material extraction to disposal – to identify areas where the environmental impact can be reduced.
Can retail be sustainable and affordable in today’s world?
Definitely, and it must be. Retailers need not sacrifice affordability or profitability to meet their sustainability goals. Our own research shows 41% of consumers globally are willing to pay more for a product they believe to be sustainable.
So, while consumers are keen to buy sustainable products, they are not willing to pay more. Brands and retailers must respond to consumer concerns by keeping prices fair – providing affordable sustainability will therefore be key. Consumers are also conscious about reducing waste and mindful about consumption practices. Retailers embracing circular economy will create a brand ethos that matches the ethics of the consumer.
What advice would you give to your younger self?
I’ve had tremendous leaders and mentors throughout my career. There are two lessons I’m so grateful to have learned from them:
Always, always, always take the more challenging role, because you’ll learn more. I’ve built a view across the supply ecosystem by taking unexpected roles where I was able to learn.
Create your next job. We can all see areas where our companies can improve. Design that role, develop a benefits case for why that role will create value, advocate for it to be in next year’s budget, and get that role.
Greenwashing has become part of our modern-day lexicon. Now there’s a new term, ‘green hushing,’ for when a company is too quiet about its accomplishments. By Talib Visram from Fast Company • Reposted: March 12, 21023
Greenwashing—the term referring to businesses exaggerating their commitment to sustainability—is now firmly rooted in our modern-day lexicon. Baseless green claims draw public scrutiny and sometimes outrage, not to mention lawsuits, such as ones filed against companies including Dasani, Kroger, and Whole Foods.
Faced with the threats of tarnished reputations and legal trouble, some companies are instead choosing not to communicate their climate goals at all, leaving them unpublicized and meaning other companies can’t emulate their success. A new term has sprouted to signify the practice: green hushing.
WHAT IS GREEN HUSHING?
Green hushing refers to companies purposely keeping quiet about their sustainability goals, even if they are well-intentioned or plausible, for fear of being labeled greenwashers.
Xavier Font, professor of sustainability marketing at the University of Surrey in the U.K., defines it as: “the deliberate downplaying of your sustainability practices for fear that it will make your company look less competent, or have a negative consequence for you.”
HOW LONG HAS THIS TERM BEEN AROUND, AND HOW COMMON IS IT?
Since at least 2017. Font had seen the term only once before studying the practice more closely that year. And for something many of us may not have heard of, the practice is pretty prevalent. “Greenwashing is very visible,” Font says. “Green hushing, by definition, is not. [But] I think green hushing happens a lot more than we realize.”
It gained more widespread coverage after October 2022, when Swiss carbon finance consultancy South Pole highlighted the trend of green hushing in a report. It noted that nearly a quarter of 1,200 companies with a sustainability head are not publicizing achievements “beyond the bare minimum.” (Belgium had the highest rate, with 41% of its companies with science-based climate targets not publicizing them.) The report called the trend “concerning,” because publishing green actions has the power to inspire others, shift mindsets, and encourage collaborative approaches.
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?
In his study, Font, who focuses on the tourism industry, found that companies were not communicating environmental successes to consumers, especially odd in an industry where there are many chances to do so, such as at hotels or on websites.
The study concentrated on 31 small rural tourism businesses in England’s Peak District National Park. Font found that companies communicated only 30% of their sustainability actions.He noted that companies feared that by broadcasting their sustainability practices, customers would believe their vacation experiences would be worse.
One issue, he says, is that many companies aren’t sure when to announce achievements. A hotel he worked with that procured sustainable seafood sourcing didn’t know whether to announce it when launching, or when half of its hotels used it, or when all of them did. “If 50% of my supply chain is doing something,” he was asked, “is that a message that is credible for me to communicate to the world?”
Similarly, Font mentions pushback over supermarkets labeling bananas as fair trade, because customers then asked why more goods weren’t fair trade. “Many companies are choosing to not talk about it, simply for fear that the customers will see the glass as being half empty, not half full,” he says.
For larger companies, there are legal motivations to not report extensively. In recent years, lawsuits have been filed against Dasani for claiming its water bottles were 100% recyclable, and Kroger for claiming its sunscreen was “reef-friendly.” Cracking down on these false claims—like the ubiquitous “locally sourced wherever possible”—is a good thing, Font says. “That’s a bit like me saying, ‘I’m a good husband whenever possible,’” he says. “It has no value.”
Several states, most notably Florida, are divesting billions of dollars from BlackRock because it has developed strong ESG portfolios. “We see attacks being more irrational and so fierce,” says Peter Seele, a professor of corporate social responsibility and business ethics at Università della Svizzera Italiana in Switzerland. This has created another reason for companies to stay silent, or else also be on the receiving end of “anti-woke” tirades.
That polarization is troubling, Font says, and seeps into customers’ beliefs, which requires businesses to be culturally sensitive in the markets they operate in. “If I was a company in the U.S., serving the full range of customers, I would downplay the ‘S word,’” he says, referring to sustainability. They may want to spin a sustainable practice as one that is beneficial to customers in some other way.
“In the U.S., we’re just more litigious,” says Anant Sundaram, professor of business and climate change at Dartmouth University. “You say something in your 10K, or you put out some document, [and] immediately it becomes the basis for a lawsuit.” So American companies “tend to prefer to stay under the radar, and are a little gun-shy.”
WHAT COULD REDUCE GREEN HUSHING?
Climate reporting is now prevalent across developed nations. And the disclosures on climate risks, mitigation, and sustainable strategies that companies submit to government agencies are publicly accessible. But mostly, they are voluntary—allowing businesses to green hush.
Companies are keeping relatively quiet about most of their climate data. In the U.S., a report found that while 71% of S&P 500 companies report their greenhouse gas emissions, only 28% of smaller companies do so. And only 15% of S&P 500 companies disclose information on biodiversity and deforestation, and 12% on water risks.
But public reporting is changing soon. In the EU, climate disclosures will become mandatory in 2025, and for a wider swath of companies than previously. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission aims to roll out stricter regulations for 2024 (which will initially be for larger, publicly traded companies, with market caps of at least $700 million). This stricter enforcement may give businesses less of a choice to practice green hushing.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF GREEN HUSHING?
It’s not ideal. As the Swiss report noted, companies discussing their climate actions can have positive knock-on effects and create change. But not if they’re silent.
Greenwashing crackdowns are valuable, but not if they are indiscriminate. Seele says there is a trend of attacking companies no matter how good their actions or intentions—which has brought about another phrase in the German media: “greenwashing truther,” for people who launch those kinds of accusations.
And in France, new greenwashing laws will place fines on companies for making misleading claims like being carbon neutral. While well-intended, such laws may serve to reduce greenwashing but heighten green hushing.
Visitors to the financial district walked past the New York Stock Exchange. There are many ways to match your values and your investing. ESG is one of them, but it is a complex and evolving one. Image: MARY ALTAFFER, ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Ross Levin via Star Tribune • Reposted: March 11, 2023
It is a personal choice whether you are interested in simply having your money make money or if you want to be sure it is directed toward responsible corporate policies. But that choice is not nearly as simple as it would seem. Finance does a great job of confusing by using terms that serve as short-cuts for what you think you are getting. The current finance buzzword for corporate sustainability is ESG investing.
ESG stands for environment, social and governance and is a (sort of) objective way of looking at companies that meet standards regarding their impact on the environment, how they show up in society, and how the companies are managed. While an ESG score is supposed to be objective, there are various rating platforms and standards can vary between them. It’s important to know what ESG is, but maybe more important to know what it isn’t.
ESG is not socially responsible investing (SRI). SRI has been around for a long-time and is generally about excluding business categories that you don’t want to own. Depending on your religion or your values, you may choose to exclude anything from tobacco, fossil fuels, pharmaceutical companies, or even debt. ESG, though, may also include companies that meet its criteria in industries that you would prefer to exclude. For example, the IShares MSGI USA ESG fund has energy companies, companies that are being sued for allegedly faulty products, and companies that may simply annoy you because of how they conduct their business (think your cable company). If an extraction-based energy company is now creating a plan to move away from fossil fuels into alternative energy, is it a good company or a bad one? ESG in this example is the Schrodinger’s cat of investing.
ESG is not impact investing. Impact investing tries to make measurable differences in areas like climate while also generating a financial return, with the financial return a secondary consideration to the impact. Impact investing is often done through private investments rather than public ones with which you may be most familiar. The private markets may relieve some of the natural tension of publicly traded stocks that attempt to increase short-term shareholder value. Impact is long-term, sustainable investments that make money while serving a larger purpose. Investors have different holding periods for the stocks they own; private markets tend to allow for more patient investing.
ESG investing is not without a give-up. In theory, companies that do well should also perform well, but studies are not completely clear about this. ESG is not about exclusion. It is about choosing companies in each sector that score well on the ESG criteria. The best investment results would likely come from pairing ESG along with other technical factors.
ESG is not greenwashing. ESG investments and investing are evolving. There will inevitably be stops and starts along the way. A high profile environmentally friendly company like Tesla was recently booted from the ESG index because of poor governance and social scores. Exxon is a large holding in the S&P 500 ESG Index because it rates well compared with other energy companies. ESG is a framework for company governance and an investment framework.
ESG investing is not necessarily better than earning more and giving away more. Your values are expressed in a variety of ways, far beyond investing. How you spend your money is an obvious expression. How you give money away is also an expression. Some of our clients are charitably inclined and want their investments to grow as much as possible as a way to give more money away.
ESG investing is not insignificant. Whether you are a believer in ESG or not, there is more pressure being applied on companies to be good citizens as well as high-performing businesses. There is some evidence that the two are complementary but there is more evidence that they are not mutually exclusive. There are arguments that those who are investing on behalf of others – in vehicles such as pension funds or retirement plan options – would not be meeting their fiduciary duty by investing solely through the ESG lens. This will continue to be a layered issue.
There are many ways to match your values and your investing. ESG is one of them, but it is a complex and evolving one.
Ross Levin is founder of Accredited Investors Wealth Management in Edina. He can be reached at ross@accredited.com.
By Chris Kelly from marketing dive.com • Reposted: March 11, 2023
Influencers have the single largest impact on consumers’ sustainability choices, ahead of TV documentaries, news articles and government campaigns, according to a study shared with Marketing Dive conducted by Unilever with the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT).
Three-quarters of consumers surveyed said that social media content made them more likely to adopt sustainable behaviors, with 83% of consumers, and 86% of those 18-34, saying that TikTok and Instagram are helpful places to seek out advice on how to be greener at home.
The study, commissioned by Unilever brands Dove and Hellman’s alongside experts from across the business, demonstrates how brands can utilize social media and influencers to create content in line with larger sustainability efforts.
The results of the study conducted by Unilever and UK-based organization the Behavioural Insights Team — unofficially known as the “nudge unit” for how it attempts to influence action — demonstrates some of the strategies and tactics that brands use as part of sustainability efforts that seek to encourage consumers to change their behaviors, like using less plastic and wasting less food.
“People are finding it hard to make sustainable choices due to a lack of simple, immediate and trustworthy information,” said Conny Braams, Unilever’s chief digital and commercial officer, in a statement. “Our ambition is to continue to collaborate with our partners to improve the sustainability content produced by our brands and support the creators we work with.”
Influencers were rated as impactful by 78% of consumers, ahead of TV documentaries (48%), news articles (37%) and government campaigns (20%), reinforcing the power of influencers at a time when consumerdistrust of media and government institutions is increasing. The high marks for Instagram and TikTok as places consumers turn for information underscores the continued importance of the social media platforms.
The study measured the impact on 6,000 participants in the UK, US and Canada that were shown various pieces and styles of content on a simulated social platform crafted by the BIT. The content was either pragmatic, with a focus on the scale of environmental problems and a heavy use of data and statistics, or optimistic, with an emphasis on practical demonstrations of how to live sustainably, often with a humorous tone. Both types of content encouraged consumers to try to change their behaviors, with pragmatic (69%) slightly outperforming optimistic (61%).
The study focused on sustainability efforts from two Unilever brands, with 76% of consumers encouraged to act after watching Dove’s plastic reuse content and 82% encouraged after watching Hellmann’s content on food waste reduction — the focus of the latter brand’s recent Super Bowl ads.
Consumers largely support influencers’ focus on sustainability, with eight in 10 supporting creators encouraging their audience to act sustainably and seven in 10 supporting influencers selling products or services focused on sustainability.
By Austin Simms, Dayrize from retailtouchpoints.com • Reposted; March 9, 2023
Concerns over climate change continue to mount, and there is an increasing demand for companies to decrease their environmental impact through whatever means possible. Take CO2 emissions for example. In 2020, 140 of the largest companies stated their intentions to completely eliminate emissions within the next few decades. Since then, many of their initiatives have focused on transportation. It makes the most sense on the surface, as cars and trucks are responsible for almost 20% of emissions in the U.S. alone. CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) brands that have chosen to focus on the optimization of supply chains or reducing emissions within the “last-mile” of delivery may seem like the most logical, efficient step — but is it?
Many environmental champions also see sustainable packaging as a concrete measure to reduce CO2 or tackle environmental concerns, such as water depletion, due to the large consumption of water by various industries. Brands will often highlight their transition toward more eco-friendly packaging as one of their major initiatives to become more green, with hundreds of major corporations joining the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. Unfortunately, there is reliable evidence that these are not the right targets.
Surprisingly — and according to aggregate, anonymized data derived from over 10,000 products from a number of CPG brands and companies tracked via Dayrize’s environmental impact assessment technology — transportation and packaging are responsible for a relatively negligible amount of CO2 emissions by makers of CPGs and apparel. In fact, creating more sustainable methods for consumer products to be packaged and transported addresses a mere 2% of CO2 emissions. Another surprise revealed by the same data: when it comes to apparel, packaging is far less of a factor in water depletion than the actual product inside the packaging.
Dayrize environmental impact assessment technology makes these calculations by combining the latest technology with the most recent developments in sustainability science. At the core of the software solution are 31 databases — including 14 that are proprietary — that provide rapid, accurate and actionable impact results. The technology was created by a team of 80+ industrial ecologists and sustainability experts over a period of two years to provide the fastest and most accurate impact results available.
The results are generated using five key factors that produce a simple-to-understand Dayrize Score, which is out of 100. The factors include:
Circularity: How well an individual product minimizes waste by reusing and recycling resources to create a closed loop system;
Climate Impact: How greenhouse gas-intensive the production of the product is;
Ecosystem Impact: What the impact of the product is on biodiversity and water depletion;
Livelihoods and Well-being: How each product impacts the health and well-being of the people involved in creating it;
Purpose: How meaningful a product’s purpose is by looking at the value that it provides, and the potential it has to be an accelerator for good.
The environmental impact score helps companies and consumers gain insights into the environmental impact of virtually all products, including consumer packaged goods and apparel.
The necessity for environmental impact research is demonstrated in part by our look at the sources of CO2 emissions from consumer products and water depletion in the apparel industry. Even incredibly popular and “common knowledge” solutions about how to address environmental harm meaningfully can often be incorrect in very significant — and possibly damaging — ways.
When it comes to CPGs, it’s crucial that companies keep the following facts in mind:
On average, only 1% of emitted carbon is due to packaging, while 1% comes from transportation and 2% can be traced to manufacturing for a typical consumer product.
The lion’s share of CO2 emissions come from the materials that are used in products. Up to 96% of the emissions that CPGs are responsible for are from a product’s materials.
CPG companies that want to be truly eco-friendly need to ensure their products are eco-friendly. To reduce carbon emissions, CPGs need to reassess the design of their products and the materials they’re using.
Packaging has a more consequential impact on water depletion when it comes to apparel, but nowhere near the impact of the apparel itself. For every 3.2 gallons of water that packaging depletes, the average garment depletes ten times that: 32 gallons. More eco-conscious packaging can increase an apparel company’s sustainability, but shifting attention to producing more sustainable garments can help reduce the 90% of water that is being used to create the garment.
There is an enormous opportunity to make garments more sustainable. After scoring tens of thousands of pieces of clothing, we found that only 1% of garments utilize materials that are reused. Additionally, only 5% of garments use recycled materials. This is paltry compared to the number of clothes disposed of each year: “The EPA reports that Americans generate 16M tons of textile waste a year, equaling just over 6% of total municipal waste…2.5M tons of clothing are recycled. But over three million tons are incinerated, and a staggering 10M tons get sent to landfills.”
Clearly, there are more than enough materials to re-integrate into apparel, which would help companies mitigate water depletion and other harmful environmental effects of their products.
Many companies may have good intentions, but they need to research how to achieve their goals of creating sustainable products. There are myriad ways to make it seem to the public that sustainability is a priority, but making it a reality requires both the willingness to make some tough choices and a clear understanding of what steps will truly make a difference.
Austin Simms co-founded Dayrize in 2019 and serves as its CEO. After 20+ years spent working in senior commercial positions at major corporations around the world, Simms had a desire to use his skills to address climate change. With a strong commercial background, he believed that empowering corporations was key to make real change. He recognized that the first thing that companies needed to change was access to information to make better decisions, which is why he developed the Dayrize Score tool. Simms believes commerce and sustainability are linked, and business needs to be a major catalyst for addressing climate change.
Research has more than made the case for linking environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategies to corporate profitability. What’s good for people and the planet does, indeed, benefit a company’s bottom line. The trickier part is determining what programs will yield the best results for the investment.
Some ESG pathways are easier to attain and measure direct results, such as cost reductions. But top-line market growth demands a greater understanding of customer wishes and perceptions of a company’s ESG efforts. Those expectations and priorities will differ by industry sector, as well as by geographies, cultures, and demographics like age and gender.
While studies and reports can point companies in the right direction with top-level overviews of trends and industry insights, real-time survey and data collection can dig deeper into what consumers prize in ESG efforts.
Measuring consumer ESG priorities across industries, brands and more
Glow, a research-technology business with offices in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, first started tracking what consumers think about ESG issues in relation to purchasing decisions over two years ago. It began with a field of approximately 40 issues that, through multiple research studies across three markets (U.S., U.K. and Australia), were then synthesized into 13 ESG drivers of consumer priorities and perceptions.
The process yielded a diagnostic tool called the Social Responsibility Score (SRS) that not only provides a number to tell a company how it is perceived in its ESG efforts, but also where it stands in its industry and against its competitors and why consumers score it that way.
For example, among food and grocery (F&G) companies in particular, three environmental drivers — reducing emissions, respecting natural resources, and protecting wildlife and ecosystems — ranked highest for importance among consumers, as shown below.
The ESG drivers that matter most to consumers for the food and grocery sector. The longer the ‘wedge,’ the more important that driver is for the industry. (Click here to enlarge)
This isn’t to say social drivers like health and well-being aren’t important to F&G customers — they are. But understanding consumers’ top concerns at a given time can help companies prioritize, in terms of both programming and messaging successes. Communicating accomplishments in the areas that matter most to consumers can translate into customer loyalty as well as brand switching.
On the other hand, if a brand and its competitors are all communicating about the same things, it can be harder to stand out. In cases like these, a brand may opt to lean into an area that isn’t as much of a focus for peers and competitors. Or, if it finds it’s under-performing compared to peers on key issues that matter to consumers, it may decide to invest more in those areas and communicate an improvement story.
Listening to consumers via data capture enables this kind of decision-making, helping brands to get the most return on their ESG investments.
ESG risks and opportunities for two anonymized F&G competitors from Australia. (Click to enlarge)
Take, for example, these two anonymized F&G competitors from Australia, shown above. Both brands mapped their SRS in relation to the industry benchmark (the green line). Brand A clearly outshines Brand B on virtually all of the 13 drivers. The achievement gap in the areas most important to consumers, such as “reducing emissions” is substantial enough to be a significant opportunity for Brand A to message that success to customers hungry for guidance on where to invest their purchasing power. Meanwhile, Brand B can see where it’s progressing and where further investments can help it improve credibility.
ESG drivers differ across industries
What weighs heaviest on consumers’ minds will vary across industries. For example, Glow found that governance and social drivers are the biggest influences on ESG credentials in the health insurance industry in the U.S., as shown below.
The ESG drivers that matter most to consumers for the health insurance sector. The longer the ‘wedge,’ the more important that driver is for the industry. (Click here to enlarge)
In travel and tourism, on the other hand, U.S. customers view all three divisions of environmental, social and governance factors as important for the sector to address.
The ESG drivers that matter most to consumers for the travel and tourism sector. (Click here to enlarge)
In a balanced framework such as the latter, drilling further down into age, gender, geography, and competition among brands is vital to determine the focus for programs and messaging to avoid spreading investment and resources too thin.
Continuing to zero-in on what matters to who
Price and quality are typically the engines powering consumer choices, but business leaders may be surprised at how strong “sustainability” has become as a beacon to consumers looking for safe harbor for their purchasing dollars.
This is especially true in the F&G sector — where 1 in 2 U.S. consumers have switched brandsbased on sustainability considerations, and 1 in 5 ranked ESG/sustainability as one of the top three drivers for deciding what brands to purchase, according to Glow data.
Diving deeper to look at age segmentation, millennials prized ESG/sustainability even higher, with 1 in 3 such consumers rating it as one of their top three considerations, behind price and quality. Further, 10 percent of millennials rated ESG/sustainability as the top influencer of their purchase decisions, even more than price and quality, Glow found.
These findings demonstrate the importance of ESG initiatives and messaging to any company’s bottom line. To fail in listening and responding to consumers in this regard is to surrender profits and reputation to competitors that are willing to leverage the feedback.
Data and surveys give a brand that feedback continuously since the measurements can be taken over set time periods, in connection with program launches or in tandem with media campaigns.
“The response from people taking these surveys is actually very clear. You can understand what it is that’s driving the consumer response and what’s driving the metric you receive,” said Tim Clover, CEO of Glow. “It allows you to line up the programs you’re running with the different areas and ask, ‘Are these the programs we should be communicating?’ If so, to whom do we communicate and through which media?”
Alignment of ESG programs with consumer expectations, coupled with alignment of messaging to bring about positive public perception of those programs, creates a winning combination for brands.
The tools exist to know what ESG concerns consumers really care about. The decision to use those tools enables business leaders to enhance brand profitability while “doing the right thing.”
This article series is sponsored by Glow and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.
From the Forest Stewardship Council • Reposted: March 7, 2023
When it comes to forest products, Bio Pappel, HP, Melissa & Doug, REI and Amazon are all leaders in responsible sourcing. What does this commitment look like in practice?
More and more consumers are demanding sustainable attributes in the products they buy — encouraging retailers and consumer packaged goods companies to reap the benefits of this opportunity by providing products with tangible, credible environmental and social benefits.
When it comes to forest products, Bio Pappel, HP, Melissa & Doug, REI and Amazon are all leaders in responsible sourcing — a fact that earned them Forest Stewardship Council Leadership Awards for their deep commitment to responsible forestry and for making thousands of FSC-certified products available to businesses and consumers. What does this commitment look like in practice?
Bio Pappel is one of the largest recycled-paper manufacturers in North and South America, and the first Mexican company that is FSC certified for use of 100 percent recycled raw material in paper production. While Bio Pappel may not be a household name, it supplies some of the biggest brands — including Amazon and Titan packaging, Samsungpackaging, Xerox paper, Scribe and pen+Gear notebooks, LALA Yomi milk and yogurt packaging, and Kirkland Signature food items. Its products can be found in Walmart, Costco and other major retailers.
“At Bio Pappel, we like to say that we are generating shared value,” says Israel Martinez, auditor at Bio Pappel. “In this sense, FSC certification gives us the guarantee of sustainable management of raw material coming from forests or recycled material used to produce paper — which consequently encourages more responsible consumption and allows end consumers to be more aware of their footprint on the planet.”
3 KEY INSIGHTS TO SUPPORT CARBON-LABELING AMBITIONS
The SB Socio-Cultural Trends Research, conducted in partnership with Ipsos, tracks the changing drivers and behaviors of consumers around the intersection of brands and sustainable living. Our latest report explores how brands can maximize the impact of their sustainability efforts by approaching carbon-label strategies through the lens of consumer perceptions — learn more in SB’s Q4 Pulse highlights report.
For more than a decade, HP and World Wildlife Fund have worked together to achieve HP’s responsible sourcing goals— including zero deforestation for its HP-brand paper and paper-based packaging. This collaboration has included the development of HP’s industry-leading responsible fiber-sourcing policy; By 2020, HP met this commitment with FSC-certified or recycled fiber sourced for over 95 percent of HP brand paper and paper-based packaging.
HP continues to expand on its commitment to responsible sourcing with additional efforts rooted in protecting, restoring and improving the management of forests. One example is HP and WWF’s work to increase the area of FSC-certified forest in China to 219,830 acres by 2025. As of July 2022, over 33,000 hectares (81,000 acres) of forest have been FSC certified in China.
Over the next decade, HP and WWF’s efforts will include collaborating with local communities and forest managers to increase FSC-certified forest areas in key landscapes, as well as identifying and addressing obstacles to obtaining FSC certification and improving forest-management practices. Ultimately, HP has committed $80 million to restoring, protecting and improving the management of nearly a million acres of forest — an area approximately five times the size of New York City.
As the #1 preschool brand for wooden toys, Melissa & Doug has a longstanding commitment to “making timeless, sustainable toys for a thriving and inclusive world.” The brand formalized its commitments with an initiative called “Project Restore,” to more deeply integrate sustainability culture and practices across the organization.
After obtaining FSC Chain of Custody certification in 2020, the purpose-driven toy manufacturer became the first major US toy brand to earn FSC certification for its new stationery line, which was independently certified by SCS Global Services. Melissa & Doug is on track to achieve its commitment to ensure 100 percent of paper products and more than half of its wood products sold are FSC certified by 2025.
Healthy forests are essential for people to enjoy the outdoors; they’re also essential to REI’s business. REI uses fiber and the resulting paper products throughout its operations — in the form of flyers, cardboard, shopping bags, hangtags and more. As a co-op that inspires its members to spend more time outside, sustainable forestry is a natural focus.
REI prioritizes paper-based packaging for its own products that are FSC certified or made from certified post-consumer waste, and prioritizes paper products with the same attributes. With the assistance of the Outdoor Industry Association and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, REI published sustainable packaging guidelines to encourage and educate its vendors, including FSC as a preferred attribute. These guidelines support not only REI Co-op and Co-op Cycles, but also the brands they sell within their stores and the greater outdoor and cycling industries.
FSC is one of many third-party certifications in Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly (CPF) program — which currently encompasses over 350,000 products, 20,000+ brands and counting. CPF was created to help customers discover and choose more sustainable products on Amazon.
By Riya Anne Polcastro from triplepndit.com • Reposted: March 7, 2023
By 2050, plastic consumption in the world’s top economies could be almost twice what it was in 2019. And it’s not even on track to peak this century. That’s according to a new report from Back to Blue, a multi-year joint initiative from the Economist Impact and the Nippon Foundation. Researchers from the initiative say it’s possible to avoid an extreme plastic waste crisis through “bold and sweeping reforms” — and they’re urging U.N. countries to enact multiple stringent and binding policy changes.
But while pushback is expected from certain industries, “Peak Plastics: Bending the Consumption Curve” demonstrates that — when it comes to curbing the tide of plastic pollution that is barreling down the pipeline — there is no room for half-measures. Rather, businesses must choose long-term purpose over profit and lead a cultural change away from single-use plastics.
No single policy can do it alone
Back to Blue researchers used modeling to determine the effectiveness of three different policies that are being considered for inclusion in the U.N. Treaty on Plastic Pollution, compared to the business-as-usual scenario that would lead to 451 million metric tons of new plastic consumption per year by 2050. The forthcoming U.N. treaty is the culmination of agreements made in March 2022 that will bind 175 countries to its stipulations. Negotiations are in progress, and policies should be implemented by the end of next year.
Researchers chose the three policies deemed to have the most potential to affect total plastic consumption for modeling: taxes on the production of new plastics, measures for extended producer responsibility, known as “polluter pays,” and a ban on single-use plastics. They found that no single policy would be capable of substantially curtailing the problem by itself.
Multiple measures needed to curb avalanche of plastic consumption
Banning single-use plastics proved to be the most beneficial of the three policies. Under that scenario, plastic consumption in 2050 would be roughly 1.5 times what it was in 2019 ⸺ as opposed to the 1.73 times that can be expected if nothing is done. Likewise, if a tax on new plastics were the only strategy implemented, it would still lead to 1.57 times more plastic produced each year by 2050. A “polluter pays” policy would also do little on its own, with consumption increasing 1.66 times.
Put together, implementing all three strategies would lower the increase to 1.25 times 2019 levels. However, the study’s authors doubt that the U.N. treaty will ultimately have the teeth needed to force the trajectory of plastic consumption downward.
“This report confirms that an urgent, global effort is needed to stop the flood of plastic pollution at its source,” David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement announcing the report. “The entire lifecycle of plastics, from feedstock extraction and production of plastic precursors to disposal, must be addressed by the future, legally binding U.N. treaty to end plastic pollution. The policy levers examined in this report will not be sufficient: bolder action is needed, including globally coordinated tax mechanisms coupled with ambitious caps on virgin plastic production.”
Negotiators must maintain ‘the highest levels of ambition’
Of course, neither the petrochemical industry nor producers of consumer goods will take such changes lying down. Like all regulations that threaten profits, they will likely fight tooth and nail against any limits that affect their bottom lines.
“Negotiators of the U.N. plastics treaty must maintain the highest levels of ambition possible when entering the next round of negotiations, and industry needs to play a constructive, not obstructive, role in reaching a deal,” Charles Goddard, editorial director of Economist Impact, said in a statement. “So far, commitments by industry, retailers and brands to reduce plastic waste are short on detail and have failed to materialize. We have to slow the soaring production of single-use plastic. Only a bold suite of legally-binding policies will result in plastic consumption peaking by mid-century.”
Making room for purpose and creative solutions
The transition away from plastic consumption will be painful at first, but it also presents an opportunity for leadership. Businesses that value purpose and choose to make the most out of coming policy changes could see elevated brand loyalty — especially among Gen Z consumers — as well as increased competitiveness when it comes to securing talent and even potentially higher profits in the long run.
The policy changes that are being considered for the U.N. treaty could also increase the market share of certain industries and products as consumers adjust to a world without plastic take-out containers and bottled water. In fact, while an entire cultural overhaul will be necessary, businesses with a strong sense of purpose can help lead the charge by offering innovative products and strategies to help the planet recover from our plastic addiction. Regardless of how business reacts, the U.N. must move forward with drastic new regulations.
Stephen Ardern, managing director at Continuous on the need for brands to incorporate sustainability to improve operations. Reposted: March 3, 2023
In today’s boardrooms, sustainability is increasingly becoming a vital aspect of an organisation’s brand strategy. Consumers are becoming more conscious of the environmental and social impacts of the products they buy, and they are looking for brands that align with their values. Investors are also increasing pressure on organisations to consider sustainability in their operations. As a result, successful brands are increasingly becoming those brands that are truly sustainable.
Boston Consulting Group highlighted that companies that prioritise sustainability outperform their peers financially, with a median total return to shareholders of 16% per year compared to non-sustainably focused companies’ median of 3%.
At its core, sustainability is about creating value for all stakeholders in a way that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It involves balancing economic, social, and environmental considerations to create long-term value for everyone involved. In the context of branding, sustainability means creating a brand that is resilient, responsible, and responsive to the changing needs of consumers, employees, and the environment. And the payoff is increasing the value of your brand.
Accenture found that companies that prioritise sustainability and have a strong corporate social responsibility (CSR) reputation have a higher brand value and customer loyalty.
Sustainability is becoming a key differentiator in the marketplace. As more and more brands make environmental, social and governance (ESG) commitments, it becomes harder for brands that are not sustainable to compete. Consumers are becoming savvier, and they are increasingly choosing to buy from brands that they perceive as responsible and environmentally friendly. Brands that don’t take sustainability seriously risk losing market share to those that do.
A clear commitment to sustainability also helps create a strong sense of purpose, identity, and values that are clear to customers. This creates a sense of authenticity and trust that is hard to replicate. Additionally, by investing in sustainable solutions, brands can tap into growing consumer demand for products that align with their values.
Sustainability can also help brands to improve their operations, which in turn can help to improve their bottom line. Brands committed to more sustainable working practices often take a more holistic view of their operations, and they can identify areas that can improve efficiency and reduce costs. By committing to sustainability, brands can often create new revenue streams by selling sustainable products or services.
A study by the Carbon Trust found that companies that implement sustainable practices have a lower risk of operational disruptions and supply chain issues
A report by McKinsey & Company found that companies that prioritise sustainability in their operations and supply chain have a more resilient and efficient business, with cost savings of up to 20%.
The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership found that companies prioritising sustainability are more likely to be innovative, with a higher likelihood of introducing new products and services.
Sustainability can help to improve employee engagement and retention. Brands committed to sustainability often create a sense of purpose and meaning among employees, which can lead to improved employee satisfaction and retention. By making clear commitments that resonate with employees, brands can create a positive reputation, which can help to attract top talent.
A report by Deloitte found that companies with strong sustainability practices have lower employee turnover rates and higher levels of employee engagement.
This isn’t only true of the B2C space. Sustainability is equally important to B2B. More scrutiny than ever before is being placed on the supply chain. And improved employee engagement, enhanced brand reputation, and stronger customer loyalty are vital regardless of whether an organisation is B2C or B2B.
Those brands leading the charge in this area are increasingly recognised for their progress. This, in turn, is helping differentiate from competitors, creating a strong sense of purpose and identity, improving employee engagement and retention, and operational efficiency that improves the bottom line. With more demand from customers and within the supply chain, it’s clear that the brands unable to adapt to these demands will fall behind and will eventually face extinction.
The most important consideration is communication. Stakeholders must understand the priorities around sustainability and any progress made. Communication needs to be clear and make sense. All too often, corporate messaging is lost in highfalutin or oblique messages that are ambiguous or simply lost. Here are five considerations for improving communication in this area:
1. Be transparent: Be open about the practices and policies that make your brand sustainable.
2. Use clear language: Use specific, measurable terms and avoid buzzwords and vague claims.
3. Show your impact: Use data and storytelling to demonstrate the impact your brand is making, but make it clear for everyone to understand.
4. Engage your customers: Encourage customer involvement in your sustainability initiatives by offering ways to get involved.
5. Continuously improve: Continuously evaluate and improve your sustainability practices. Set new goals, experiment with new technologies, and communicate your progress to your customers.
We work with a growing number of clients that have the ambition to be more sustainable. They realise there’s lots of work to do. They plan for the long term and adapt to changes in the short term. They communicate clearly and regularly. They have the ambition to be better. And they will be more successful for it.
By Emma Samson from Sustainablebrands.con • Reposted: February 24, 2023
Marketing is becoming inextricable from sustainability. Marketers must collaborate with other departments closely, gather accurate knowledge and work out how to share brand attributes in a humble and credible way.
You might think of the marketing department as advertisers. Or salespeople, capturing the attention of customers with branding and snazzy videos. Or maybe as analysts, monitoring data and adjusting their content to appeal to their target market. But the role of marketers is expanding fast. Selling stuff to customers is no longer the sole focus. Consumers, retailers and employees are all looking for brands that conduct themselves with a higher sense of social and environmental responsibility; so, today’s sustainable marketer must don many hats to satisfy internal and external stakeholders — turning their storytelling superpowers to influence behaviour and drive positive change.
Marketer as Corporate Sustainability Officer
The gap between sustainability and marketing is closing as brands rush to position themselves as ‘green’ – driven by customers increasingly aware of environmental risk. ‘Green’ sells, but the sustainable marketer needs to steer clear of accidental greenwashing as authorities clamp down on ambiguous communication and targets. At COP26, governments agreed to create a new UN greenwashing watchdog to name and shame companies that swerve their sustainability promises. And in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authorityrecently issued stricter guidelines regarding unqualified claims such as ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘plastic-free.’ Marketing buzzwords will no longer be tolerated without substantiation, and ignoring these guidelines could cost a brand both reputation and profit — up to €100,000 in France, where brands are fined for using misleading terminology such as ‘carbon neutral’ without reporting corroborating GHG emissions. Sustainable marketers need to understand the technical truths behind their products so they can communicate authentically and build trust.
Marketer as behavioural psychologist
The average customer spends only 6 seconds deciding what to buy at the shelf. By this point, however, the skilled marketer has directed them through the sales funnel, so the decision is already partially made. Only a last-minute discount or free gift might trigger a change of heart. All sustainability initiatives will require a significant element of behavioural change, and the marketer can use their understanding of motivation to shape that circular journey. For example, Willemijn Peeters of circular plastics consultancy Searious Business thinks the marketer will be crucial to the uptake and success of reusable packaging.
“We see from our clients that the main barriers to reuse are cost-effectiveness and behavioural change. No scheme will succeed without high uptake and return rates. We need to sift through the complex messaging behind reuse and distil it into simple prompts that customers can absorb — marketers know how to do this.”
Marketer as packaging designer
The Ellen Macarthur Foundation states that a circular economy begins with thoughtful design. Products and their packaging need to be designed with the impact of their entire lifecycle in mind. Packaging designers are under tremendous pressure to eliminate waste, choose low-impact materials and increase recyclability while still prioritising functionality. These measures often leave little room for shelf appeal — the final battleground for the marketer. Most marketers are incentivised to sell by volume; they need their packaging to catch the eye, imply quality and add value to the product within. What happens to it after use is often a secondary consideration, and their influence can make or break a sustainable innovation before its leaves the drawing board. According to recent IBM’s research, 41 percent of consumers would shop more sustainably if they understood more about the environmental and social impact. Product packaging is the last opportunity to speak to your customer and leave a positive impression of your brand. Make sure your final words are transparent and honest. Make sure they are ones that attract and continue to engage sustainability-focused consumers.
As sustainability becomes an inherent part of our global economy, marketers must take on a leadership role in creating and communicating their brands’ purposeful identity — building trust with their customers, suppliers, investors and employees. According to a survey by the UN Global Compact and Accenture, 81 percent of consumers now want businesses to take a stand on important social and environmental issues. However, the customer is not the only stakeholder looking for this commitment; both retailers and suppliers are getting choosier over what brands they stock or sell to. They want to be associated with brands that share their principles and help them meet their environmental and social goals. A recentstudy from digital studio PLAY found that two-thirds of Gen Z employees felt it was important for the company they work for to be committed to acting sustainably. In a pressurised job market, attracting and retaining employees is critical — meaning, brand image is as essential to HR as it is to sales.
Marketing in the future will become inextricable from sustainability. Marketers must collaborate with other departments closely, gather accurate knowledge and work out how to share this in a humble and credible way. The number of hats on the marketer’s hat rack is increasing, but the most important is still the thinking cap.
A group of major corporations led by Etsy and eBay is praising the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for committing to exclusively purchase electric vehicles starting in 2026, in a letter coordinated by Drawdown Labs, Project Drawdown’s private-sector testing ground for accelerating the adoption of climate solutions quickly, safely and equitably.
Etsy and eBay are among the largest e-commerce marketplaces in the country. The USPS is central to their business and to millions of small sellers who run their shops on these platforms.
The USPS is currently transitioning to an all-new fleet of 106,000 delivery vehicles. It announced in December that 62 percent of those purchases over the next five years will have all-electric powertrains and by 2026, 100 percent of newly purchased vehicles will be electric.
The letter(link is external) from Etsy and eBay also includes signatories Askov Finlayson, Avocado Green, Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Dr. Bronner’s, A Good Company, Grove Collaborative, Patagonia, Peak Design, Seventh Generation, Stonyfield and Warby Parker.
“This decision sends a message to every business in the United States: it is possible, achievable and necessary to adopt all-electric fleets for corporate transportation and shipping needs,” said Jamie Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs at Project Drawdown. “These companies are working hard to reduce their climate impact, and this move by the USPS enables them to address the difficult-to-abate supply chain emissions. This is good news for all involved.”
With a shift to electric vehicles, the group of companies believe it will not just be good for the environment but good for business as consumers reap the benefits of lower costs and other innovations made possible by electric vehicles.
The nation and the world are quickly transitioning to electric vehicles, led by consumer demand for the many benefits of EVs, including better efficiency, easier maintenance, zero emissions and better performance. That means cleaner air, reduced climate risk and improved health across the globe. Electrifying vehicles is a key climate solution, with the potential to reduce up to 9.8 gigatons of CO2-e by 2050.
“For millions of small sellers and entrepreneurs on Etsy, a modern USPS committed to innovation and sustainability is crucial for the vibrancy of their small and micro businesses,” said Chelsea Mozen, senior director of impact & sustainability at Etsy. “The USPS’s commitment to a robust electric delivery fleet is good for the postal service, good for small businesses and good for America.”
“USPS’s commitment to electric vehicles is great news for small businesses like the many on our platform who rely on USPS to keep their business moving. eBay is proud to support this move toward greater sustainability and a cleaner world,” said eBay chief sustainability officer Renée Morin.
Apparel Industry Is Unprepared For New Sustainability Laws. Image: GETTY
By Greg Petro, Contributor to forbes.com • Reposted: February 18, 2023
One of the hot topics among fashion execs these days is what’s shaping up to be the industry’s next crisis — government regulation of sustainability. In the US, Europe, and elsewhere, new laws are in the pipeline or on the books that, for the first time, require leading brands to come clean about pollution and waste.
It’s a crisis because the apparel industry, as we’ve come to expect it, is stubbornly unsustainable. There have been numerous examples in recent years of the cost of speed and convenience, including the decision by marquee fashion labels to burn or otherwise destroy overstock merchandise and the annual tsunami of returns that end up in African landfills.
The cost of trying to make the business less harmful to the environment and less wasteful has been, in the short run, a lose-lose proposition — awkward, expensive, and often dismissed by critics as greenwashing. At the executive level, sustainability has been a blip on the radar screen. As a senior exec at one company told me recently, “Right now, I just need to figure out our pricing strategy given inflation.”
As the ideal of sustainability becomes hard law, kicking the can down the road isn’t work anymore, especially with tough new transparency and reporting requirements like those recently enacted in France. “It’s the first time a regulation has required so much disclosure in the entire industry,” says Baptiste Carriere-Pradal of the Amsterdam-based Sustainable Apparel Coalition. In a recent interview with BusinessofFashion.com, he warned, “The industry is not prepared at all.”
In the US, New York and California now ban certain chemicals used in waterproofed outerwear. But the New York State Legislature is putting the final touches on a major new piece of legislation — the New York Fashion Act — that is even tougher than France’s. If enacted, it would be a back-office headache for any company in any industry, let alone one that lives on such thin margins.
As currently written, the proposed New York law requires fashion retailers with more than $100 million in global revenue to produce maps of their supply chains, “… identifying, preventing, mitigating, accounting for, and taking remedial action to address actual and potential adverse impacts to human rights and the environment in their own operations and in their supply chain.” That’s a tall order, and the final legislation may be less burdensome. Either way, the trend toward regulation is gathering steam.
Addressing apparel sustainability is challenging because most retail executives have missed the boat regarding what consumers care most about. A First Insight survey from last year found that two-thirds of retailers believe consumers are not willing to spend more for sustainable brands, but two-thirds of consumers said they would…the key is that it has to be the right stuff.
The survey found that nearly all retailers — 94 % — believe that brand name is more important to consumers than sustainability, but three-quarters of consumers said the opposite. Retail executives ranked brand-operated resale/recommerce programs lowest when asked what type of sustainable shopping formats consumers would most utilize. But 41 % of consumers reported they already shop at brand resale/recommerce programs, such as those offered by Patagonia, Lululemon, or Levi’s.
It’s easy to understand how — after dealing with the pandemic, supply chain, and inventory glut crises — apparel companies have been busy just trying to keep the lights on. But it’s hard to figure out how they could be so poorly informed about what their customers want.
By Ignacio Gavilan Director, Sustainability, The Consumer Goods Forum – From the Consumer Goods Forum • Posted: February 18, 2023
Our relationship with plastic needs to change, and fast. The urgency around the plastics issue has been felt even more keenly since negotiations for a legally binding global plastic treaty began last month. There is no doubt that plastic can have an important role in getting people certain food, drinks and other products in a safe and reliable way. But it is critical that we use less plastic and, wherever possible, better plastic to protect the natural environment while meeting the needs of our growing global population. Ultimately, we need a better system that supports a circular economy for plastics, where it is used again and again in many forms, instead of becoming waste or pollution.
For the consumer goods sector, this means dramatically stepping up our game when it comes to redesigning plastic packaging upstream while increasing collection, sortation and recycling downstream. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of plastic packaging that is designed poorly. For example, a lot of plastic packaging still contains problematic materials like PVC, meaning that most plastic packaging still isn’t recycled and ends up in landfill or incineration.
This is why the 40 retailers, consumer brands and convertors in The Consumer Goods Forum’s (CGF) Plastic Waste Coalition of Action worked with industry experts, recyclers and plastics associations from over 25 countries to develop the Golden Design Rules for plastic packaging. Thirty-three leading multi-national companies have now signed up to implement one or more of these rules across their plastic packaging portfolios by 2025. These rules are a set of voluntary, independent and time-bound commitments that aim to minimise waste, streamline designs and simplify the plastic recycling process – ultimately increasing recycling.
The rules are building momentum to deliver the further design changes necessary to meet the targets laid out in the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment. Set up by the United Nations and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the Commitment is a global initiative to create an entirely circular plastics economy.
There are nine Golden Design Rules. The first is of particular significance. It focuses on increasing the value of PET recycling. PET is polyethylene terephthalate, one of the most common plastic materials. Typically, it’s used in food containers, drink bottles and the synthetic textiles in our clothing. In fact, PET bottles represent 13% of all plastic packaging on the market. Consequently, improving PET recycling is essential to achieving a circular economy for plastics.
One of the key issues with PET recycling is the use of pigments and dyes in plastic bottles, which can make it difficult and expensive to sort bottles into different colour streams for recycling. However, recycling lots of different coloured PET bottles together means you end up with a murky, low quality recycled plastic that isn’t suitable for use in consumer packaging. Unfortunately, this means that many plastic bottles still aren’t recycled back into plastic bottles.
Golden Design Rule 1 aims to address this. It outlines that all bottles should be clear or translucent blue or green as these are the easiest to sort and have the highest material value once recycled.
There are other factors besides the bottle’s colour that can impact on its recyclability. Therefore, Golden Design Rule 1 also lays out specifications for the size of labels on PET bottles, the materials that can be use and the glue used to attach them, so that these aren’t problematic when it comes to recycling.
The rest of the rules cover topics like removing problematic elements from plastic packaging (e.g. PVC, PS, EPS); eliminating excess headspace in flexible packaging; eliminating unnecessary plastic overwraps; improving the recycling value of PET thermoformed trays; and reducing the use of virgin plastic.
Some of our members have already made fantastic progress when it comes to better plastic packaging design. For example, to celebrate Earth Day this year, soft drinks and food giant PepsiCo launched label-free PET bottles in China on e-commerce channels, following an initial launch in South Korea in October 2021. By removing both the plastic label of a traditional PET bottle and the ink printing on the closure, Pepsi was able to reduce the product’s carbon footprint throughout its life cycle and make these bottles easier to recycle. Additionally, to increase plastic circularity, Pepsi also included 24% recycled PE in the secondary shrink film.
Chemical and consumer goods multinational Henkel is working to transition many of the PET bottles in its portfolio to clear PET. In Italy, for example, Henkel’s brand Nelsen’s, a hand dishwashing soap, is using now transparent PET bottles rather than white. Also, 50% of Henkel’s global shower gel portfolio of its main brands including Fa, Dial and Bernangen are packed in clear PET.
Henkel also champions floatable sleeves on bottles instead of traditional labels, as they can easily be separated during the recycling process. To date, the company has introduced them across its fabric softener portfolio, including the Vernel brand. It will soon roll out floatable sleeves across all its sleeved bottles.
Global packaging company Amcor developed a 100% PCR and label-less PET bottle in Argentina. This launch was in partnership with Danone, global food and beverage company, and Argentinean moulded plastic Moldintec, for the water brand Villavicencio.
This innovation is groundbreaking for two reasons. First, it eliminates unnecessary plastic by removing the plastic label. Secondly, it makes the bottles more recyclable, because there’s less risk that labels or adhesives contaminate the recycling process. It also removes the need for sorting and separating labels and bottles, making it more cost-efficient.
What’s more, the new label-less bottle is made from 100% post-consumer recycled content and has a reduced carbon footprint of 21% compared to its previous incarnation.
These are just a few leading examples of companies implementing the Golden Design Rules and putting good intentions into action. This kind of innovation represents the way forward for designing plastic packaging in the consumer goods sector. Of course, there’s still much work still to be done, not least scaling these trailblazing initiatives across the whole industry. Indeed, the adoption of such practices should be an immediate priority.
The CGF Golden Design Rules provide a playbook for implementing the vital design changes that we know are needed, so that, for the sake of the planet, we can tackle the increasingly urgent problem of plastic waste and accelerate the transition to a circular plastics economy.
If you want to find out more about the Golden Design Rules, or think they could be relevant to your organization, please contact us using this link and we will be able to provide more detail and answer any questions you may have.
When it comes to forest products, Bio Pappel, HP, Melissa & Doug, REI and Amazon are all leaders in responsible sourcing. What does this commitment look like in practice?
From the Forest Stewardship Council • Posted: February 17, 2023
More and more consumers are demanding sustainable attributes in the products they buy — encouraging retailers and consumer packaged goods companies to reap the benefits of this opportunity by providing products with tangible, credible environmental and social benefits.
When it comes to forest products, Bio Pappel, HP, Melissa & Doug, REI and Amazon are all leaders in responsible sourcing — a fact that earned them Forest Stewardship Council Leadership Awards for their deep commitment to responsible forestry and for making thousands of FSC-certified products available to businesses and consumers. What does this commitment look like in practice?
Bio Pappel is one of the largest recycled-paper manufacturers in North and South America, and the first Mexican company that is FSC certified for use of 100 percent recycled raw material in paper production. While Bio Pappel may not be a household name, it supplies some of the biggest brands — including Amazon and Titan packaging, Samsungpackaging, Xerox paper, Scribe and pen+Gear notebooks, LALA Yomi milk and yogurt packaging, and Kirkland Signature food items. Its products can be found in Walmart, Costco and other major retailers.
“At Bio Pappel, we like to say that we are generating shared value,” says Israel Martinez, auditor at Bio Pappel. “In this sense, FSC certification gives us the guarantee of sustainable management of raw material coming from forests or recycled material used to produce paper — which consequently encourages more responsible consumption and allows end consumers to be more aware of their footprint on the planet.”
For more than a decade, HP and World Wildlife Fund have worked together to achieve HP’s responsible sourcing goals— including zero deforestation for its HP-brand paper and paper-based packaging. This collaboration has included the development of HP’s industry-leading responsible fiber-sourcing policy; By 2020, HP met this commitment with FSC-certified or recycled fiber sourced for over 95 percent of HP brand paper and paper-based packaging.
HP continues to expand on its commitment to responsible sourcing with additional efforts rooted in protecting, restoring and improving the management of forests. One example is HP and WWF’s work to increase the area of FSC-certified forest in China to 219,830 acres by 2025. As of July 2022, over 33,000 hectares (81,000 acres) of forest have been FSC certified in China.
Over the next decade, HP and WWF’s efforts will include collaborating with local communities and forest managers to increase FSC-certified forest areas in key landscapes, as well as identifying and addressing obstacles to obtaining FSC certification and improving forest-management practices. Ultimately, HP has committed $80 million to restoring, protecting and improving the management of nearly a million acres of forest — an area approximately five times the size of New York City.
As the #1 preschool brand for wooden toys, Melissa & Doug has a longstanding commitment to “making timeless, sustainable toys for a thriving and inclusive world.” The brand formalized its commitments with an initiative called “Project Restore,” to more deeply integrate sustainability culture and practices across the organization.
After obtaining FSC Chain of Custody certification in 2020, the purpose-driven toy manufacturer became the first major US toy brand to earn FSC certification for its new stationery line, which was independently certified by SCS Global Services. Melissa & Doug is on track to achieve its commitment to ensure 100 percent of paper products and more than half of its wood products sold are FSC certified by 2025.
Healthy forests are essential for people to enjoy the outdoors; they’re also essential to REI’s business. REI uses fiber and the resulting paper products throughout its operations — in the form of flyers, cardboard, shopping bags, hangtags and more. As a co-op that inspires its members to spend more time outside, sustainable forestry is a natural focus.
REI prioritizes paper-based packaging for its own products that are FSC certified or made from certified post-consumer waste, and prioritizes paper products with the same attributes. With the assistance of the Outdoor Industry Association and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, REI published sustainable packaging guidelines to encourage and educate its vendors, including FSC as a preferred attribute. These guidelines support not only REI Co-op and Co-op Cycles, but also the brands they sell within their stores and the greater outdoor and cycling industries.
FSC is one of many third-party certifications in Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly (CPF) program — which currently encompasses over 350,000 products, 20,000+ brands and counting. CPF was created to help customers discover and choose more sustainable products on Amazon.
One in three consumers prefer shopping with the planet in mind, even if it means paying a little more. By Alyssa Khan, Editorial Intern • Inc.com – Posted: February 16, 2023
Knowing your customer is one of the first rules for running a successful business, and customers today care about sustainability.
One in three consumers prefer shopping with the planet in mind, even if it means paying a little more, according to a SurveyMonkey study. Sales of products marketed as sustainable also grew 2.7x faster than those that didn’t, according to a study from New York University’s Stern Center for Sustainable Business. While making your company more environmentally friendly will likely require an upfront investment, it could pay dividends in the long term, and you don’t have to reinvent your entire business plan.
Here are three sustainability tips for every business owner in 2023.
Ericka Rodriguez founded her vegan lipstick brand, Axiology, in 2014 in New York City. Though her lipsticks were originally packaged in recyclable aluminum, Rodriguez learned that their plastic components meant they often couldn’t be recycled. So she and her team of four employees began testing ways to make their packaging more environmentally friendly. They settled on a compostable, food-grade paper free of animal-sourced waxes and glue that wraps around the lipstick like paper on a crayon. While it took a year and a half and thousands of dollars to make the switch, the final production cost is now less than that of the aluminum packaging, enabling Rodriguez to lower the retail price of her flagship lipstick from $28 to $24. The new packaging also helps differentiate her brand from the competition.
1. Rethink your packaging.
Ericka Rodriguez founded her vegan lipstick brand, Axiology, in 2014 in New York City. Though her lipsticks were originally packaged in recyclable aluminum, Rodriguez learned that their plastic components meant they often couldn’t be recycled. So she and her team of four employees began testing ways to make their packaging more environmentally friendly. They settled on a compostable, food-grade paper free of animal-sourced waxes and glue that wraps around the lipstick like paper on a crayon. While it took a year and a half and thousands of dollars to make the switch, the final production cost is now less than that of the aluminum packaging, enabling Rodriguez to lower the retail price of her flagship lipstick from $28 to $24. The new packaging also helps differentiate her brand from the competition.
“I don’t think the world needs another plastic packaging lipstick brand,” Rodriguez says. “There are already so many.”
2. Consider responsible sourcing.
Nadya Okamoto and Nick Jain founded the direct-to-consumer period care brand August in 2021. The main material for their products, cotton, is the most profitable nonfood crop in the world, but farming with pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals can contaminate waterways and soil, creating havoc in ecosystems. So, August’s founders were committed from the start to use only sustainably farmed, organic cotton versus the popular industry alternative viscose, a type of rayon that is less sustainable and the subject of various health concerns. That means the cotton crops used for their products create fewer greenhouse gas emissions and don’t contaminate surrounding ecosystems. The average price of a 28-pack of regular tampons retails for between $10 and $11, while a 24-pack of August’s tampons is priced between $14 and $15. For Okamoto, the difference in price is worth it for her customers and her business.
“Supply chains are being challenged to be as ethical as possible,” says Okamoto. “Our deepened commitment to making sure that we stand by those values has helped us cultivate a beautiful community.”
3. Beware of greenwashing.
It’s no secret that companies overstate how environmentally friendly their products are. “For me, greenwashing is overclaiming in a significant way or lying about what you’re doing,” says Tensie Whelan, director of the Center for Sustainable Business at New York University. “Some of it is a lack of competence. This is a whole new area. We’re all learning all the time.”
While misleading claims about products being environmentally friendly are common, companies that exaggerate details about sustainability risk significant reputational damage. Greenwashing has been at the center of controversy over the past five years as companies like Tide, Coca-Cola, and Banana Boat sunscreens have faced inquiries and even lawsuits challenging various claims related to sustainability.
By Amy Brown from Triple Pundit • February 15, 2023
It’s odd to think that people are nostalgic for the earlier days of COVID-19, but a new Gallup poll shows that workers miss the increased flexibility and empathy employers adopted at the start of the pandemic. Nearly 75 percent of global employees now say they are either not engaged or actively disengaged at work. Why? It seems workers feel they are once again being treated like cogs in the machine, rather than human beings.
“The world is closer to colonizing Mars than it is to fixing the world’s broken workplaces,” Gallup’s annual State of the Global Workplace Report put it bluntly, noting that employee engagement has reached its lowest level since 2015.
In addition, stress levels among professionals worldwide are at “an all-time high.” Gallup found that 59 percent and 56 percent of disengaged employees report experiencing stress and worry frequently at work.
Employers are missing the boat on engagement
What gives? Unfair treatment at work topped the list as the leading cause of employee disengagement, Gallup found, with an unmanageable workload, unclear communication from managers, lack of manager support, and unreasonable time pressures close behind.
The report found the engagement elements with the most marked declines since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were:
Clarity of expectations
Connection to the mission or purpose of the company
Opportunities to learn and grow
Opportunities to do what employees do best
Feeling cared about at work
About 32 percent of the 67,000 full- and part-time employees surveyed were engaged in their work in 2022, while 18 percent were actively disengaged. Active disengagement has risen each year since 2020. The remaining respondents — 50 percent — were neither engaged nor actively disengaged. In the U.S. in particular, the latest data shows the lowest ratio of engaged-to-actively disengaged employees since 2013.
This is not just a U.S. phenomenon. Fewer than 2 in 10 European employees feel engaged at work — lower than any part of the world.
Millennials and Gen Z employees are even more disengaged
The trend of disengagement and job-hopping is even more pronounced among Generation Z and young millennials. This reporter did her own survey close to home: My millennial daughter, Marielle Velander, 30, has worked for several years in the tech industry, and she had a definite view on the Gallup findings.
“In today’s fast-paced tech scene, it seems like new titles and functions are being invented all the time, without clear job descriptions,” she said. “This was the case with my role of product operations, a new type of role that had me reshuffled in multiple organizations amid a context of ‘organizational change’ or ‘strategy definition.’ This constant reshuffling has left me and many former colleagues disengaged and unclear about how we provide value to the organization. I kept wondering why executives did not understand the revenue-generating aspects of my role.”
Her advice for business leaders looking to do things differently? “Companies should do a better job of managing change fatigue and providing clear job descriptions. They should also be more open to investing in innovative new roles, like product operations, and give these new roles a chance to show their value before folding [them] into yet another radical strategy change.”
No matter the generation, contented employees find their work rewarding and meaningful — and that happens when leaders prioritize employee well-being and engagement, Gallup found.
“Managers need to be better listeners, coaches and collaborators,” researchers recommended in the Gallup report. “Great managers help colleagues learn and grow, recognize their colleagues for doing great work, and make them truly feel cared about. In environments like this, workers thrive.”
Other recent research indicates the problem doesn’t lie in the trend toward more remote work, either. Some 52 percent of workers recently told the Conference Board that having a caring and empathetic leader is more important now than before the pandemic. Whether they work in an office, at home or a hybrid of both has no impact on that view, or their level of engagement, according to the survey.
There is plenty of evidence that engaged workers are a smart investment for employers. Some studies have found that engaged employees outperform their peers that are not engaged. Overall, companies with high employee engagement are 21 percent more profitable.
The risk of not taking action to engage your employees is losing talent — especially young talent — altogether. Marielle has taken a year-long break from her tech career to travel the world. As she described it: “I’m trying to realign with my purpose after feeling like I lost my agency over my career.” It would seem she is not alone.
Our overheating planet needs social change more than it needs to avoid the physical tipping points we’ve come to associate with climate disaster, according to a new study from the University of Hamburg. The researchers note that while progress has been made in numerous arenas — such as citizen action, fossil fuel divestment, and implementation of U.N. and legislative policies to curb emissions — consumption patterns and corporate behavior remain prime barriers in the fight against climate change.
Ultimately, one is likely the product of the other, with consumers reacting to the constant onslaught of advertising and social media influence designed to keep them buying with little regard for the real consequences for the climate.
Nowhere is this more obvious than with the push to replace internal combustion engines (ICE) with electric vehicles (EVs) instead of building a nationwide infrastructure of public transportation — as Curbed’s Alissa Walker detailed in her extensive report last month, “An EV In Every Driveway Is an Environmental Disaster”.
“A green future, the story goes, looks a lot like today — it’s just that the cars on the road make pit stops at charging stations instead of gas stations,” Walker wrote. “But a one-for-one swap like that — an EV to take the place of your gas guzzler — is a disaster of its own making: a resource-intensive, slow crawl toward a future of sustained high traffic deaths, fractured neighborhoods, and infrastructural choices that prioritize roads over virtually everything else.”
Truly, a low-carbon future requires systemic change, with society organized not around the personal passenger vehicle but around community and getting the most out of transportation resources through integrated public transit. Swapping out ICE vehicles for EVs does nothing to curb the overconsumption problem. If anything, it intensifies it — with many consumers under the mistaken impression that prematurely replacing their gas-powered car or truck somehow helps the environment.
If anything, staying the course on cars represents a refusal to allow social change, with governments and automakers working together to keep the industry going strong in spite of the environmental and social costs.
And while consumers are consistently blamed for their desires, there is no denying that many of those wants and needs are manufactured by corporate interests and used to sell everything from shiny new vehicles to fast fashion. Would Americans really be so eager to shell out an average of almost $6,000 annually per household on loan payments and car insurance alone if not for the incessant advertising campaigns convincing us that we’ll find freedom, or love, or whatever else we desire in our next brand new car?
Would young people really care about being seen in the same outfit twice if the fashion world didn’t shove the message down their throats that it’s a bad thing? Would fast fashion — with garments that notoriously fall apart after just a few washes — have much of a market if clothing companies didn’t pay influencers to a model a one and done lifestyle?
Putting the onus of change on consumers, even as corporate interests invest in convincing them to do more of the same, is precisely why social change is not forthcoming at the rate that is needed. Indeed, while Americans say they are willing to alter their lifestyles to curb climate change, those who rely on their overconsumption aren’t going to give up trying to sell them more than they need any time soon.
The study, titled Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook, concurs with the U.N.’s determination that humanity will not be able to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius as set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change. The researchers emphasize the need for social change now versus the current focus on individual physical tipping points like melting ice sheets that won’t have much effect on temperatures until 2050.
“The question of what is not just theoretically possible, but also plausible — that is, can realistically be expected — offers us new points of departure,” researcher Anita Engels of the University of Hamberg said in a statement. “If we fail to meet the climate goals, adapting to the impacts will become all the more important.”
Unfortunately, corporate and billionaire interests appear more than willing to force humanity to adapt as they sacrifice the habitability of much of the planet in order to continue business- and consumption-patterns-as-usual.
For companies aiming to become part of the solution on climate change, the Outlook recommends moving beyond the facility level (Scope 1 emissions) to address emissions across the value chain (Scope 3) — particularly how companies influence and interact with their stakeholders. If governments can come together transnationally, and non-government actors like companies take action against climate change within their entire scope of influence, these crucial social tipping points could come closer into reach.
By Andreas von Buchwaldt, Grant Mitchell, Seth Reynolds, and Steve Varley from Harvard Business Review • Reposted: February 10, 2023
CEOs could once focus almost single-mindedly on their businesses and value chains. Now, along with driving a strategy that generates competitive advantage and enhanced value, they face another core task: satisfying a broad base of stakeholders with diverse interests who all demand sustainability policies and practices in different variations.
Delivering on both (often apparently conflicting) fronts is essential. Investors will only support a firm’s long-term strategic initiatives if they yield an above-market return and address the future needs of investors themselves, customers, regulators, and employees.
Like digital before it, sustainability has become an overarching strategic concern today. Judgments about a company’s sustainability performance affect talent acquisition and retention, access to capital, and consumer choices. And new regulations, such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, are translating sustainability imperatives into economic shocks, notably in the energy sector. CEOs also see competitors growing and increasing customer loyalty through sustainability-linked products and services.
As a result, CEOs have largely accepted the need to embed sustainability in their strategies to create competitive advantage. But while existing frameworks describe the elements of a sustainable business, they rarely show how to get there.
At the intersection of sustainability and strategy, many companies adopt an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategy. In doing so, they can be strongly influenced by the external focus on third-party ESG metrics, which are framed as a way of measuring a company’s performance in ESG.
ESG strategies, which often aim to improve key metrics in a way that a firm finds acceptable or manageable, have given many businesses a pragmatic start toward becoming more sustainable. However, as a path to a better strategy, they have drawbacks.
Managing to metrics isn’t the best way to deploy sustainability as a driver of competitive advantage and value, or to hasten meaningful improvements in environmental and social outcomes. Being still immature, metrics are far from comparable, rigorous, or transparent. And the evidence for a link between economic value and ESG ratings is modest. Investors support genuine gains in sustainability, but they won’t tolerate strategies that don’t deliver economic value. While stakeholders closely observe ESG metrics, financial performance remains much more important in corporate valuations.
Rather than focusing on ESG metrics, a more effective path to improving both financial value and sustainability performance is to integrate sustainability into the development and implementation of corporate strategy. In doing so, CEOs can ensure their strategy makes the most of the market, technology, customer, and regulatory trends created by sustainability imperatives.
CEOs can unite strategy with sustainability in three ways:
1. Adapt classic, CEO-level strategy questions by viewing them through a sustainability lens: “Is my purpose the best possible fit with competing stakeholder demands?” “As sustainability plays out in my industry, how should I position my strategy and portfolio for maximum advantage?” The collated responses should be tailored for individual business units or portfolio sectors.
2. Ensure strategic choices include sustainability imperatives by applying top-down and bottom-up analysis.
From the top down, ask, “How will increased sustainability modify or create new strategic drivers?” To test existing strategic themes, use such means as moving from climate scenarios that capture climate risk to embedding climate elements in strategy scenarios and tailoring customer research to test hypotheses about critical sustainability issues. Insights gained can indicate how industry ecosystems will evolve as sustainability grows in influence.
From the bottom up, ask, “Which specific sustainability concerns will our strategy need to accommodate?” To identify such concerns, CEOs could consider which issues are most significant for stakeholders—and so, how likely they are to create competitive advantage. Three interrelated qualifiers can help identify these: the future prominence for stakeholders; uniqueness of contribution; and size of business value, net investment. Careful analysis helps rank these issues.
3. Use common methods to assess investments in sustainability and commercial initiatives. Investments with negative value miss the opportunity to increase meaningful impact. While some investments with unclear links to value may be pragmatic to avoid reputational risk, they should phase out over time. Most organizations can do more to use data such as that on stakeholder attitudes and future economic impacts, and connections to estimate the business consequences of investment.
Organizations need to execute sustainability initiatives with the same rigor as traditional strategic activity. They need to anchor these initiatives in the ambition, resourcing plans, and incentives of all key decision makers—not isolate them within a sustainability team. CEOs will need to identify early the new internal business and impact data they need to measure the progress of key sustainability initiatives, as legacy systems may not capture such data.
EY-Parthenon research shows that taking these steps can give meaningful sustainability actions greater prominence in a CEO’s long-term agenda and may lead to better outcomes—helping a business achieve both the financial means and investor support to create a more sustainable future. Read more about how corporate strategy can deliver both growth and sustainability here.
A new survey asked shoppers why they aren’t buying from socially responsible brands anymore. The biggest problems: They can’t name any and think they’re too expensive. By Heath Shacklford from Fast Company • Reposted: February 9, 2023
The number of Americans who believe it is important to support socially responsible brands has risen in the past decade. The percentage of consumers who plan to increase their spending with such brands in the year ahead has never been higher. Yet, when push comes to shove, fewer and fewer consumers report purchasing products and services from socially responsible companies.
These are some of the key takeaways from the 10th annual Conscious Consumer Spending Index, a benchmarking study my agency runs that gauges momentum for conscious consumerism, charitable giving and earth-friendly practices. The Index score is calculated by evaluating the importance consumers place on purchasing from socially responsible companies, actions taken to support such products and services, and future intent to increase the amount they spend with responsible organizations.
With inflation lingering near 40-year highs and one quarter of Americans reporting a decrease in their household income in the past year, more individuals are finding it challenging to support socially responsible brands, which typically cost more than traditional products and services. In fact, almost half of respondents (46%) said the cost of socially responsible goods and services prevented them from buying more from conscious companies.
This decrease in purchasing power resulted in only 57% of respondents reporting they purchased goods for socially responsible brands in 2022, down from 64% in 2021 and 62% from the inaugural index results in 2013.
While the current economic situation is making it harder for consumers to support socially responsible brands, there are also more systemic challenges to the “do good” movement. Specifically, here are three opportunities for improvement as we consider the path forward for conscious consumerism.
HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO
Way back in 2015, TOMS was in the media spotlight as an icon for what do good business was all about. It was a hero brand, a poster child for the movement. As part of the Index that year, we began asking consumers to name one company or organization that is socially responsible. Based on unaided recall, TOMS topped the list of responses, and repeated that performance the following year.
Fast forward to 2022. For the fourth year in a row, Amazon is the most cited brand when consumers are asked this question. Meanwhile, TOMS no longer makes the list at all. It’s a classic case of out of sight, out of mind. There are only so many experiences the average consumer can have with TOMS as a brand, even if they are rabid fans. Meanwhile, they engage with companies like Amazon and Walmart, number two on this year’s list, on a daily or weekly basis.
The TOMS one-for-one business model is no longer a novelty and no longer the focus of frequent media attention. As a result, we have lost our hero brand for socially-responsible business. We have many strong brands who are well-known for doing good: Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s are among the examples. But no brand has captured our collective attention and imagination like TOMS did during its peak as a media darling.
Ultimately, this movement needs a hero. A brand that emerges as a leader and carries the torch for socially-responsible business practices. A brand that is large enough to demand consistent attention from the news media and the average consumer. A brand who can serve as an example and as a powerful advocate for business as a force for good.
A joint study from McKinsey and NielsenIQ examines sales growth for products that claim to be environmentally and socially responsible. From McKinsey • Reposted: February 9, 2023
Total US consumer spending accounts for over $14 trillion annually and two-thirds of the US GDP. An important subset of this spending goes toward everyday consumer packaged goods (CPG), ranging from foods and beverages to cosmetics and cleaning products. The sheer size of the CPG sector—with millions of employees and trillions of dollars in annual sales—makes it a critical component in efforts to build a more sustainable, inclusive economy.
CPG companies increasingly allocate time, attention, and resources to instill environmental and social responsibility into their business practices. They are also making claims about environmental and social responsibility on their product labels. The results have been evident: walk down the aisle of any grocery or drugstore these days and you’re bound to see products labeled “environmentally sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” “fair trade,” or other designations related to aspects of environmental and social responsibility. Most important is what lies behind these product claims—the actual contribution of such business practices to achieving goals such as reducing carbon emissions across value chains, offering fair wages and working practices to employees, and supporting diversity and inclusion. But understanding how customers respond to social and environmental claims is also important and has not been clear in the past.
When consumers are asked if they care about buying environmentally and ethically sustainable products, they overwhelmingly answer yes: in a 2020 McKinsey US consumer sentiment survey, more than 60 percent of respondents said they’d pay more for a product with sustainable packaging. A recent study by NielsenIQ found that 78 percent of US consumers say that a sustainable lifestyle is important to them. Yet many CPG executives report that one challenge to their companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives is the inability to generate sufficient consumer demand for these products. There are many stories of companies launching new products incorporating ESG-related claims only to find that sales fell short of expectations.
How can both of these things be true? Do consumers really care whether products incorporate ESG-related claims? Do shoppers follow through and buy these products while standing in front of store shelves or browsing online? Do their real-life buying decisions diverge from their stated preferences? The potential costs—particularly in an inflationary context—of manufacturing and certifying products that make good on ESG-related claims are high. Accurately assessing demand for products that make these claims is vital as companies think about where to make ESG-related investments across their businesses. Companies should therefore be eager to better understand whether and how these types of claims influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. Is a shopper more likely to purchase a product if there’s an ESG-related claim printed on its package? What about multiple claims? Are some kinds of claims more resonant than others? Does a claim matter more if it’s appended to a pricier product? Is it less meaningful if it comes from a big, established brand?
Over the past several months, McKinsey and NielsenIQ undertook an extensive study seeking to answer these and other questions. We looked beyond the self-reported intentions of US consumers and examined their actual spending behavior—tracking dollars instead of sentiment. The result, for CPG companies, is a fact-based case for bringing environmentally and socially responsible products to market as part of overall ESG strategies and commitments. Creating such products turns out to be not just a moral imperative but also a solid business decision.
Products making ESG-related claims averaged 28 percent cumulative growth over the past five-year period, versus 20 percent for products that made no such claims.
To be clear, this is only a first step in understanding the complex question of how consumers value brands and products that incorporate ESG-related claims. This work has significant limitations that merit mention at the outset.
Growth was not uniform across categories (Exhibit 2). For instance, products making ESG-related claims generated outsize growth in 11 out of 15 food categories and in three out of four personal-care categories—but only two out of nine beverage categories. Shopping data alone can’t explain the reasons for such variances. In the children’s formula and nutritional-beverage category, for example, it’s possible that buying decisions reflect advice from doctors and that consumers probably won’t let ESG-related claims outweigh clinical recommendations.
Exhibit 2
We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
The overall trend, however, was clear: in two-thirds of categories, products that made ESG-related claims grew faster than those that didn’t. Evidence from NielsenIQ’s household panel showed that some demographic groups—such as higher-income households, urban and suburban residents, and households with children—were more likely to buy products that made one or more ESG-related claims. Still, the research shows that a wide range of consumers across incomes, life stages, ages, races, and geographies are buying products bearing ESG-related labels—with an average of plus or minus 15 percent deviation across demographic groups for environmentally and socially conscious buyers compared with the total population. This suggests that the appeal of environmentally and socially responsible products isn’t limited to niche audiences and is making genuine headway with broad swaths of America.
2. Brands of different sizes making ESG-related claims achieved differentiated growth
Large and small brands alike saw growth in products making ESG-related claims. In 59 percent of all categories studied, the smallest brands that made such claims achieved disproportionate growth. But in 50 percent of categories, so did the largest brands that made these claims (Exhibit 3). Some examples of category variance: in sports drinks and hair care, smaller brands grew more quickly, while in fruit juice and sweet snacks, the larger brands did. (The data can’t explain the underperformance of medium-size brands, but it’s possible that they lack the marketing and distribution scale of large brands and the aura of credibility that may benefit smaller brands.)
Exhibit 3
We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
Brands that garner more than half of their sales from products making ESG-related claims enjoy 32 to 34 percent repeat rates (meaning that buyers purchase products from the brand three or more times annually). By contrast, brands that receive less than 50 percent of their sales from products that make ESG-related claims achieve repeat rates of under 30 percent. This difference does not prove that consumers reward brands because of ESG-related claims, but it does suggest that a deeper engagement with ESG-related issues across a brand’s portfolio might enhance consumer loyalty toward the brand as a whole.
4. Combining claims may convey more authenticity
This study also analyzed the effects on growth when a product package displayed multiple types of ESG-related claims. On average, products with multiple claims across our six ESG classification themes grew more quickly than other products: in nearly 80 percent of the categories, the data showed a positive correlation between the growth rate and the number of distinct types of ESG-related claims a product made. Products making multiple types of claims grew about twice as fast as products that made only one (Exhibit 5).Exhibit 5
We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
We are not suggesting that companies can simply print more claims and certifications on their products and expect to be rewarded. These claims must of course be backed by genuine actions that have a meaningful ESG impact, and companies should heed the serious warning about greenwashing we presented in our introduction. Nonetheless, this finding does suggest that consumers may be more likely to perceive that a multiplicity of claims (rather than only one) made by a product correlates with authentic ESG-related behavior on the part of the brand. It also indicates that brands might be wise to reflect on their commitment to ESG practices and to ensure that they are thinking holistically across the interconnected social and environmental factors that underpin their products.
What does this mean for consumer companies and retailers?
Over the past century, global consumer consumption has been a central driver of economic prosperity and growth. This success, however, also comes with social and planetary impacts that result from producing, transporting, and discarding these consumer products. It should thus carry a moral imperative, for consumers and companies alike, to understand and address these impacts to society and the planet as part of buying decisions and ESG-related actions. Product label claims—if they represent true and meaningful environmental and social action—can be an important part of fulfilling this moral imperative.
For companies at the forefront of manufacturing and selling consumer packaged goods, there is no one formula for investing in environmentally and socially responsible product features and claims. Opportunities exist on multiple fronts. It’s important for consumer companies and retailers, first, to prioritize and invest in ESG-related actions that deliver the greatest advancement of their overall ESG commitments and, second, to inform customers of those actions, including information conveyed through product label claims. Our research points to a few insights that companies might consider as they attempt to advance their ESG commitments while also trying to achieve differentiated growth.
Ensure that ESG product claims support an overall ESG strategy with a meaningful environmental and social impact across the portfolio. This study shows that ESG-related growth can be possible across a broad range of brands—large or small, national or private label, in price tiers both high and low. Companies should define the actions, throughout the enterprise, that have the greatest ESG impact and then publicize those actions, where appropriate, with claims across their product portfolios. Rather than making a single large bet in a particular product or category, companies will probably have a greater ESG impact and a better chance of achieving outsize growth if they incorporate high-impact ESG-related benefits across multiple categories and products.
Develop a product design process that embraces ESG-related claims alongside cost engineering. Investments in product design aim to achieve a growth upside but must also—especially during an inflationary period—consider its cost. To ensure that investments in ESG-related claims have the greatest possible impact, companies can consider building strong product design capabilities that take a holistic look across costs, quality, and ESG-related impact. Using a disciplined design-for-sustainability approach, product designers can maximize the visibility, efficacy, and cost-efficiency of ESG-related product features that will resonate with consumers. Meanwhile, ingredients, materials, and processes that don’t contribute to this goal should be eliminated.
Invest in ESG through both existing brands and innovative new products. A healthy portfolio generally has a balanced mix of new and established products. ESG-related claims can play an important role in both. This study suggests that a flagship, established product fighting for share in a highly competitive environment could potentially create an edge by offering relevant and differentiating ESG-related claims. Given the outsize role of new products in boosting category growth, it’s critical to ensure that environmentally and socially responsible products account for a significant share of a company’s innovation pipeline—both to meet customer demand for such products and to ensure that they help advance the company’s overall ESG strategy.
Understand the ESG-related dynamics specific to each category and brand. Categories differ in significant ways, so it is critically important to study category-specific patterns to learn what has worked best in which contexts. Understanding which high-impact ESG claims are associated with consistently better performance in a given category can help companies focus on the claims that matter most to consumers in those categories. Companies can also benefit from being thoughtful about how specific ESG-related claims might align with the core positioning of each brand or differentiate it from those of competitors.
Embrace the holistic, interconnected nature of ESG by creating products addressing multiple concerns. This study shows that consumers seemingly don’t respond to specific ESG-related claims consistently across all categories. But they do tend to reward products that make multiple ESG-related claims, which may do more to help a product achieve a company’s overall ESG goals while also conveying greater authenticity and commitment to consumers. The incremental growth potential from introducing a second or third ESG-related benefit for a product may be equal to the growth impact of introducing the first one. To achieve stronger growth while delivering enhanced ESG-related benefits, companies could find it helpful to consider undertaking a category- and brand-specific assessment to determine whether and how to implement multifaceted claims.
Companies will probably have a greater ESG impact and a better chance of achieving outsize growth if they incorporate high-impact ESG-related claims across multiple categories and products.
This study does not answer all questions about the impact of investments by consumer companies in environmentally and socially responsible products. It does not assess the veracity of ESG-related claims, the relative environmental or social benefits of different claims, or the incremental cost of producing products that authentically deliver on those claims. It does, however, provide an important fact base revealing consumers’ spending habits with regard to these products, and this may help companies accelerate their ESG journeys. There is strong evidence that consumers’ expressed sentiments about ESG-related product claims translate, on average, into actual spending behavior. And this suggests that companies don’t need to choose between ESG and growth. They can achieve both simultaneously by employing a thoughtful, fact-based, consumer-centric ESG strategy. The overarching result might be not just healthier financial performance but also a healthier planet.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Jordan Bar Am is a partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Vinit Doshi is a senior expert in the Stamford office, Anandi Malik is a consultant in the New York office, and Steve Noble is a senior partner in the Minneapolis office. Sherry Frey is vice president of total wellness at NielsenIQ.
The authors wish to thank Oskar Bracho, Nina Engels, Gurvinder Kaur, Akshay Khurana, and Caroline Ling for their contributions to this article. They also thank NielsenIQ for its contributions to the collaborative research conducted for this study.
This report draws on joint research carried out between McKinsey & Company and NielsenIQ. The work reflects the views of the authors and has not been influenced by any business, government, or other institution.
The dairy alternative brand Oatly is using its newly reformulated oat milk yogurt line to introduce U.S. consumers to its climate footprint label — which the company has featured on products in European markets since 2021. Seeing more carbon footprint labels on food products could signal an important shift toward more informed and responsible consumption, as Americans report a willingness to make changes for the sake of the planet.
Such labeling could be a boon for producers with small carbon footprints while perhaps encouraging carbon-heavy producers in sectors like such as beef to find ways to lighten the load. But widespread use and standardization across the food industry will be necessary for it to be effective.
“Transforming the food industry is necessary to meet the current climate challenge, and we believe providing consumers with information to understand the impact of their food choices is one way we as a company can contribute to that effort,” Julie Kunen, director of sustainability for Oatly North America, said in a statement.
There’s good reason to believe that a significant number of consumers will adjust their choices accordingly. A joint study by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the University of Michigan and Harvard University found that climate impact labels on food menus did influence respondents to choose a chicken, fish or vegetarian meal over a beef one. Warning labels were more effective in deterring people from choosing beef than low-impact labels were at encouraging people to eat an alternative. While it was a small study with a limited scope, the research does point to the potential for carbon footprint labels to inform people’s diets.
The global food system accounts for between a quarter and a third of annual greenhouse gas emissions, depending on methodology, leaving plenty of room for improvement — and impact.
For its part, Oatly compares its climate footprint labeling — which will list the product’s climate impact from “grower to grocer” in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) — to the nutritional information that is already required on packaging. The CO2e measurements include not just carbon emissions, but also other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane which have been converted into interchangeable units in order to incorporate them in the total footprint.
However, the brand is clear that carbon footprint labels are neither required nor standardized, and they’re of little recourse to consumers until they become so. Thus the brand is hoping to inspire other producers in the industry to follow suit while encouraging consumers to eat more plant-based and low-carbon alternatives.
“The products we make at Oatly aim to make it easy for people to make the switch to non-dairy alternatives, and great taste is one of the most essential components of driving that conversion,” Leah Hoxie, the brand’s senior vice president of innovation in North America, explained further in a statement.
Taste has been a barrier for the plant-based movement, with major strides made in the latest generation of plant-based meats and dairy products that have hit the market. Indeed, more people are willing to make the leap to eating lower on the food chain as the taste, texture and price of alternatives become more palatable.
Fostering a sense of responsibility for the climate in their business practices and labeling should work in Oatly’s favor, especially among Gen Z.
Consumers have long been burdened with a status quo that makes doing the right thing more difficult, so it’s no wonder we have fallen into a food system that pollutes and destroys ecosystems at a rate far higher than it should. But by providing climate impact information on product packaging, brands can gain consumer trust and demonstrate that they also trust the consumer to make the right choice.
As the balance of information shifts and becomes more equitable, consumers could be empowered not just to lower their own gastronomic impact on the climate, but to expect better from the food industry as well. Naturally this would require a more intricate labeling system — perhaps including warnings on high-impact items — but Oatly is off to a promising start.
Fellow plant-based brand Quorn also includes carbon footprint labels on product packaging, and CPG giant Unilever has committed to roll such labeling out to its entire product portfolio. Other sectors, from beauty to tech, are also looking toward climate labels in a trend that seems to be just heating up.
By Tina Casey from triple pundit.com • Reposted: February 7, 2023
Crusaders against socially responsible investing have been holding forth about the evils of “woke capitalism” in recent years. For all the red-hot rhetoric, though, leading U.S. businesses continue to promote clean power. The latest effort involves GM, Ford, and other leading stakeholders in an effort to grow the market for virtual power plants.
What is a virtual power plant?
Although the idea may seem somewhat exotic, a virtual power plant is simply a networked grid system that enables individual electricity producers to interact with each other and with individual users. The overall aim is to avoid the cost of building new centralized power plants — and especially to avoid building new fossil power plants — while improving reliability and resiliency.
This network-based approach to grid planning is made possible by new smart grid and smart metering technology, along with the proliferation of rooftop solar and other small-scale renewable energy systems. It is a sharp contrast with the traditional strategy of building additional centralized power plants to get communities through periods of peak demand.
In addition, virtual power plants provide electricity users with new opportunities to save or even make money, depending on the incentives offered by their grid operator.
In a blog post last May, the U.S. Department of Energy described how virtual plants have come to include not only individual meters, but also individual appliances that are designed to interact with the grid, as well as electric vehicle charging stations and energy storage facilities.
“Operators gain the flexibility to better reduce peak demand and, as a result, defer investment in additional capacity and infrastructure to serve a peak load that is expected to increase as we electrify the nation’s economy,” explained Jigar Shah, director of the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office.
Why don’t we all have virtual power plants?
For all their potential benefits, virtual power plants are a relatively new phenomenon, and they still account for a vanishingly small percentage of grid activity in the U.S.
In a followup blog post last October, Shah noted that the market for virtual power plants has only been open since 2020, through an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Nearly two years later, VPPs are just beginning to compete in organized capacity, energy, and ancillary services markets at a meaningful scale at the regional level,” Shah wrote.
In particular, Shah focused on the need for virtual power plants to secure revenue contracts. “To unleash the capital that makes ratepayer and wholesale power cost reductions possible, incumbent financiers need to see lower customer acquisition costs and consistent revenues for the critical services provided,” Shah noted.
Heeding the VPP call
GM and Ford have heeded the call for virtual power plants under the banner of the VP3, the new Virtual Power Plant Partnership hosted by the clean energy organization Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). Other VP3 founding stakeholders include Google Nest, OhmConnect, Olivine, SPAN, SunPower, Sunrun, SwitchDin and Virtual Peaker.
GM and Google Nest served as seed funders of VP3. RMI also hopes to build on the success of its Renewable Energy Buyers Association partnership, of which GM is also a founding member.
“VP3 is an initiative based at RMI that works to catalyze industry and transform policy to support scaling VPPs in ways that help advance affordable, reliable electric sector decarbonization by overcoming barriers to VPP market growth,” according to a press announcement from the Rocky Mountain Institute.
“Our analysis shows that VPPs can reduce peak power demand and improve grid resilience in a world of increasingly extreme climate events,” added RMI CEO Hon Creyts, in a statement. “A growing VPP market also means revenue opportunities for hardware, software, and energy-service companies in the buildings and automotive industries.”
As a collaborative effort, VP3 will work to raise awareness about the benefits of virtual power plants, develop best practices and standards across the industry, and promote supportive policies.
The electric vehicle connection
Electric vehicles are in a perfect position to contribute to and benefit from virtual power plants, due to their mobility, flexibility and large energy storage capacity. That explains why Ford and GM jumped at the opportunity to get involved with VP3 as founding members.
Mark Bole, GM’s head of V2X and battery solutions division, noted that the V3 collaboration “underscores GM’s commitment to creating a more resilient grid, with EVs and virtual power plants playing a key role in helping to advance our all-electric future.”
In a separate announcement, Bill Crider, head of global charging and energy services at Ford, explained that electric vehicles are “introducing entirely new opportunities for consumers and businesses alike, creating a greater need for sustainable energy solutions to responsibly power our connected lifestyles.”
“Supporting grid stability through the introduction of technologies like Intelligent Backup Power is central to Ford’s strategy, and collaborating to advance virtual power plants will be another important step to ensure a smooth transition to an EV lifestyle,” Crider added.
Who’s next on the virtual power plant bandwagon?
Among the Big Three legacy U.S. automakers, Stellantis has yet to engage with VP3. That could change as the company that now owns Dodge and Chrysler ramps up its interest in virtual power plants.
In 2020, Stellantis began work on a large-scale virtual power plant in Italy based on electric vehicle-to-grid technology. The company, which also counts Fiat and Peugeot among its subsidiaries, may be waiting on the results of that project before committing itself to a policymaking endeavor in the U.S.
Interest in virtual power plants is also growing at Volkswagen and other overseas automakers that have an eye on the U.S. market. In addition, Tesla has embarked on virtual power plant ventures in California and Texas, deploying both its vehicle batteries and its Powerwall home batteries.
It remains to be seen if Tesla will collaborate with VP3 on industry standards, though. Tesla CEO Elon Musk established a well-known reputation for not collaborating in the early days of electric vehicle commercialization. He held out Tesla’s charging system as unique to Tesla, even as other automakers worked to create the standard CCS charging technology for Europe and North America.
Since its introduction in 2011, CCS has been supported by almost all other auto manufacturers in those two markets. Even Tesla itself leans on CCS to some degree, since it provides Tesla owners with an adapter to use at CCS charging stations. (Note: Japan and China continue to use their own charging systems.)
More recently, Musk further cultivated his outsider status in the early days of the COVID-19 lockdown when he criticized the U.S. government’s public safety guidelines and upstaged an inter-industry collaboration to restart U.S. factories. He also spread confusion and misinformation about the virus and the COVID-19 vaccine on social media.
When U.S. President Joe Biden convened a major media event for auto manufacturers in August of 2021, it was no surprise to see Tesla left out in the cold. Last year, the S&P 500 also took Tesla to task for not keeping pace with its peers in the auto industry on corporate ESG (environment, social, governance) issues.
Musks’s use of social media also makes Tesla an outlier among CEOs in the auto industry and elsewhere, in regards to his willingness to amplify and normalize white nationalist rhetoric.
With or without Tesla, though, VP3 is yet another instance in which industry leaders are swatting away the anti-ESG agitators like flies to take advantage of new opportunities to grow their businesses and attract new customers.
A colorized image of the 1963 civil rights March on Washington, where an estimated 250,000 people gathered to demand equal access to jobs, housing and education — and hear Martin Luther King Jr.’s now famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
By Mary Mazzoni from triple pundit.com • Reposted: February 3, 2023
Corporate efforts to observe Black History Month are often cringe-worthy at best and offensive at worst. If you’re planning to add a kente avatar on social media or pen a generic letter to employees, please do us all a favor and stop now. Business leaders can — and should — do better. Here’s some advice to get you started, from the Black thought leaders who have been telling us for years.
Don’t: Pander to your employees and customers this Black History Month
In the Year of Our Lord 2023, we should really all be past the platitudinous “Happy Black History Month” email to employees — or worse, the dreaded product drop. Think back to when TriplePundit asked workplace inclusion expert Kim Crowder about corporate cash-grabs around Juneteenth: “This is a repeat of why Juneteenth was needed,” she reminded business leaders. “It is basically commodifying the Black American experience by those who do not share those experiences and who have benefitted from the enslavement of people.”
The same holds true for brands that seek to capitalize on Black History Month while doing little to honor Black history or benefit Black communities. Just ask Ernest Owens, editor at large for Philadelphia magazine, who has never been shy with his opinions about how brands observe the holiday.
“Just like Pride Month, Black History Month has become a routine time of year when corporations say the absolute most while doing the least for marginalized communities,” he wrote in a 2021 op/ed for the Washington Post.
Do: Look inwardly — and act accordingly
Rather than looking to commodify the holiday or pat your company on the back for its great work on racial equity, turn your mind to the work ahead of you — and communicate frankly and thoughtfully with your employees and stakeholders about what comes up.
“Organizations should be looking beyond one day and focusing on areas such as pay equity, promotion rates, the ability for Black team members’ work to be seen and acknowledged, and partnering with Black businesses regularly — including paying them well for their work,” Crowder told us. “The goal is to work toward Black liberation every day.”
Don’t: Expect praise for pennies
In December polling commissioned by TriplePundit, less than 20 percent of over 3,000 U.S. consumers said they’d be impressed by a billion-dollar company donating $5 million to a social cause like racial equity, with the majority agreeing that “business should do more.”
Findings like these indicate that people are growing more wary of brands appearing to “check the box” by donating to a nonprofit. They want to see what changes you’re making, and they want to hear about the outcomes of that change.
“The key here is authentic leadership — in other words, walking the walk, not just talking the talk,” Gary Cunningham, president and CEO of Prosperity Now, told TriplePundit back in 2021. “It’s easy to say that you’re anti-racist without changing anything about how your organization operates.”
Do: Champion your partners
Of course, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with donating to nonprofits or establishing new programs that look to address racial equity, nor is it intrinsically wrong to communicate these programs during Black History Month. But if you do, do so thoughtfully.
Find clear alignment between your company, your teams and the nonprofits you support. Communicate with your stakeholders about the great work your partners do and why you trust them. For example, did someone from your team recommend this organization? Does it work in your community? Is it particularly positioned to address the issues your teams and stakeholders care about most? Remember, this is an opportunity to educate your stakeholders about the issues — and highlight the perspective of your community partners that know these issues best.
“So often I’ve witnessed corporations and business leaders act as if because they are very smart and can solve problems that they can understand and know how to solve the complex problems of racial and ethnic inequality,” Cunningham told us. “Trust the guidance of people who can help you learn, help you bring your work into the community, and help you understand the depth of the issues that you’re trying to contain.”
Don’t: Task your Black employees with more unpaid work
As companies pushed to demonstrate their commitment to racial equity in 2020, it wasn’t long before they looked toward their Black employees to do the hard work for them.
Asking Black employees to speak on panels, lead new employee resource groups, or consult on strategies for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — all for no added compensation — is not only unfair, but it also plainly illustrates the very inequities these companies claim to oppose. Over half of Black women in particular told the consultancy Every Level Leadership they feel singled out as the sole resource to educate their colleagues about DEI.
Think of your team’s well-being, and don’t repeat the ugly cycle this Black History Month. As Najoh Tita-Reid, chief marketing officer for Logitech, observed in Fortune back in June 2020: “Black people did not create these problems, so please do not expect us to resolve them alone.”
Do: Take responsibility for educating yourself
It’s past time for non-Black people to take personal responsibility for educating themselves about racial justice issues, rather than leaning on their friends and colleagues. If you’re an executive, read more, watch more and generally consume more media about the topic. Encourage everyone in your organization to do the same, and give them opportunities to discuss it, if and when they choose.
“Take responsibility for your own education on racial issues,” Tita-Reid suggested in Fortune. “Create companywide forums and Q&A sessions to educate large groups. Bring in experts, if needed, to provide actionable plans that systematically implement racial equity. Identify those of us who are open to speak, and respect those of us who do not want to talk about the situation.”
When it comes to your formal DEI strategy work: Resource it, and pay your teams accordingly. “Do not shortchange race equity work,” Andrea J. Rogers and Tiloma Jayasinghe of Community Resource Exchange recommend in Nonprofit Quarterly. “And if you feel like doing that, ask yourself why, and take this opportunity to unpack biases around what is valued, who is valued, and what impact means for your organization.”
By Srikanth Pilla, Professor of Engineering, Clemson University and James Sternberg, Research Assistant Professor of Automotive Engineering, Clemson University
The big idea
A new plant-based substitute for polyurethane foam eliminates the health risk of the material, commonly found in insulation, car seats and other types of cushioning, and it’s more environmentally sustainable, our new research shows.
Polyurethane foams are all around you, anywhere a lightweight material is needed for cushioning or structural support. But they’re typically made using chemicals that are suspected carcinogens.
Polyurethanes are typically produced in a very fast reaction between two chemicals made by the petrochemical industry: polyols and isocyanates. While much work has gone into finding replacements for the polyol component of polyurethane foams, the isocyanate component has largely remained, despite its consequences for human health. Bio-based foams can avoid that component.
These bio-based foams avoid the need for petroleum products. Srikanth Pilla, CC BY-ND
We created a durable bio-based foam using lignin, a byproduct of the paper pulping industry, and a vegetable oil-based curing agent that introduces flexibility and toughness to the final material.
At the heart of the innovation is the ability to create a system that “gels,” both in the sense that the materials are compatible with one another and that they physically create a gel quickly so that the addition of a foaming agent can create the lightweight structure associated with polyurethane foams.
Lignin is a difficult material to convert into a usable chemical, given its complicated and heterogeneous structure. We used this structure to create a network of bonds that enabled what we believe is the world’s first lignin-based nonisocyanate foam.
The foam can also be recycled because it has bonds that can unzip the chemical network after it has formed. The main components used to produce the foam can then be extracted and used again.
Why it matters
Polyurethane foams are the world’s sixth-most-produced plastic yet among the least recycled materials. They are also designed for durability, meaning they will remain in the environment for several generations.
They contribute to the plastic waste problem for the world’s oceans, land and air, and to human health problems. Today, plastics can be found in virtually every creature in the terrestrial ecosystem. And since most plastics are made from petroleum products, they’re connected to fossil fuel extraction, which contributes to climate change.
The fully bio-based origin of our foams addresses the issue of carbon neutrality, and the chemical recycling capability ensures that waste plastic has a value attached to it so it is less likely to be thrown away. Ensuring waste has value is a hallmark of the circular approach to manufacturing – attaching a monetary value to things tends to decrease the amount that is discarded.
How the chemicals in bio-based foams can be recycled and reused. Srikanth Pilla, CC BY-ND
We hope the nature of these foams inspires others to design plastics with the full life cycle in mind. Just as plastics need to be designed according to properties of their initial application, they also need to be designed to avoid the final destination of 90% of plastic waste: landfills and the environment.
What’s next
Our initial versions of bio-based foams produce a rigid material suitable for use in foam-core boards used in construction or for insulation in refrigerators. We have also created a lightweight and flexible version that can be used for cushioning and packaging applications. Initial testing of these materials showed good durability in wet conditions, increasing their chance of gaining commercial adoption.
Polyurethane foams are used so extensively because of their versatility. The formulation that we initially discovered is being translated to create a library of precursors that can be mixed to produce the desired properties, like strength and washability, in each application.
By Ekaterina Hardin and Lia Brussock from NASDAQ • Reposted January 16, 2022
What is Climate Resilience? Climate resilience is the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and withstand hazardous events, shifting consumer trends and behaviors, or business disturbances related to climate change.
Improving climate resilience involves (1) assessing how climate change will create new, or alter current, climate-related risks, and (2) taking steps to better cope with these risks.
Since 2020, the world has seen multiple major events – a global pandemic, a supply chain crisis, a geopolitical conflict and an overall economic volatility. These events have challenged businesses and their ability to remain resilient and to manage a range of external constraints.
During the pandemic, labor shortages created clogged marine ports and made companies rely on air freight for logistics and transportation, increasing overall expenses and emissions. Corporates are looking for ways to cut their emissions that spiked during the supply chain crisis.
The geopolitical crisis spiked energy and fuel costs. In absence of energy independence, the situation was worsened by the lowered production levels in the Middle East. Then recent diesel shortage added more fuel into the fire.
The economic volatility felt by many in the most recent months made businesses look deep into their operations for ways to improve efficiency and cut expenses.
All these challenges are linked to transitional climate risks through fuel, energy and emissions. Setting climate impacts aside, not being able to access resources at low cost also has a direct financial impact. Being able to manage these risks in 2023 and beyond will help companies demonstrate climate resilience and provide access to capital in the long term.
Large Corporates Influence Their Supply Chain to Build Resilience
Climate resilience is crucial for all market participants up and down the value chain. To improve their transitional risk resilience, large corporations who have committed to net zero targets are now engaging with their critical suppliers. Large corporate clients are asking their suppliers to provide their GHG inventories, and in some cases, requiring them to set climate-related targets of their own. In this effort to pass down climate targets, these corporations are working to mitigate their own climate-related risks and improve climate resilience throughout their value chain. According to Nasdaq research, currently 58% of S&P 500 companies have a climate-related goal in their 2022 Proxy Statement. In addition, over 4000 companies of all sizes are taking action to reduce their emissions by setting science-based targets through the Science Based Targets Initiative. Almost half of the 4000+ have already set Science Based targets and almost 1500 companies have made Net Zero commitments (Figure 1A). Scope 3 emission targets (indirect value chain emissions) are a significant portion of these commitments.
Large cap companies are not the only ones committing to science-based emissions reduction targets. Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) make up almost 20 percent (18.6%) of the total companies listed by SBTi (Figure 1B). A total of 747 SMEs have set targets as of November 2022, in comparison to just 29 two years ago. GHG emissions reduction targets are emerging across market caps and organization types, and in many cases the influence of large corporations on their value chain is clear.
We at Nasdaq ESG Advisory hear about these cascade impacts from our clients: their large corporate customers expect them to measure and to reduce their own Scope 1 and Scope 2 footprints, otherwise they risk losing their shared business. This is a significant challenge that smaller and mid-size companies can anticipate in 2023 and beyond. The tide of climate action is rising, and smaller and mid-size companies now face challenges beyond responding to investor pressures and regulatory requirements. They must also address hindered ability to conduct business with large corporate customers. By not having a climate-related target in place, supply chain participants are exposing themselves to climate-related risks that will directly impact their financial health.
Global Transition to Low Carbon Economy and Geopolitical Crisis
Climate resilience has also been challenged this year by the global energy crisis. The 2022 energy crisis, associated with the geopolitical conflict in Ukraine, made energy costs soar. Consequently, high prices on crude oil and natural gas increased the cost of manufacturing and spiked transportation and distribution costs. Lower production levels in the middle east that followed fuel cost increase in the US, only made the situation worse. Additionally, most recently transition to low carbon economy has been under the microscope due to diesel shortages and associated surging diesel cost.
Back in 2020-2021, when marine transportation industry was clogged because of labor shortages, air freight was the only option to deliver goods to customers. Not only is air freight more carbon intensive, but it is also more costly. As a result, we saw increased emissions and narrower margins. Furthermore, in 2022 businesses that rely on fossil-based fuels for energy to produce and transport their goods saw additionally significant operational expense increases. The geopolitical crisis driving energy cost up, combined with a challenging economic environment emphasized the importance of climate resilience. While trying to stop the short-term value bleed, companies need to think about long-term resilience and build-in mitigation strategies such as self-generated energy and increased share of renewables and alternative fuels, so they can climb out of these challenging times ahead of their peers.
Current Economy and Climate Resilience
It is crucial for executives to set up their businesses for resilience in the long term, especially when markets are very volatile. In 2022, decreasing revenue growth rates and shrinking margins have been a focus for investors. Recession and inflation concerns have curbed investor appetite [Scenario Planning and Explaining Your Resilience – Nasdaq’s Advice on Appealing to Investors in Challenging Times]. To build trust with external stakeholders during these times, it is important for companies to explain their resilience to macro concerns like fuel shortage, energy, and raw materials cost. Additionally, understanding the industry trends and setting differentiators from peers will build confidence in management and will help companies to secure capital needed to navigate through the challenging times. Demonstrating financial resilience and climate risks resilience go hand in hand. Companies that are highly exposed to climate-related financial risks, such as energy cost and security, cost of raw materials, cost of transportation and logistics, can prove their financial resilience by demonstrating how they manage these climate-related risks.
Companies in varying sectors have different climate risk profiles, therefore, the way they demonstrate climate resilience would also be different. We encourage each company to access their business specific short-, mid- and long- term climate-related risks and put resilience strategies in place for those risks that companies cannot afford to tolerate in these downturn conditions. related risks and put resilience strategies in place for those risks that companies cannot afford to tolerate in these downturn conditions.
Understanding Your Business Resilience
In times of economic downturn and high volatility, demonstrating to stakeholders that you are an attractive investment, if revenues are down, is a challenge. Companies need to demonstrate how they are planning to capture future opportunities and curb financial risks in current economic conditions. Climate crisis often acts as a risk multiplier. It multiplies all financial risks – operational risk, credit risk, liquidity, underwriting. Being climate resilient company means being financially resilient company. It means capturing climate-related opportunities and mitigating climate-related financial risks better than your peers and competitors.
Knowing what risks your company is exposed to and how they can impact the financial condition and operations of your business across several time horizons and climate futures, will help executives put appropriate resilience strategies in place and build trust with investors.
Understanding industry risks and company specific resilience starts with understanding your risk exposure, risk vulnerability and your risk tolerance and how those might change in the future. For those risks that you cannot tolerate, management strategies must be put in place. At times when it is hard to justify R&D spend on new technologies, products, or services, optimizing efficiencies to reduce operational costs might be the best way to capture climate opportunities and demonstrate climate resilience. By conducting a peer assessment, understanding industry trends and how to achieve a competitive advantage at lowest cost possible, companies can make a business case for themselves and demonstrate to stakeholders that they are an attractive long-term investment.
The Challenges Nasdaq Sees & How We Can Help
Lack of climate expertise coupled with time and resources constraints are the most common pain points for corporates. Companies that are laser-focused on delivering business outcomes during challenging economic times need high efficiency and low-cost solutions. When time is money and when time needs to be spent on delivering products to the market, conducting labor- and time-intensive tasks such as peer benchmarking and assessment is a challenge for resource constrained companies. Staying on top of all the recent regulatory developments and tracking which direction political winds blow is also very time consuming and disrupting.
Climate risk is a systemic risk – meaning it is a risk you cannot diversify from. However, the way it impacts each industry and company varies. Each company’s path along the climate journey is unique. Businesses operate in different geographies, different sectors, have different supply chains and different stakeholders with different short- and long-term priorities. Nasdaq understands that each company has its own set of considerations, and we prepared to partner at each stage of their journey towards climate and financial resilience. Our goal at Nasdaq is to help our community build resilience and trust. We drive impact through cost-effective resources, tools, and guidance around climate data collection, risk identification, and disclosure, ultimately enabling our community to build competitive differentiation. To start your climate resilience journey, contact Nasdaq ESG Advisory here.
About the Authors
Ekaterina Hardin
Ekaterina Hardin is a Lead ESG Advisor focused on Climate at Nasdaq ESG Advisory Practice within our ESG Solutions Business. Ekaterina was previously with the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) where she was the Extractives & Mineral Processing Sector Lead Analyst. Ekaterina was also SASB’s climate research lead and Net Zero working group owner. Prior to SASB, Ekaterina was an oil & gas geophysicist for over a decade with an M.S. in Geophysics from University of Moscow, Russia. Later in her career Ekaterina earned an M.S. in Environmental Engineering from UC Irvine, where she focused on Climate Change and Sustainability in the Energy sector.
Lia Brussock
Lia Brussock is a Senior ESG analyst within Nasdaq’s ESG Advisory team. She joins the team with ESG, climate and corporate sustainability expertise. Her prior experience includes environmental footprint management at a global chemical and consumer goods company, where she led engagements with manufacturing facilities to advance progress towards global footprint targets. She is also well-versed in ESG strategy, reporting and benchmarking. Lia holds a M.S. in Sustainability Management from Columbia University and a B.A. in Global Environmental Change & Sustainability with a minor in Economics from Johns Hopkins University.
U.S. universities now have over 3,000 sustainability programs. Photo: Andy DeLisle/ASU
By Christopher Boone, Professor of Sustainability, Arizona State University and Karen C. Seto, Professor of Geography and Urbanization Science, Yale University from The Conversation. Re-posted: January 15, 2022
To meet today’s global sustainability challenges, the corporate world needs more than a few chief sustainability officers – it needs an army of employees, in all areas of business, thinking about sustainability in their decisions every day.
That means product designers, supply managers, economists, scientists, architects and many others with the knowledge to both recognize unsustainable practices and find ways to improve sustainability for the overall health of their companies and the planet.
Employers are increasingly looking for those skills. We analyzed job ads from a global database and found a tenfold increase in the number of jobs with “sustainability” in the title over the last decade, reaching 177,000 in 2021.
What’s troubling is that there are not enough skilled workers to meet the rapid growth in green and sustainability jobs available.
While the number of “green jobs” grew globally at a rate of 8% per year over the last five years, the number of people listing green skills in their profiles only grew by 6% per year, according to a LinkedIn analysis of its nearly 800 million users.
When employees are trained to think about sustainable materials and processes, they can improve corporate innovation and the bottom line. Photo: Sona Srinarayana/ASU
As professors who train future workers in sustainability principles and techniques, we see several effective ways for people at all stages of their careers to gain those skills and increase those numbers.
But green jobs go well beyond solar panel installation and wind turbine maintenance.
Sustainable fashion is one of the fastest-growing green jobs sectors, averaging a 90% growth rate annually between 2016 and 2020.
The rapid expansion of ESG investing – environment, social and governance – and portfolio management is opening up new jobs in sustainable finance. In 2021, the accounting firm PwC announced that it would invest US$12 billion and create 100,000 new jobs in ESG investing by 2026.
In 2013, when the Rockefeller Foundation launched 100 Resilient Cities, a network to help cities become more sustainable, few cities had a resilience or sustainability officer. Today, more than 250 communities and 1,000 local government professionals are part of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network.
Most sustainability and green jobs require creative problem-solving, synthesizing and technical skills. Some of those skills can be learned on the job, but boosting the number of qualified job applicants will require more effective and accessible training opportunities that target employers’ needs. Here are a some training sources to consider.
University programs: Sustainability is increasingly being incorporated into a wide range of university programs. Fifteen years ago, sustainability training was mostly ad hoc – a product designer or economist might have taken a class in sustainability approaches from the environmental science department. Today, U.S. universities have about 3,000 programs with a “sustainability” label, up from 13 in 2008.
A National Academies report recommends looking for a competency-based approach to sustainability learning that blends content with skills and links knowledge to action to solve problems and develop solutions.
Micro-credentials: For mid-career employees who don’t have the time to reinvest in full-fledged degrees, short courses and micro-credentials offered by universities, colleges or professional groups offer one way to develop sustainability skills.
U.S. architect Michael Reynolds holds four-week, hands-on training sessions, primarily for architects, in sustainable design principles, construction methods and philosophy. Participation can count toward Western Colorado University’s Master in Environmental Management graduate degree. Photo: Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images
Short courses and micro credentials take up less time and are much less expensive than college degree programs. That may also help lower-income individuals train for sustainability jobs and diversify the field.
Specializations: A similar option is jobs-focused online certificate programs with a sustainability specialization.
For example, Google teamed up with universities to provide online courses for project managers, and Arizona State University is offering a sustainability specialization to accompany it. Project management is an area where the U.S. Department of Labor expects to see fast job growth, with 100,000 job openings in the next decade.
Sustainable packaging design that reduces costs and reuses materials is an area ripe for innovation in many companies as consumer shipping increases.Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Integrating sustainability across all functions of companies will require some level of sustainability training and understanding for most if not all employees. Companies like Starbucks, HSBC, Salesforce and Microsoft have created internal training programs to spread sustainability knowledge and practice throughout their companies, not just for employees who have sustainability in their titles.
Closing the gap
A recent survey by Microsoft and BCG of major companies found that only 43% of sustainability professionals in businesses had sustainability-related degrees, and 68% of sustainability leaders were hired internally.
It’s clear that on-the-job sustainability training and up-skilling will be necessary to fill the growing number of roles inside of companies.
To meet the sustainability skills gap, we believe more training will be required – at colleges and universities, by professional organizations and from employers. Achieving global sustainability and meeting climate change challenges will become more likely as legions of people commit their working hours to sustainability solutions.
A new survey suggests U.S. consumers are largely unaware of the severity of global resource scarcity, but their choice of packaging would be impacted if they had readily available information on how renewable materials mitigate climate change.
Tetra Pak and the Global Footprint Network conducted a survey of 1,000 U.S. consumers about their grocery spending habits. An overwhelming 86 percent agreed that if they knew the use of renewable packaging contributed to reducing carbon emissions, it would impact their choice of packaging. Women were particularly motivated to choose renewable packaging options based on this knowledge: 90 percent of females said they would modify their purchasing habits while 77 percent of men did.
According to TetraPak, consumers indicated that they are ready to be held as accountable as government and industry for climate change, and they are ready to support actions to mitigate its harmful effects. While 81 percent of respondents said that no one group is responsible for addressing natural resource constraints, the majority also believes that no single group is doing enough.
“Our survey confirms our belief that with information and education, consumers will respond favorably to the need to pay closer attention to resource challenges and change their individual actions, including making more environmentally responsible decisions around packaging,” said Elizabeth Comere, Director of Environment & Government Affairs for Tetra Pak US and Canada.
The survey also asked respondents about specific actions they would be willing to take to conserve natural resources. The top three responses were:
buying local grown food as much as possible (75 percent)
only buying as much food as a household was going to consume (72 percent)
seeking out food or beverage products that come in renewable packaging (69 percent).
Daily purchasing choices can make a difference, said Mathis Wackernagel, president and co-founder of Global Footprint Network.
“How we meet our basic needs — including food — is a powerful way to shape sustainability. Eating food from local sources and less emphasis on animal-based diets can lower the Ecological Footprint,” he said. “When we buy packaged foods, opting for packaging made from renewable materials also contributes to a lower Ecological Footprint.”
These findings coincide with Earth Overshoot Day, an indicator of when humanity has used up nature’s ‘budget’ for the entire year. Global Footprint Network announced Wednesdaythat we have overshot faster than ever: Overshoot Day moved from early October in 2000 to August 13th this year.
Finnish dairy producer, Valio, has become the first company in the world to sell products to consumers in Tetra Pak’s carton packaging made entirely from plant-based materials.
Valio is piloting the Tetra Rex Bio-based packaging for its lactose free semi-skimmed milk drink in retail outlets across Finland until mid-March, and will then use feedback from consumers to decide whether to adopt the cartons more broadly across its chilled product range. Charles Brand, executive vice president of product management & commercial operations for Tetra Pak said: “To finally see fully renewable packages on shop shelves is a fantastic feeling … and bears testimony to the focused efforts of the many customers, suppliers and Tetra Pak employees involved in making this a reality. We have been gradually increasing the use of renewable materials in our packages over the years and that work will continue, as we look for ways to extend the fully-renewable concept to other parts of our portfolio without compromising safety, quality or functionality.”
The cartons are manufactured from a combination of plastics derived from plants and paperboard. It is claimed to be a world first and, says Tetra Pak, is a milestone in its commitment to drive ever-stronger environmental performance across all parts of its portfolio and operations. The low density polyethylene used to create the laminate film for the packaging material and the neck of the opening, together with the high density polyethylene used for the cap, are all derived from sugar cane. These plastics, like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSCTM) certified paperboard, are traceable to their origins. The Tetra Rex fully renewable package can be identified by the words “Bio-based” printed on the gable of the package.
Elli Siltala, marketing director at Valio said: “Valio is committed to increasing the share of renewable resources in its packaging material. We share a common vision of innovation and environmental responsibility with Tetra Pak and we are proud to be the first in the world to make our products available in a fully renewable carton package.” The milk drink will be available in one-litre capacity Tetra Rex Bio-based packages, with a cap made of sugarcane and will use Tetra Pak filling machine.
Timberland’s partnership with Omni United will create co-branded automotive tires specifically designed to be recycled into footwear outsoles when their road journey is complete.
According to a joint press announcement, Timberland and Omni United first conceived this partnership three years ago, when sustainability leaders from both brands came together to address a longstanding shared concern. The tire and footwear industries are two of the largest users of virgin rubber. The majority of tires on the market today have a limited life span; ecologically-sound disposal at the end of that life span presents yet another challenge.
In a statement, Stewart Whitney, president of Timberland said, “Our partnership with Omni United marks a new day for the tire and footwear industries. An outdoor lifestyle brand and an automotive industry leader may, at first blush, seem unlikely partners – yet our shared values have given birth to tires that express a lifestyle, deliver performance and safety, and prove that sustainability can be so much more than a theory. It’s this kind of cross-industry collaboration that’s fueling real change and innovation in the marketplace.”
G.S. Sareen, president and CEO of Omni United said, “Omni United and Timberland are taking an entirely different view of sustainability by designing Timberland Tires for a second life from the outset. That is one of the reasons why establishing a take-back and recycling program before the first tire is sold – and choosing an appropriate rubber formulation for recycling the tires into footwear – is so critical. Our intent is to capture every worn Timberland Tire and recycle it for a second life, so none is used as fuel or ends up in a landfill.”
To bring the tire-to-shoe continuum to life, Timberland and Omni United have established an industry-first tire return/chain of custody process, to ensure the tires go directly to dedicated North American recycling facilities to begin their path toward a second life as part of a Timberland® product. Key steps include:
Tire retailers will set aside used Timberland Tires for recycling after consumers purchase new tires to replace their worn out tires.
Omni United is partnering with Liberty Tire Recycling and its network of tire collection and recycling firms to sort and segregate the Timberland Tires at the companies’ facilities.
The used tires will be shipped to a North American tire recycling facility where they will be recycled into crumb rubber.
The crumb rubber will be processed further into sheet rubber for shipment to Timberland outsole manufacturers.
The rubber will be mixed into a Timberland-approved compound for outsoles that will ultimately be incorporated into Timberland® boots and shoes. This blended compound will meet the company’s exacting standards for quality and performance, as well as its stringent compliance standards.
Timberland Tires will be sold initially in the United States at leading national and regional tire retailers, as well as online through a state-of-the-art e-commerce platform.
In a new campaign celebrating the benefits of the great outdoors, The North Face introduces a video today encouraging city dwellers to embrace nature and the environment. Using Woody Guthrie’s venerable This Land Is Your Land reworked by My Morning Jacket, the campaign subtly demonstrates the uplifting benefits of outdoor activity.
The centerpiece of the campaign is the 90 second video. The spot closes with the store’s long-running slogan, “Never stop exploring,” and urges consumers to download the new recording of the song from iTunes. The download will cost $1.29, with Apple pocketing its customary third and the rest going to the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps within the United States Interior Department, which hires veterans and at-risk young people to restore and preserve public land. Additionally, the retailer is contributing $250,000 to the corps.
New research released in London this week points to the effectiveness of cause driven social campaigns activated by brands – showing superior business results than traditional brand communication stories, especially in social media.
In the report, Seriously Social by marketing consultant Peter Field, research indicates that not only were cause-driven campaigns better at delivering business effects — they also generated greater numbers of brand effects once the non-profits were removed from the equation.
Field analysed case studies from the Warc Prize for Social Strategy – a global competition for examples of social ideas that drive business results – defined social strategy as any activity designed to generate participation, conversation, sharing or advocacy.
“Cause-driven campaigns are more strongly associated with business effects,” Field stated, a finding that became even clearer when stripping non-profit campaigns out of the calculation.
Field was able to compare the impact of campaigns that associated a brand with a good cause, with the impact of those that built a story around a brand.
He found that media usage for cause-driven campaigns was more strongly focused on online, WOM/earned media and traditional advertising channels (excluding TV). Brand story campaigns, in contrast, made wider use of media channels and, as they were more likely to be short-term campaigns, included much more activation.
These patterns had an impact on subsequent effectiveness. The business effectiveness of cause driven-campaigns was found to increase markedly over time, whereas that of brand story campaigns did not.
“Again, this is a reflection of the short-term outlook of the latter group,” Field said, who suggested that conclusions about effectiveness drawn over a period of less than six months would underplay the true strength of cause-driven campaigns.
55% of global respondents in Nielsen’s corporate social responsibility survey were willing to pay extra for products and services from companies committed to positive social and environmental impact—an increase from 45% in 2011. However, people living in North America lag the global average, with only 42% saying they would be willing to pay extra – a 7% increase from three years ago.
As continued impactful climate change events and social consciousness raises people’s concern about companies’ impact on society, the importance of brand’s corporate responsibility reputations will continue to rise. Brands which act responsibly and communicate those actions effectively will increasingly be the ones rewarded by consumers.
Unilever has launched a worldwide new initiative to motivate millions of people to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. Launched yesterday on Universal Children’s Day in Brazil, India, Indonesia, the UK and the US, Project Sunlight aims to make sustainable living desirable and achievable by inspiring people, and in particular parents, to join what Unilever sees as a growing community of people who want to make the world a better place for children and future generations.
Project Sunlight was launched with the four-minute film embedded here and created by DAVID Latin America and Ogilvy & Mather London at dawn on November 20th in Indonesia and then follow the sun to India, the UK, Brazil and the US. Additional information can be found at an online hub – www.projectsunlight.com – which brings together the social mission stories of Unilever’s brands across the world, and invites consumers to get involved in doing small things that help their own families, others around the world and the planet.
To mark the launch of Project Sunlight on Universal Children’s Day, Unilever will be helping 2 million children through its ongoing partnerships, providing school meals through the World Food Programme; supporting Save the Children to provide clean, safe drinking water; and improved hygiene through UNICEF.
Ogilvy & Mather Chairman and CEO Miles Young, explains: “Unilever asked us to find a new way to talk about sustainability that would make the benefits real for ordinary people. Project Sunlight is founded on the principle that even small actions can make a big difference and that together, we can create a brighter future. We are honored to be a part of such a positive and significant movement for the good of our client and our communities.” Famed film director Erroll Morris directed “Why bring a child into this world?” including moving interviews with expectant parents from around the world.
The project draws on the legacy of Unilever’s founder Lord Leverhulme, who believed that he could change the world with a brand of soap he called Sunlight.
Kudos to Unilever, Ogilvy, DAVID and everyone involved in this important initiative that hits at the heart of the matter: if we can’t work to improve living conditions on our precious planet, how dare you bring a child into this world.
Image credit: 
Eric Block On Responsible Branding 
You must be logged in to post a comment.