Maurbrand - Sustainability Consulting & Strategy

The Energy Cost of Water

2010-07-08T15:19:21Z

Water conservation is a face with two sides: one is the obvious side of saving a resource crucial for sustaining life; the second - which is often neglected but emerging as a national priority - is the link to energy consumption and conservation.

In other words, there is an energy intensity related to water consumption just as there is a water intensity related to energy consumption.

The focus here is on the energy intensity related to water consumption - i.e., water collection, treatment, distribution and end-use. Understanding the integrated relationship between energy and water - from an energy conservation view - is vital to reducing energy consumption, energy costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The water we use for residential and commercial consumption requires the use of enormous quantities of energy. Again, this is different from the more limited notion of thinking about water consumption solely from the perspective of depleting a vital resource.

On average, energy used solely for pumping raw water collected from lakes, rivers, streams and aquifers through treatment facilities represents 15% of all the energy used in the treatment and distribution process; the remaining 85% of the energy used in the process is for distribution to homes, business and industry.

This doesn't even take into account the additional energy that's required for circulation, filtering and pumping after water is delivered to homes and businesses. When water leaves homes and businesses, it goes through an extensive wastewater treatment process.

The reason it may be difficult for many home and business owners to understand the energy-water link is that it's not a cost that is specifically listed on your electric bill, but is embedded in daily water use.

Consider that the energy it takes to run a faucet for five minutes is equivalent to the energy used to run a 60-watt light bulb for 14 hours. Additional energy is consumed when we heat and cool the water we use. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we use more energy to heat the water just in our homes than to light them.

Initial and wastewater treatment is 3-4% of our national total electricity use, and this is expected to increase 20% over the next 15 years.

As the state population continues to grow, the energy-water link is emerging as a priority issue.

Colorado is expected to receive 1.7 million new residents within the next decade. And though Colorado is considered a water-rich state, the spotlight here is on energy conservation: reduce water use and energy consumption is also reduced.

In June 2009, just one year ago, the Colorado Water Conservation Board released a report titled Water Conservation = Energy Conservation. Highlights of the report include the following:

o Denver water used just over 20,000,000 kWh in 2007 to treat raw water and over 31,000,000 kWh for distribution

o The City of Parker (south metro Denver area) used 24,749,000 kWh of electricity in 2008 in connection with its water treatment process

o Some proposed water supply projects will create new significant energy demands

Although it is acknowledged that many Colorado cities have gravity-fed systems and high-quality water supplies that don't require extra energy associated with extensive treatment, population growth, new projects and the energy intensity connected with pumping water from deep aquifers - along with the other uses listed above - are driving policymakers, analysts and customers to consider the energy used in connection with daily water usage, and how reducing water use will serve energy conservation, reduce energy costs, and lower GHG emissions.

The Nature of Business© is written by Roxane Peyser and Jennifer Schenk of maurgood, llc, a sustainability consulting firm that helps companies and organizations achieve business responsibility and sustainability goals. Jennifer is a Senior Analyst at maurgood and can be reached at jschenk@maurgood.com.

What Is Corporate Social Responsibility and How Can I Incorporate It into My Organization

2010-01-13T16:18:58Z

Written by Roxane Peyser

Perhaps the first question you might ask is: Why should we even be bothered with this? The answer: Because it will help you retain customers, attract new ones, lead to your competitive advantage by differentiating you from your competition, promote your standing in the organization, and add to your company's bottom-line benefits.

Perhaps the next question you might ask is: Why should anyone care? Not surprisingly, the answer is remarkably the same: Because it will help your company retain and attract top talent; provide positive brand benefits by promoting your reputation for being responsible; create a competitive advantage that allows you to differentiate yourself from the competition in an economy with shrinking market shares and eroding profit margins; and enhance the bottom line through proven return on investment (ROI).

What Is CSR?
The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been around for decades, embracing notions of corporate philanthropy, protecting human rights, and observing labor standards among some of the more salient ones. The term itself, however, has been around for only about the last two decades, and has grown to include environmental, ethical, and governance components, as well as others.

The expanded definition of CSR is largely attributable to the convergence of several critical events and a progression of negative corporate behaviors. They include environmental disasters, such as Chernobyl and Bhopal, having devastating effects on large populations and reaching across international borders; accounting and governance debacles such as Enron and WorldCom a decade ago; the more recent economic debacle blamed in part on the absence of ethical or governance standards that Sarbanes-Oxley did not cover; and human rights violations implicating U.S.-based global corporations for everything from child-labor violations and sweatshop conditions to shooting protesters. These negative impacts fall basically into three categories: environmental, social, and governance, or what's commonly referred to as ESG or the triple bottom line (TBL). Putting aside the debate over the inadequacy of those terms, practitioners should consider that the CSR experience is different depending on where one is located geographically.

Concepts of CSR can vary from one geographic area to another. To those residing outside the United States, CSR is often synonymous with human rights and fair labor standards. For those in the United States, the principal driver of CSR has been environmental initiatives. By the same token, ethical and governance concerns are also an increasing priority, given the financial scandals and market crises during the last two decades.

For many in the public sector, CSR is often identified with the concept of sustainable development. This identification began to emerge at about the same time that sustainable development was defined by the Brundtland Commission. (The Brundtland Commission was convened by the United Nations in 1983; it was created to address concerns about the deterioration of the human environment and natural resources, and the resulting deterioration of economic and social development. It published a report of its activities and conclusions in 1987.)

According to this commission, sustainable development involves meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability as a concept has often been used as a stand-in for CSR, and the recent ascendency of the green movement has not helped in the effort to clarify any of these terms because the dominant perception of green is environmentally focused. However, like the Brundtland definition, the definition of green (at least for many purposes) has grown to include concern not only for the accelerating deterioration of natural resources and the environment, but for economic and social development as well.

Everyone agrees that CSR applies to businesses of all types and sizes, not just corporations and responsibilities extend beyond the social sphere--whether it's human rights, human resources, labor standards, indigenous rights, or preserving culture. It also includes ethical standards and environmental practices and policies--though many would consider the latter to fall under the definition of sustainability.

The best view is that sustainability is inherently comprehensive, integrated, and holistic. It takes into consideration not just environmental impact, but social, cultural, and ethical concerns as well. Accordingly, it might then be better to think of CSR as BR, or business responsibility, meaning a set of best practices and policies, which, if followed, will lead to sustainability. This makes more sense because business sustainability is about incorporating strategies for a business that will promote its longevity. In the 21st century, that means taking into consideration all of your impacts--no matter what business you're in.

Principal Drivers
Though it may be counterintuitive to some business leaders, moving beyond compliance is profitable and increasingly required by the supply chain and other stakeholders. It is an increasingly hard reality that many businesses must operate within the virtual restrictions of a "social license" to do business, which empowers the average individual through social media mechanisms. A powerful illustration of this point is the case of the musician whose guitar was damaged by a major airline company. When, after a year, the company failed to compensate the customer-musician for a loss its employees caused, the musician used the power of YouTube to spotlight the company's neglect through a satirical ditty, bringing worldwide adverse attention to the company. As a result, the company not only then promptly compensated its customer, but also began revising some of its internal policies and procedures--for the better.

Other realities driving this movement include: (1) regulatory uncertainty; (2) reputational risk; (3) the increasing difficulty of retaining and attracting top talent; (4) the intensification of competition, thus eroding market share and increasing the need for differentiation; (5) shrinking profit margins; (6) supply chain pressures; (7) the availability of more and improved metrics to measure ROI; and (8) heightened respect for and prestige of diversity.

The Riskiness of Being Risk-Averse
Some managers tend to tell you only what you can't do. We would call these "gate-keepers." Others have a more multi-directional view; they tend to wear two hats: the compliance hat and the business hat. Wearing the business hat allows them to understand what customers (internal and external) want to do and figure out a way to "get there legally" while managing risk exposure. Gate-keepers can often take the view that CSR/sustainability is laden with excessive risk. They can try to restrict the operation of CSR in a misguided attempt to hermetically seal off the risks of innovation. This is a tendency that threatens the strategic objectives of CSR. A more receptive and less "closed" perspective of CSR can have business effects that are themselves positive, potentially lucrative, and quality-of-life enhancing.

Managers with broader vision know there is no such thing as an airtight "elimination of risk": no airtight contract, airtight lawsuit, airtight defense, or airtight policy. In-house counsel tend to understand these principles better than outside counsel, given that much of what is done in-house involves interacting with multiple business units that do not follow zero-risk tolerance policies and practices. Exceedingly low- or no-tolerance risk policies inhibit business and ultimately profits; business is inherently about taking some calculated risk.

Think in Terms of Guiding Rather than Concrete Answers
Examining your expected skill-base in the 21st century will invariably entail thinking about how your role fits into the wider picture. This means two principal things to you.

The first is that management models are moving away from a function-oriented view. This is the silo approach where each person's functions are all they should know and focus on, remaining fairly ignorant of the organization as whole and how it functions. The new model of management that companies are increasingly moving towards is the system-based paradigm. This requires managers (and employees to a large extent) to understand how they and other components of the company work within the organizational boundaries. It is an integrated view and demands, to some extent, a multidisciplinary understanding and functioning. The second is more simple: there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Your management solutions and approaches will depend not just on the size and type of your company, but also on knowing and integrating your culture. If, as in many companies, CSR/sustainability is embedded in the marketing department, your company may be neglecting litigation risk exposure should marketing representations be proved false--or even if they prove true.

We probably all understand how making false representations would expose us to litigation, but how could a company be liable for a true representation? This is being played out currently in the climate-change context, in which many corporations make public declarations--whether in CSR/sustainability reports, websites, or elsewhere--that climate change is a risk to which they are responding with new products or services. What is evolving is a theory of liability that asserts that if you mention climate change as a risk in your public documents, but then fail to disclose it as a material risk in your U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, you could be liable for fraud, among other things.

The lesson in that is that managers have the opportunity to better help their organization by identifying new areas not just of risk exposure, but also for business opportunity.

How to Guide Your Clients
The three basic approaches to helping your clients'--whether internal or external--get down to the business of sustainability are: (1) identifying the appropriate framework; (2) determining the baseline; and (3) initiating incremental implementation.

Identifying the appropriate framework means simply that you better organize goals and objectives by enhancing your ability to reduce risk and increase rewards according to a plan. Such a plan expands the scope of business-as-usual (BAU) activities and provides metrics to measure progress, and can be thought of as a type of enterprise risk management (ERM).

The difference between traditional risk analysis and ERM is that the traditional mode of analysis looks essentially at conventional risk versus benefit and cost versus benefit. The refined ERM framework also considers the following: risk versus reward; the implications of an expanded network of stakeholders; systems-thinking versus functional thinking; integrated strategies; and brand sensitivity. These are especially important in an era in which social media allow one individual to have a detrimental impact on your reputation, and thus your profits.

The ERM framework offers a broader variety of metrics by which to measure your progress, enhance your success, and improve your vulnerabilities; a broader conceptual plan that unifies the many disparate, fragmented, and isolated parts of the organization; a logical structure that links together all the pieces of the enterprise (values, goals, missions, strategies, operations, etc.) into an integrated whole; and a better result with an improved bottom line than traditional risk management.

The ERM framework helps clients identify both risks and opportunities. A simple case study illustrates how the BAU model exposes companies to higher risk and resulting loss. Several years ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hit ChoicePoint (CP) with a $10 million fine, the largest civil penalty in the agency's history. The FTC charged that CP illegally gave credit histories to people who were not authorized to obtain them, and failed to have reasonable procedures to verify the identities of those who requested the information and how the data was to be used.

The CP BAU model neglected to consider the possibility that con artists could enter unnoticed through the front door. The CP assumptions were based on older thinking patterns that only perceived the vulnerability of fraudulent actors entering through the back door--hackers and the like. The CP operations process for approving business partners was vulnerable as criminals were officially becoming business partners by exploiting CP's business process and practices that relied on historical data and traditional BAU models.

What this teaches is that information and commitment should never be mistaken for investigative knowledge. What ERM would have done for CP is to uncover more relevant vulnerabilities by using risk assessments that are conducted with a keener view of operational reality. It also would have added increased protection and more to the bottom line. Because the ERM framework is more rigorous and thorough than traditional risk management, it yields more effective and valuable results. ERM would have also provided enhanced rewards through process-driven software with embedded frameworks that help create a repeatable and sustainable process.

Determining the baseline means conducting a sustainability information audit (SIA™), and follow up with a gap analysis and an expanded SWOT analysis. (A SWOT strategy refers to "strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats," but should also include the factors we are discussing here.) For example, if a company is choosing to focus on the environmental component of CSR/sustainability, it might consider choosing its "carbon footprint" as the starting point for gauging its activities. This could provide the company with the baseline on which you assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This assessment also helps the organization decide which emissions sources they want to target for reduction: Will it stay with stage I sources, or move beyond that?

Initiating incremental implementation means developing your overall strategy, setting modest but substantial targets, and choosing which metrics you will use to measure your progress. It means identifying your stakeholders (both internal and external), and engaging key parties of interest. This stage involves establishing goals and targets including timetables, objectives, baseline year, and possibly types of emissions. It also means developing a short-term (often, five year) plan that might include developing and implementing financial mechanisms for carbon management (e.g., carbon credits, offsets, etc.), or more community involvement with indigenous cultures. It also entails long-range plans (five to ten years out), and invariably includes incorporating standards beyond compliance to meet supply-chain pressures.

The Green You Take Is Equal to the Green You Make
Green also means business responsibility. It embraces all the elements of CSR and sustainability, no matter how anyone defines those terms. Green fatigue may be a fact in some corners, but it should not be an inhibiting factor for those organizations following the three approaches described. Like it or not, the green moniker remains the most accurate common shorthand way of expressing CSR and sustainability.

Green is also a stand-in for money. Therefore, managers (at every level in all types of companies - large and small, retail, industrial, or otherwise) have the opportunity to use the liability risks of doing CSR as a baseline. This means also considering the risk of not doing CSR, potentially an even larger risk.

Roxane Peyser (rpeyser@maurgood.com) is president and CEO of maurgood, LLC, a sustainability consulting firm that helps companies achieve corporate responsibility and sustainability goals. She is also a vice-chair of the ABA Section of International Law CSR Committee.

The six dangers CEOs face when communicating "green."

2009-12-14T13:55:54Z

DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER

Organizations large and small are looking to their values, branding themselves as "green" and "good." Unfortunately, green marketing allows more than a few of them to make claims that are widely regarded as greenwash. This results in an eco-saturated marketplace cluttered with greenwashed products and services that at best create confusion and at worst taint truly green goods, services and accomplishments.

We believe that sustainability is ultimately about transparency. Those organizations that have a clear Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy partnered with authentic and transparent communications set their brand's reputation apart from the competition. Saying you do well is not enough: You have to actually take the measures you publicize and communicate them clearly and honestly. A company that does it right quickly realizes that effective and transparent communication is key to maximizing investments, as well as transforming the company and its brand. Company executives understand that the organizational and technological innovations they put in place yield both bottom-line and top-line returns.

Nike, Coca-Cola and Seventh Generation are excellent examples. Each of these corporations not only communicates the right things, they "walk their talk" right down through their supply chains -- that is, they do what they say they will and make positive, measurable changes in their operations and their communities. And when they fall short of targets, they are fast to acknowledge the lag and begin an open discussion about how to achieve a better result next time. The result of this transparency: They get tremendous media attention -- and customer loyalty.

Despite these examples, too many firms are paying the price for failing to acknowledge and avoid the six dangers in communicating green:

1. Danger of Inflating Sustainability Claims

Never exaggerate your company's sustainability efforts.

Exaggerated claims in today's sustainability world have tangible consequences to the bottom line. CSR depends on real, demonstrable results. So, tell your story -- but be transparent and clear. It helps build trust and credibility with your stakeholders.

According to TerraChoice, which measured the uptick in green advertising claims in five of the largest US publications over the past two years, in 2009, 10% of all ads have included sustainability claims -- a rise of 42% in just two years. This trend has made the greening of products and services big business. Although investors are eager to pump money into new green technologies, and businesses are looking for green advantages, it doesn't take much digging to uncover inflated claims and outright lies.

For instance, earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed complaints against K-Mart, Tender Corp. and Dyna-E for false claims those companies made about their products' "greenness." In a statement about the three cases, the FTC said that "with the recent growth in 'green' advertising and product lines, the agency will continue its efforts to ensure that environmental marketing is truthful, substantiated, and not confusing to consumers."

2. Danger of Hiding the Facts

Forget about hiding the truth from your stockholders and the public. Today, companies only succeed when they acknowledge the complexity of the issues they're addressing and their own imperfections. In order to be credible, focus on communicating your firm's results and performance and lay out what more your company needs to do to reach its goals. If necessary, go outside to reputable sustainability consultants to assist you.

Your audiences expect transparency In fact, it's almost as important as the results themselves. Being transparent about both your successes and your setbacks enables your company to continuously improve.

Corporations that don't heed this advice risk a loss of trust, according to the July 2009 release by Edelman, world's largest independent PR firm, of its mid-year global Trust Barometer findings. Edelman reported that in 2009, in the U.S., trust in business collapsed, dropping 20% over the course of one year; levels are at the lowest in the barometer's 20-year history. The study found that for companies needing to rebuild their audiences' trust, high on the firms' priority lists should be making progress on environmental initiatives and partnering with third parties.

Simply put, the danger of opacity is that it is often seen as deception and thanks to the information age and instant global communication provided by social media, we'll always know and never forget that a company has been less than truthful.

3. Danger of Touting Unverified Claims

Don't just claim your company is working toward environmental sustainability -- prove it!

Third-party certification is a required tool for communicating the values of each product, service and organization. It impacts your brand reputation, and your ability to do business and make a bigger profit. Any organization will have employees working to make the company more sustainable and responsible, but outside, neutral third-party monitoring/verification of a company's claims is crucial to public acceptance.

External verification of your claims and progress isn't limited to audits. It may show up as familiar trustmarks like EnergyStar(TM) on packaging, sustainability scorecards, life cycle analysis and in advertising and social media. According to Mitch Baranowski, founding partner of BBMG, an advertising agency focused on connecting consumers with forward-thinking brands, "trustmarks help companies"... provide an objective, third-party seal of approval that demonstrates their follow-through on social and environmental claims."

4. Danger of Ignoring Employees

Don't forget one of your most important groups of advocates: Your employees.

Research over the last decade has made a convincing case that companies whose employees feel highly engaged outperform companies with less engaged workers in just about every important metric: growth, profitability, productivity, innovation and so on.

Take Costco, for example: The culture of the company flows downward from CEO Jim Sinegal and his focus on employees and, by extension, customers. As a result, Costco chalks up considerable improvements in its product mix and sales due to alert employees, whose per person sales are considerably higher than those found at key rival companies.

Another company that recognizes the power of employees as advocates is Xerox. "We've been amazed by the volume of positive, thoughtful comments from Xerox people worldwide after we released our first comprehensive global citizenship report last year," said Hector Motroni, Chief Ethics Officer of Xerox. "There is tremendous power in ensuring that your people know you're a company with a heart and soul that stands for 'something more.'"

5. Danger of Failing to Back Up Claims with Metrics

That which gets measured gets done. In a world of growing accountability and increasing scrutiny, this notion emphasizes that if an activity is important to your business, it should be results-oriented, with data measuring those results.

Too many companies continue to resist measuring their waste and their water, their energy and their impact, in a misguided attempt to appear no so bad. In this era of increased public scrutiny, in order to claim any form of improvement, a corporation needs to have a methodology -- such as sustainability scorecard requirements -- for measuring the items it wants to change. Businesses are used to protecting their methodology as a corporate secret but when it comes to reporting, a firm must avoid saying "because we said so" and instead show how it arrived at its conclusions. With metrics systems for CSR progress increasingly discussed and debated, take the time to explain to stakeholders exactly how you took the measurements.

In charting their carbon footprint, UPS uses the leading global standard, the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development's Greenhouse Gas Protocol. UPS publically states this in their CSR report and on their website.

David Douglas, Vice President of Eco Responsibility at Sun Microsystems sums this up well when he advises: "Make sure you talk about how you measured your results... We are careful to build metrics into our social and eco-responsibility programs so that we can track our progress...and so that our stakeholders can hold us accountable. Without metrics, and transparency around our choice of metrics, we would not be able to continue to engage our stakeholders to work with us."

6. Danger of Isolation

At no other time in history has it been as vital to business success to proactively build broad relationships. The business environment is competitive and sometimes ruthless but you are not in this alone. In the new paradigm, businesses must partner to some extent for success. From consumers to employees, supply chain to NGO's, investors to government agencies, sustainable brands are proactive in building relationships with their stakeholder base.

Modern leadership recognizes that engagements and healthy relationships raise brand awareness. Neville Isdell, CEO of Coca-Cola believes that "companies must change the way they connect with society or society will reshape business."

Idell stresses that "companies must connect the bottom line of their businesses with their social conscience. Their philanthropic aims must match their core business and the values of their employees. Companies must be connected across four channels: the communities they serve, governments and non-governmental agencies of social change, philanthropies and values of employees," he said. Global companies must become local partners or risk alienation.

The Takeaway

If you saw yourself and your business in one or more of these six dangers, it's time to get proactive and embed the proper practices and transparencies into your short-, medium- and long-term strategies. Being proactive is a company's first line of defense: It enables businesses like yours to address issues of concern and be in better control of your messages and destiny. When you communicate, do so clearly, with transparency and without inflating your accomplishments or hiding your mistakes. Put neutral, reputable third-party certification systems in place, and use them to verify your claims. Engage your employees in your efforts and let them help build the key relationships that will raise brand awareness. Offer valuable insights and perspectives to key stakeholders and give your business additional avenues of influence and opportunity to get the facts out.

Even if you are not inclined to adopt such proactive steps at this time, you will likely be required to pursue environmental sustainability by your supply chain in the future. For instance, WalMart has increased pressure on its suppliers to account for their environmental sustainability if they wish to continue selling to the world's largest retailer. And even if you are not in WalMart's supply chain, you are in somebody else's, and they will likely be in the WalMart supply chain, which means you -- in turn -- will need to take action.

Copyright 2009 © maurgood, LLC. All rights reserved.

DOWNLOAD THE WHITE PAPER

The Kraft/Cadbury Merger: How Brand Can Be Impacted When Viewed Through the CSR Lens

2009-12-02T01:45:11Z

On September 7th, 2009, Kraft Foods Inc. proposed a merger with Cadbury plc. on the premise that they would build a "global powerhouse in snacks, confectionary and quick meals." While Cadbury rejected Kraft's offer, there is potential for a hostile takeover within the coming year. The deal would create cost savings in marketing spending, procurement, and research and development. The merger would give Kraft a 14.8 percent share of the global confectionary market, matching current global leader Mars, Inc.

Kraft claims that Cadbury's brands would benefit from Kraft Foods global scope, scale and array of proprietary technologies and processes. But would Cadbury benefit from Kraft's sustainability and corporate social responsibility position (CSR)? At first glance, Cadbury and Kraft seem like a CSR match made in heaven. Both companies have pledged sustainability targets to reduce energy consumption, packaging, waste, and water consumption (Kraft Foods Better World, and Cadbury Purple Goes Green). Both have partnered with international NGOs towards ethically sourcing coffee and cocoa and are collaborating on international cocoa initiatives to further sustainable development in West Africa. They have even partnered with some of the same organizations like CARE, Rainforest Alliance, the Carbon Disclosure Project, and PROGRESS. They have both received numerous accolades for their social and environmental initiatives, including being awarded a place on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

Sounds perfect, right? Upon closer inspection, however, there are three key areas of differentiation that set the companies apart: certifications, communications and integration. In each of these areas, Cadbury's sustainability and CSR positions are much stronger than Kraft's. This raises questions about the future of both brands' public image if a union was to happen, and whether the companies will keep their initiatives separate or one system will prevail over the other.

Certifications: Rainforest Alliance vs. Fairtrade

Legitimate independent certifications have become a major aspect of CSR since they are viewed as verification that a product or practice was produced or pursued in accordance with social and environmental responsibility standards. The aim is to make it easier for consumers to make responsible and ethical product choices. However, the immense variety of certifications in the market can have the opposite effect.

Confusion in green certification - or labeling - is created by the estimated 410 green labels and certification systems worldwide, and by the nearly 400,000 companies and 500,000 products that have obtained a green label or certification. The sheer number of certifications makes it very difficult to differentiate between quality ones and those that are less valuable. Kraft and Cadbury are a good example of the confusion that can be caused by the myriad of similar labels available.

Both Kraft and Cadbury have committed to protect human rights and to trade ethically through sustainable agricultural initiatives. These commitments are particularly relevant to both Cadbury and Kraft because a variety of their brands use cocoa, coffee and cashews, which is where both companies are concentrating their efforts and can influence substantial change. However, each company has chosen to partner with different organizations to advance their efforts along their ethical sourcing path. Kraft has partnered mainly with Rainforest Alliance, and Cadbury's products bear the Fairtrade seal.

Both certifications are legitimate, but there are differences. Do the differences between the two certifying groups matter, and if so, how? More central to this discussion, does the choice of certifications enhance one company's brand over that of another company? While Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance work towards similar ends, there are some differences that set the two apart outlined in the chart below. Consider the following:

Assuming consumers become more aware of the differences between certifications, a merger between Kraft and Cadbury would possibly impact their respective brands in different, unintended ways. One possible outcome: the brands complement and reinforce one another's efforts to implement meaningful CSR and sustainability. Another result - one that has been seen in other mergers and acquisitions - could see Kraft hampering Cadbury's existing efforts to make CSR increasingly robust. Fairtrade's certification stresses democratically run cooperatives of peasant growers. It rewards and makes available to the specialty market interesting coffees that were previously lost in the faceless flow of anonymous commerce. Rainforest Alliance balances the more targeted focus of Fairtrade by recognizing and rewarding farmers regardless of scale or ownership, who nevertheless pursue progressive, often impeccable environmental and social practices with their farms and workers.

Fairtrade's reputation among knowledgeable consumers is that it is a more stringent ethical sourcing certification than Rainforest Alliance, despite the fact that Rainforest Alliance does have exacting standards regarding ethics, the environment and economics. Additionally, these consumers have been known to zero-in on the fact that Rainforest Alliance sets no minimum acceptable price for agricultural commodities, provoking speculation about Kraft's motives in choosing them.

Reporting and Communications

Whether a company uses the Fairtrade or the Rainforest Alliance certification is perhaps only as important as how it is communicated. Consumers are becoming increasingly savvy about forcing transparency in the sourcing and production of goods, so it isn't enough to just say you are doing something: you have to be able to prove it with metrics and data.

Companies are being held accountable for not just things they do, but also the things they cause to happen. Traceability is critical to the supply chain, to operations and to brand reputation. Consequently, astute companies are getting better at communicating to their customers the backstories of the things they make.

Backstories are background information on the production and components of a product or service. Simply, what happened to a product before we bought it. How companies tell their backstories is rapidly emerging as the single most important business communication challenge.

Here, again, the companies differ in how they report their CSR and sustainability initiatives and progress. These differences could further impact brand value, especially since they don't report to the same degree. The main differences are outlined in the chart below:

*The Guidelines can be found at http://www.globalreporting.org/Home

As the chart above shows, Kraft's reporting is less thorough than Cadbury's. Again, the net result of a merger could negatively impact the Cadbury brand unless Kraft were to allow Cadbury to continue functioning as autonomously as possible, especially with respect to its CSR decisions and policies.

Cadbury's sustainability report website has received critical acclaim in general, but particularly for its stakeholder engagement. The site makes the report available in two formats, making it accessible to a wider audience. The first format is an interactive journey for the curious "browser" that explains how the company is addressing complex issues such as ethical sourcing and climate change. It highlights these efforts with Cadbury's engaging global CSR stories. The second format is geared towards a more sophisticated audience that is people looking for more robust, substantive reporting. In contrast, Kraft's public sustainability website, www.kraftfoodsbetterworld.com, which is also interactive, is much more limited in details and geared more towards the "browsing" visitor. The result is less information and consequently, less transparency.

Nothing here is intended to suggest that Cadbury has reached perfection. The issue is that Cadbury's efforts to provide more detailed information about its products, processes and policies to the public provides more transparency that allows Cadbury to enjoy a higher brand value. In contrast, Kraft's CSR and sustainability efforts are more opaque as there is a lack of similar detailed information and what does exist is not easily accessible. This results in an impaired brand value as Kraft has the opportunity to greatly expand its efforts in this regard.

Integration

Finally, when talking about CSR strategies, it is important to look at how integrated they are into a company's corporate culture and governance. Many businesses are now taking the next step in the evolution of CSR by realizing that CSR is a crucial component of their overall business strategy. As such, companies are increasing weaving CSR and sustainability policies, programs and standards into traditional functions including marketing, branding, research and development, innovation, manufacturing, talent management and operations.

The chart below outlines the main differences between the two.

(1) The outline of employee code of conduct can be found at http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/assets/pdf/CodeofConduct.pdf. Supplier expectations can be found at http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/about/compliance-integrity/corporateresponsibilityexpectations.aspx
(2) The Vision into Action Plan can be found at http://cadbury.com/ourcompany/ourstrategy/Pages/ourstrategy.aspx
(3) The Culture Change program can be found at http://cadbury.com/ourresponsibilities/purplegoesgreen/Pages/Advocacy.aspx
(4) The Culture Change program can be found at http://www.cadburylearningzone.co.uk/

Cadbury has a consistency in their products that facilitates their overall integration of CSR and sustainability into all aspects of their business. Kraft, on the other hand, is at a disadvantage by being such a large conglomerate. This makes integration and consistency more of a challenge, but not one that is insurmountable. There are a number of large conglomerates that have achieved impressive CSR and sustainability results, and it would be helpful for Kraft to look more seriously at some of these organizations and how they were able to accomplish better product and financial results because of their progressive movement into the CSR and sustainability space.

Final Thoughts

A quick analysis of Kraft and Cadbury's CSR strategies and cultures reveals that were a merger to occur, there is potential for brand impact - negative or positive. If Kraft takes substantial steps to elevate their sustainability and CSR efforts - similar to Wal-Mart - and attempt to align more closely with those of Cadbury, then Kraft's brand value could increase, boosting profits. On the other hand, Kraft's customers may not be as sophisticated as Cadbury's, yielding a neutral result where there is not brand impact to Kraft. However, Cadbury customers could be seen as more sensitive to CSR and sustainability issues, viewing an acquisition by Kraft as brand diminution. This could negatively impact the Cadbury brand causing an erosion of its customer base.

It is commendable that Kraft is taking steps towards increasing its CSR efforts with respect to sourcing and production, but the question is will they expand beyond coffee, cocoa and cashews to include all of their products. And will they augment the standards that are already in place for coffee, cocoa and cashews? Many of Kraft's products rely heavily on sugar, as do Cadbury's, so a good next step might be to adopt Cadbury's current Sugarcane Initiative, or replicate it with their own suppliers.

In the end, would a Kraft /Cadbury merger, with their different commitments to CSR and sustainability, produce a positive, negative or neutral brand impact? Do the differences between the companies in terms of transparency create a value difference that could cause a negative impact to their bottom line? It's too soon to tell. Certification programs are in their infancy and as they evolve, clear leaders will emerge. In the battle over Cadbury, should Kraft win, the size and scale of such a merger will mean that the new company will be challenged to develop a sustainability strategy that makes this brand a true leader in the hearts and minds of consumers.

(as reported by Candela Montero)

Eco-Friendly Water Bottles: SIGG Gets Stung by BPA

2009-11-02T17:48:05Z

Up until recently, The SIGG aluminum water bottles were extremely popular as the trendy, light-weight, eco-conscious, healthy alternative to the plastic bottles which contained bisphenol-A (BPA). The latter is a controversial chemical used to harden plastics and some studies link it to diabetes, premature puberty in girls and reduced sperm count in men.

SIGG has been taking pride in its bottles that do not leak BPA into liquid like other bottles do. However, the company has failed to inform the public that its bottles were not BPA-free - at least not the ones manufactured before August 2008. Even though urged by environmental groups to offer customers refunds, SIGG declined.

SIGG CEO, Steve Wasik, has responded to the accusations of green-washing with a promise to not disappoint customers in the future: "Being a green company also means being held to the highest degree of corporate transparency", he said. There are tips for determining whether customers possess the new BPA-free bottle version (a pale matte yellow inside) or the old BPA-infused version (shiny coppery-bronze inside). However, the question remains: Will environmental and health-conscious consumers, who now feel cheated, believe the company this time?

Small Business Exempt from EPA's New Greenhouse Rule

2009-10-01T21:54:41Z

The Obama administration announced on Wednesday that small business will be exempt from its recent move with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that attempts to control industrial smokestack emissions believed to be largely responsible for global warming.

The EPA proposed a new rule that would require large polluters to reduce six greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency in new buildings or significantly expanded ones. The regulations would apply to power plants, refineries and factories that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year. The EPA credits these large sources for being responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions -- mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels -- that are released in the United States.

The proposal has been crafted to exempt the majority of small and medium-sized businesses. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained that under the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, the nation's largest greenhouse gas-emitting facilities can begin reducing emissions without placing an extra burden on the businesses that constitute the majority of our economy. "We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions." The new rules would take effect spring of 2010 along with the EPA's projected final greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act.

As Jackson predicted, industry groups immediately questioned and protested the agency's argument and the legality of the move. They pointed out that the Clean Air Act typically covers any facility releasing more than 250 tons of a recognized pollutant a year and the new regulations would require many more facilities to fall under scrutiny. Additionally, the proposal erroneously assumes that one industry's greenhouse gas emissions are more harmful than another's.

Furthermore, Jeff Holmstead, a former top EPA air pollution official who is now a lobbyist for the energy industry, said that "normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress" and that many people "are very curious to see EPA's legal justification for today's proposal."

However, the U.S. Supreme court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to issue such regulations under the Clean Air Act if it deems human health is threatened by global warming, and, Jackson assured the rule was legally defensible.

Jackson's proposal came as Democrats unveiled a new Senate bill aimed at reducing global warming, which included provisions to place caps on carbon emissions from transportation and stationary sources. The EPA estimates that around 400 newly built or expanded industrial plants will be subject to the proposed greenhouse rules.

The recent EPA move demonstrated that the Obama administration is willing push the limits in regulating industrial greenhouse pollution before Congress can impose restriction by law.

(by Candela Montero)

To lead or not to lead

2009-09-10T11:50:26Z

maurgood's Michael Sater spoke during several sessions at the September 2009 GreenBusiness Works Expo in Atlanta, GA about the numerous opportunities incorporating green - or sustainability - into business practice provides your brand with. These benefits include the ability to increase competitive advantage, develop a great reputation and lead to an enhanced ROI.

"Brand stories always trump facts and data," said Sater, the managing principal at maurgood. "The back-story of a product is just as important; the who, what, when, where, why and how of the supply chain." The answers to these questions can make or break the success of your company. For example, Clorox Green Works products use plant-based and biodegradable ingredients, are not tested on animals and use recyclable packaging. They are a leader in the natural home cleaning market, holding more than a 40% market share. Clorox brought natural cleaners into the mainstream at a 50-cent premium over conventional cleaners.

Embracing sustainable business practices give a competitive advantage while others are trying catch up. Going "green" is becoming less of a trend and beginning to be mainstream. "Wal-Mart has been working towards this for at least three years," said Sater. In 2006, packaging scorecards were used across its global supply chain in order to reduce packaging by 5% by 2013. The innovative packaging from suppliers will, in turn, introduce new environmental standards to their other distributors. "Wal-Mart will be the tipping point for the use of packaging scorecards," said Nancy Geisler, VP of Corporate Sustainability of Unisource.

Roxane Peyser, President and CEO of maurgood, was also scheduled to speak at the GreenBusiness Works Expo about how to incorporate sustainability into small and medium size enterprises (SMEs); and also to give attendees a policy update on the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) - also referred to as carbon and CO2. Since she was unable to attend, Sater filled in for her on both panels.

Peyser's presentation mentioned that even though sustainability is becoming mainstream, some businesses are taking a back seat approach and waiting to see what new "green" legislation and regulation - or both - will require of them. This 'compliance think' - i.e., taking action only when its required of you - can cause companies to miss lucrative opportunities that give them a competitive advantage, and can also lead to a painful crisis mode. Peyser reminds business that all proposed legislation addressing carbon cap and trade include early action provisions. These clauses provide those who make efforts to reduce their carbon emissions before legislation goes in effect with financial rewards for doing so. Accordingly, it's better - and less expensive - to be proactive and in the sustainability mode before either compliance or vendor pressures require you take action.

And action is occurring not only on the federal level, but also on the state and regional levels, as well. For example, seven US Western states and four Canadian provinces have already put into place regional strategies to address climate change via their coalition known as the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI - pronounced Reggie) is yet another regional effort that includes 10 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states that will cap and then reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.  States will sell emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI will spur innovation in the clean energy economy and create green jobs within each state. Instead of waiting for national legislation to take action, these regions will be ahead of the game when congress begins to enforce new sustainability laws.

However, even before US legislation and regulation are finalized, some US businesses will find themselves regulated by other legislative schemes. Under European Union (EU) law, beginning in 2012, all flights that land in or take off from the EU must offset carbon emissions for the trip. "The American carriers . . . will be the first sector in the U.S. to be drawn into mandatory international emissions trading, even though it is implemented by the EU," states Point Carbon senior analyst Andreas Arvanitakis.

There are many business opportunities in taking steps towards sustainability. Price Waterhouse Coopers research proves that companies that engaged in sustainability reporting experienced higher gross margins and return on sales, higher return on assets, stronger cash flow, and rising shareholder return.

One way to stand out and communicate with the public, your stakeholders and your competition is by taking advantage of the many opportunities that becoming more green / sustainable offers your company. One way is to obtain third party certification, having your building, home or refurbished commercial interior LEED or Green Globes certified. "Certifications are brands themselves that communicate certain values," Sater said. Currently, there are more that 410 green labels/certification systems. The most valuable labels are those with an independent oversight body to ensure consistency, transparency and the highest of standards. They also help to minimize greenwash and the negative impacts to your brand associated with less reliable certifications.

Peyser's presentation also included practical steps and guiding principles for sustainable business strategies: : (1) avoid tactics as a substitute for real strategy; (2) start with a blueprint, one that adopts a framework that fits your organization, culture, values and business model; and (3) be realistic and remember that sustainability ("green") strategies and initiatives must be filtered through the business model - it must make business sense.

(as reported by Roxane Peyser, Alison Johnson
and Michael Sater)

51 greatest sites and blogs for CSR and sustainability

2009-09-09T11:21:16Z

Chris Jarvis, a member of the blogging community at Fast Company, created a list of 51 great sites for Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability which includes:

10 must-have sites on CSR: 3BL Media, APEsphere, Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship, Business Respect, CSRwire, Eldis, Ethical Corporation, Triple Pundit, Business in the Community, Sustainability Forum
10 of the best blogs on CSR: David Coethica's Blog, Business Musings, Corporate and Responsible, Crane and Matten blog, FabianPatterg.com, Mallen Baker, CSR-Reporting, CSR International, The Business Ethics Blog, Evolving Choice
31 websites with excellent resources, links, media, tools, and news: Accountability, Accountability-Central, Business for Social Responsibility, B Corporation, Caux Round Table, Chlorogy, Corporate Citizenship Briefing, Corporate Knights, CRO Corporate Responsibility Officer, Corporate Social Responsibility Europe, CSR-NEWS.net, Ethical Performance, Force for Good, Forum for Future, Good Magazine, Goodness 500, Global Reporting Initiative, International Business Leaders Forum, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Institute for Business Ethics, Jantzi Research, Kennedy School of Government - Harvard (The CSR Initiative), Project Label, Social Innovations Conversations, Small Business Journey, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Sustainability, The Center for Corporate Sustainability, Transparency International, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, UN Global Compact
20 people to follow on twitter: Bonus!

Do you have your own list of great CSR and sustainability sites and blogs to share?

Sierra Magazine Names Top 20 Most Eco-Enlightened Cool Schools

2009-09-07T10:26:21Z

Sierra Magazine named the nation's top 20 "coolest" schools for their efforts to stop global warming and operate sustainably. For their third annual ranking of America's greenest universities and colleges, Sierra distributed a 39-question survey to sustainability experts at hundreds of schools. The questionnaire covered eight categories: efficiency, energy, food, academics, purchasing, transportation, waste management, and administration. Schools could earn up to ten points in each category and up to five bonus points if they had additional green initiatives.

Of all the 135 schools ranked, The University of Colorado at Boulder is ranked the top "green" university in the nation this year, a move up from second place in 2008. Other universities ranked in the top 20 include Harvard University (11), University of Florida at Gainesville (15) and New York University (20). The complete scorecard is available online at www.sierraclub.org/coolschools.

The top 5 on Sierra's list of coolest schools for 2009 are: 
1. University of Colorado at Boulder (Boulder, Colorado) 
2. University of Washington at Seattle (Seattle, Washington) 
3. Middlebury College (Middlebury, Vermont)
 4. University of Vermont (Burlington, Vermont) 
5. College of the Atlantic (Bal Harbor, Maine) 

Kimberly-Clark Tops EPA's List of On-site Renewable Energy Users

2009-07-29T15:58:23Z

Leading the pack of the EPA's list of the top-20 users of on-site renewable energy is Kimberly-Clark with 192 million kilowatt hours. The paper product giant uses a biomass generator to produce about 7 percent of its total electricity needs. This is the first time it appears on the EPA's National Top 50 List of the largest green power users.

"Inclusion on the EPA list of the nation's top green power users is a welcome recognition of Kimberly-Clark's strong environmental commitment and of our company's support for the development of renewable energy," said Drew Barfoot, Kimberly-Clark's Vice President of Environment, Energy, Safety Quality and Sustainability. "Green power has proven to be a sound, sustainable business decision for Kimberly-Clark."

Kimberly-Clark recognizes that only companies that build sustainability into the way they do business will have long-term success. By developing an on-site biomass generator, the company takes another step forward to reduce their environmental impact.

Save the Dates

2009-06-15T12:27:46Z

Look for maurgood at the following events:

June 26: Roxane Peyser, The Economics of Greening Your Business - Panel Discussion, Go Green Expo, Atlanta, GA http://gogreenexpo.com

July 20: Roxane Peyser, Green Business Summit II - Roundtable Dialogue -Transition to Sustainability Conference, Washington, DC http://www.transitiontosustainability.com

August 19: Roxane Peyser, The Business Case For Greening Your Business -Meeting Your CO2 Constrained Future: Risks, Responsibilities and Opportunities, Presented by the Georgia State University Center for Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, Atlanta, GA

Sept. 2: Roxane Peyser and Michael Sater, GreenBusinessWorks Expo, Atlanta, GA http://www.greenbusinessworksexpo.net

Sept. (Date TBD): Roxane Peyser, Understanding Carbon Workshop, Presented by Green Chamber of The South, Atlanta, GA (details to be announced)

maurgood is also a proud sponsor of the Carbon What? Seminar presented by the Green Foodservice Alliance in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and P2AD, June 17 at the Atlanta Community Food Bank.

Unfortunately, maurgood's Roxane Peyser will not be able to speak at the event as originally planned due to unforeseen events. The expert panel will address the impact of carbon emissions on the environment; what is a carbon footprint and how to measure it; what are carbon credit; and what businesses can do to reduce their carbon output while lowering their energy use and reducing their costs. For more information on this event, visit http://www.greenfoodservicealliance.org/BookingRetrieve.aspx?ID=38916

maurgood joins Sustainable Brands

2009-05-28T21:03:48Z

Michael Sater, Managing Principal of maurgood, is heading out this weekend to attend Sustainable Brands 09 in Monterey, CA from May 31-June 4. Over the four-day conference he'll interact with the best mix of large and small business, policy makers, NGOs and non-profits.

In its fourth year, Sustainable Brands conferences offer participants from various professional disciplines an opportunity to participate in provocative and respectful dialogue. Widely reputed to be the most compelling sustainability conference of the year, "Sustainable Brands '09 will convene business strategists, along with sustainability, design and brand leaders from a cross section of organizations," including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Coca-Cola, Clorox, DuPont, HP, Kraft, Mohawk, Steelcase, Unilever, and over 400 business and brand strategists and sustainability executives.

In addition to the interactive exploration of topics in business strategy, product/service design, marketing communications, psychology & cultural influence, and operations, an extended "Un-conference" will encourage participants to create conversations and learn from other experts.

Stay tuned for Michael's assessment from this influential conference!

Nelson Mullins Policy Briefing and Industry Roundtable - Washington, D.C., May 20

2009-05-20T13:58:43Z

maurgood's President and CEO, Roxane Peyser, will be joining Nelson Mullins' attorneys, industry professionals and top government officials in a unique and dynamic forum organized by Nelson Mullins to collaboratively address key challenges facing the implementation of recent government policies and initiatives.

The group policy briefing will include a cross-industry assessment of key issues affecting specific industries as a result of recent government activity, and will be followed by industry-specific discussions including an interactive exchange of ideas on how to make the most of the new regime for business and industry.

Dynamic forums, such as today's roundtable, means maurgood's clients get the vital information they need in order to be better prepared for upcoming regulatory and legislative changes that will impact their business. This translates into reduced cost FOR your operations, higher business value, managed risk and higher rewards - including optimized ability to identify opportunities from which you can profit.

Stay tuned for the post-forum update!

maurgood's CSR and Sustainability Report for Coca-Cola Enterprises Recognized Third Year in a Row As Among the World's Best

2009-05-19T17:51:24Z

Coca-Cola Enterprises' Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report, designed and produced by sustainability and brand communications agency maurgood, has won the award for "Creativity In Communications" and 1st runner-up for Best Report from Corporateregister.com, a global, independent, online awards for CR reporting.

The awards recognize excellence in reporting sustainability, environmental and social issues by companies around the world. It also guides other organizations that are publishing, or intend to publish, sustainability reports.

CorporateRegister.com users undertook voting online - collectively the most experienced panel of CR report readers. Over the three-month voting period, 628 users considered 123 reports before naming the winners of this year's nine awards. The awards are recognized as one of the largest CSR awards anywhere to date.

In a summary report, CR lauded Coca-Cola Enterprises' 2008 Sustainability Report for presenting " the marriage of strategy, message and brand effectively" and for making "the concept of corporate responsibility and sustainability accessible to anyone who browsed through it."

The maurgood team has worked alongside Coca-Cola Enterprises' Public Affairs and Communications office since 2003.

In addition to receiving CR Sustainability Reporting Awards, maurgood's work has also been recognized by the International Conference on Corporate Governance, having received a Golden Peacock Global Award for CSR reporting in both 2007 and 2008.

Consumers value green but view 'green' claims with suspicion

2009-05-05T19:16:10Z

Consumers are mistrustful of a wave of green marketing and advertising even though the value of goods and services produced in an environmentally and socially responsible manner is rapidly growing.

The recent study, Sustainable Futures '09, finds that nearly 90% of all consumers are familiar with the term sustainability. However, many companies are ineffective at getting their messages across to consumers because some of their advertising and marketing campaigns are perceived as mere exploitation.

How does this affect corporate communications?
The study is one of concern to industry groups and individual corporations.

Successful industry groups and brands are those perceived to have embedded sustainability across a spectrum of business processes and are extremely effective in communicating via an authentic and sustained narrative. This is the direct result of integrating corporate initiatives, communications and marketing, and sustainability strategies.

Which industries have proven superior performance with consumers? The food sectors, retailers and telecoms have more brands perceived as having the lowest negative impact on both the environment and humanity. In particular, the food sector is highly effective in translating sustainability directly for the consumer. Brands such as Danone, Nestlé, Unilever and Proctor & Gamble have successfully made sustainability relevant to their sector and the consumer.

So while consumers tend to view sustainability as a marketing tool, business in general is missing an incredibly valuable opportunity to communicate and deliver 'authentic green' to consumers - current and future.

So what should I do (and not do)
Too many sectors and brands are communicating a singular green message for a product or product suite. This is a mistake because it assumes that tactics are a valid substitute for sound business strategy. Moreover, tactics fail to take into account the vast differences in consumer awareness.

One message does not fit all.

And a message is not a substitute for a comprehensive corporate strategy.