The hardest thing about being green….for Clorox

Just a short post.

I spent a couple of days last week at the Greener By Design conference in Washington. Organised by Joel Makower, the conference was great. But one presentation in particular stood out. Clorox was discussing their foray into eco-products with the Green Works range. All good so far. Except when it turns out that the products are not completely ‘natural’. When pushed to reveal what exactly was not natural, the answer was deliciously ironic. It is the colour green. Yup, the chemists at Clorox could not find any way of making their cleaners green in colour, without adding an artificial dye. You couldn’t make this this stuff up.

G

WARC paper

We have placed some of the findings from our main report as a paper with WARC. Assuming you have access to the resource, you can find it under the ‘Just Arrived’ tab. The paper is called ‘The Dos and Don’ts of Green Branding’. You can also sign up for a trial subscription at no cost.

The paper introduces many of the ‘Ten Commandments’ developed  by the internal strategy team at Havas Media. We hope to add more case studies and track these commandments over time in line with shifts in consumer perception and expectation. 

The url for WARC is here. 

g

Brands and the sector stretch effect

We touched on the number of brands we investigated in our research project a week or so ago. But we didn’t go into any detail at the time, as we had other topics to discuss. But now, we’re ready to open the discussion on specific brands that are perceived as greener than their peers. We do not have the complete answers as to why some of the results are as they are, but it would be interesting to speculate.

G

Exxon marks the spot

Anyone with a passing interest in the greening of big business will have stopped and stared at the looming issues for energy and oil giant, Exxon. Shareholders are demanding swingeing changes to the board as a result of what many commentators feel, is a commercially irresponsible approach towards eeking out innovative solutions for climate change and broader sustainability issues. 

But that is well covered nearly everywhere else. One thing has struck me clean between the eyes with this story. And it is the most concrete example - proof - that sustainability is now well and truly at the top table of capitalism.

The proof is just one word.

Rockefeller.

The Rockefeller family - who founded Exxon (as Standard Oil) in the 1870’s - have led this assault on the current management of Exxon. Arguably the family most closely associated with the development of capitalism has stepped forward and demanded greater focus on innovation around sustainability. Surely it is only a matter of days before business schools the world over start citing the ‘Rockefeller Moment” as when everyone really sat up and took notice?

Eco-Iconic - Part II

OK, just read the article. Started to think it was off the mark as it argued the need to make green goods distinct from normal goods. This goes against the general idea that green will only get accepted once it feels and looks normal. But the article agrees with this idea - Eco-Iconic may only be around for the next 18 months. So a narrow window for marketers. Beyond that, they argue we are into the realm of Eco-Embedded - the protocol that everything is green and consumers have no choice. And then we get Eco-Boosters - products or services that not only have a zero-environment impact but actually benefit the environment. Really not sure we will see those - or certainly not beyond an impossibly small niche. 

It also feels as if this article is missing an important area we have started to explore - the move beyond the win win. Eco-Iconic, even Eco-Embedded are all about the brand selling more and possibly at a premium. And the examples given are in sectors that lend themselves to this type of initiative.

But what happens when the win win efficiency argument fades? What happens when brands have to actually make less stuff? It will happen at some point. Commentators talk of new levels of innovation and we often refer to the rise of sustainability being similar to the rise of the Internet - something that spawned countless new business models. But just like the Internet, sustainability will cause more businesses to fail that inspire new ones to start. By definition, innovation - seen as the key in the development of sustainabile business, even by the UK Gov’t last week - cannot be available for everyone. Then it wouldn’t be innovation.

To play at developing Eco-Iconic goods and then re-positioning to offer Eco-Embedded smacks a little of rearranging deck chairs on a famous White Star cruiser that left Southampton in April 1912. It is arguably reckless and missing the importance of genuinely reassessing and possibly re-designing all processes and assets within the business. In fairness, the article does talk about green architecture and even green cities. But it needs to go even further than that. 

G

The rise of Eco-Iconic - and further proof that our Active Self-Seekers are on the march

Came across an interesting briefing note from trendwatching.com a day or so ago, that talks about the rise of the eco-iconic good (get the briefing note here).

To quote the note;

ECO-ICONIC | “Eco-friendly goods and services sporting bold, iconic markers and design, helping their eco-conscious owners show off their eco-credentials to their peers.

At the heart of ECO-ICONIC is a status shift (isn’t there always?): many consumers are eager to flaunt their green behavior and possessions because there are now millions of other consumers who are actually impressed by green lifestyles.”

This is absolutely our Active Self-Seeker profile, detailed in our research from last week. And not surprisingly, the Eco-Iconic brands seem to be getting most traction in the two markets that are most heavily populated with Active Self-Seekers - the US and UK.

I haven’t had a chance to go through the full briefing note yet, but it will be interesting to see how strong a correlation there is between the Eco-Iconic brand and a price premium. Within our research, we found a significant disconnect between the two. 

Will post again once I’ve got through the briefing note.

G

WSJ Experiment - a green premium?

Today in the WSJ, there’s an interesting article on the issue of consumers paying more for green goods. This follows on very well from our work on various markets being willing to pay a premium.

Their experiment supports the broader findings we have in our global research, but in addition, they find an interesting detail: that although green goods will attract a premium, non-green goods will receive a more substantial reduction. I am not sure I have explained that very well, but to be clear, the message seems to be that consumers will potentially punish poor performers more than they may reward good performers. Reflecting on this in the context of our sector stretch argument in our research and suddenly the loss of the halo effect means even more.

Interestingly, the article also details an experiment to see where consumers reach green saturation on goods. Selling T-shirts with various degrees of organic production, it seems the the initial foray into being green delivers the greatest return - 50% or 100% organic T-shirts did not attract much more of a premium than 25%.

Whilst this may seem depressing, it may not be so. This is all down to perception and understanding. Maybe consumers cannot yet clearly assemble the organic argument for T-shirts other than organic must mean good. If this is the case, then there is a huge incentive for the more proactive brands to educate consumers that 100% means better than 50%. Once again  that education can only happen with convincing, legitimate communication.

G 

technorati

Technorati Profile

Question from Emerson

HI. Are there plans to update this research in the future? And if so, how regularly?

Hi,

Short answer - yes. Slightly longer answer - we are finalising a schedule for that. I feel the minimum should be 6-monthly although I would like to develop a scaled-down version that we run every quarter.

What I am keen to do is allow markets and sectors the opportunity to ‘opt in’ for the updates, allowing us to dig a little deeper into specifics for those markets and sectors. If you think this would be constructive, please let me know.

G

Question from Liz Donaldson

Please can you tell us how and when we might be able to use the Ecolasticity measure? The three elements make lots of sense but some clarification of how we may use them would be great. Thanks.

Hi Liz,

We are busy populating the initial model with some concrete examples to understand how the variables interplay. There are some quite dramatic swings in the results at times and we are attempting to nail down causality etc on these. We are developing this with Professor Demetrios Vakratsas from McGill Business School and as soon as we can move to a more robust and actionable tool, we’ll let you know. That said, we’ll be publishing a working occasional paper on its development, here at green-think.org within the next 2 weeks, so hopefully this will be constructive.

G 

Question from Jan Sneed

Since this is such a large piece of research, could you please explain why Russia was not included as part of the survey? I ask because it continues to be a market that is of genuine interest to the US marketers?

Hello Jan,

It is a large piece of research. But it could not include every market. I understand there was a lengthy period of consultation before the study was initiated, so I would hazard a guess that there were sound reasons for omitting Russia at that time. 

However, one of the key attributes of this project is that it presents a plug and play option with the research and if you want to initiate a second wave of work from your own market, we can put you in touch with the research company and you can define your own parameters for further research. 

G

Have no idea…

why some of the text appears in white and some in black. Sorry about that - I will find out why that happens. And stop it.

G

Question from Lucia Casas

Two questions: 1) What is the influence of the ‘green matter’ in the innovation of touchpoints? 2) We have to help brands to communicate green and we have to help media to innovate and develop green touchpoints, what is your opinion about it? 

Hi Lucia,

Clearly your questions are very focused on the application of this research in the context of strategic media choices. As such - and I am sorry if this sounds like a sidestep - I would strongly recommend you speaking to Catalyst, the strategic resource within Havas Media. I know these are key issues being discussed right now and they have a wealth of information to share on the topic. That said, I would add just a couple of comments here: you are right that the ‘green matter’ as you call it has a major impact. As mentioned in the comments to Karen in an earlier post, the green-ness demands transparency and consistency - not just at a brand level but also at a corporate level. Second, you mention about helping media innovate new touch points. Again, completely agree - a large part of our research looked at actions and behaviour that consumers hope to carry out in the near future - this is a vital stepping stone to helping media owners develop those touchpoints. 

But Catalyst can tell you much more!

G

Question from Jason Dunne

A superb study –fascinating for media owners and advertisers alike. Who should clients contact at Havas Media to discuss plans for their brands?

Hello Jason,

To answer your question, anyone interested in knowing more and exploring this area, should either seek out the local new business person at Havas Media, or the Catalyst team in the local market. Alternatively, there is a dedicated resource at a global level and the best way to reach them is to email climate.change@havasmedia.com

G

Question from Vishnu Mohan

How far are we willing to go to show our commitment to a company – would we take one of the brands we handle and co-fund part of a green campaign with the brand?

Hi Vishnu,

Your question is very much anchored in Havas Media’s strategy for this area. Off the bat, I would say this is very much a decision based on whether you feel that it is absolutely in the best interests of not only the client’s brand, but in the best interests of your relationship with that client…

More broadly, it touches on the issue of what the group should do when faced with a client that does not want to commit despite the group’s best efforts to convince otherwise. Havas Media may genuinely feel the initiative will not only garner an advantage for the client in question, but also advance the general understanding of the issue and the management and evolution of the whole debate. If so, can the company afford not to act? Even worse – and this is definitely one to discuss more - what happens when an advertiser is determined to communicate green attributes that are clearly false or exaggerated? Does the communications agency tow the line? Or do they risk losing that particular campaign?

G

Question from Karen Fraser

It seems brands must make long term commitments to communicating their environmental credentials in order to influence consumer perception. Do you agree?

Hi Karen – nice to hear from you!

I do agree. I think brands need to focus on establishing credibility, transparency, consistency and legitimacy – and all of these require a clear demonstration of commiting for the long run. Partly this will be inevitable, since they are going to have to communicate their corporate guardian’s commitment to change – in many cases radically – their business processes, so they are not going to be turning on a sixpence. But it is arguable that even though this requires a commitment for the long term, it does not mean that benefits will not be felt in the short term. It may sound a little cliched, but communication around this issue has to reflect a journey rather than a destination, so even embarking on it gives a brand something compelling to talk about from the word go. I think I have read how The Gap won plaudits for doing just this in response to the child labour claims last October and it’s swift move to align with BLIHR. Plus I guess it will always be a destination-less journey for one simple reason - there is no such thing as an utterly sustainable business - is there?

I think the greater challenge in this context – and this is something we are addressing in the development of brand Ecolasticity – is that so much of this is based on consumer perception. And as perception shifts so quickly – especially in an area where people are learning so rapidly – companies and brands may find their eco-credentials coming under attack despite their best efforts. What I am trying to say is that it almost certainly will not be a smooth (but long) road from here to there, but than even the strongest and most forward thinking brands will probably find themselves on the wrong end of an eco-backlash at some point simply because of this: companies are and will continue to be defined by a framework that is perception-based (in the eyes of consumers). All we can say is that as more and more knowledge – consistent and reliable knowledge – floods into the space, so perception starts to lose its volatility and sits a little closer to fact. But we are a long way from that at the moment.

What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts.

G

Question from Ricardo

Is there Brazilian specific comments?

Hi Ricardo,

There certainly are. If you are a part of Havas Media, then you should get in touch with your Catalyst team as they hold a wealth of data for each market researched –which Brazil was one.

Thanks

G

Question from Ruby Bana

The developing economy citizens are a lot more eco-absorbed, cognizant of what is happening as a result of climate change and a lot more positive about their contribution in future to balancing it – why is the western world where the topic is much more talked about not reflective of the same and why are the corporates in the developing world not embracing it as much as its citizens

Hi Ruby – many thanks for your question. You have struck upon a very interesting area and one which we have been looking at for a while as a result of our research. I am not sure we necessarily have the complete answer, but we certainly have elements of the answer.

If I may, I’d like to break your question in to two parts: firstly, there is the broader individual (consumer) reaction to the issue and second, there are the different stances of corporates between the two types of market.

Let’s start with consumers. Our research supports your point entirely in that general perception and engagement with the issue is far higher in the developing markets. We propose this is down to three factors that exacerbate consumer perception, namely;

1. Concurrent socio-economic trends at the local level
2. Perceived direct impact of climate change at a familial or personal level
3. Presence of more tangible, less abstract socio-political issues at a local level.

To put these another way, consumers – or rather people – in developing markets are establishing a standard of living or quality of life extremely rapidly (or certainly large groups of the population) . Whilst this would suggest a desire to turn away from the environment, our research shows a strong desire to balance this rapid economic growth with a sustainable approach. Of course, this is not always possible, which further stokes the degree of engagement with the issue. This level of engagement is also increased since in many of these markets, the direct consequences of climate change are perceived to be closer (hurricanes, flooding, high temperatures etc). Finally, many of these markets – and please forgive the generalization at this stage – are getting to grips with a number of social and political issues – growing pains if you like. I am referring to rich-poor divides, healthcare and wider welfare systems, political corruption, crime etc. These are all far more tangible than someone from the IPCC talking about temperature increases of ½ degree. Except…in many markets, people are recognizing that climate change may well be contributing to these problems. - crop failures, scarcity of water, for example.

So when you ask why are people in the western or more developed markets not so engaged or eco-absorbed as you mention, it looks depressingly clear: they do not face such dramatic socio-political or economic issues and in many cases, the impact of climate change is often thought to be positive! If you can believe it, we had people in our survey citing the benefits of climate change in terms of warmer weather in May and the opportunity to produce good quality wine in the northern European countries.

It also feels as if we should mention the US here too. The US is a special case. In this instance, we are pretty sure the widespread reluctance to engage in the debate is thanks to the clear message that has been sent at a federal level. This is not to say the country does not care – there are many powerful initiatives springing up to combat climate change at a state and industry level. And with both parties pledging to place climate change front and centre after November, we should see significant changes at all levels.

To turn to the second part of your question, regarding corporates – again this is a very interesting area and one, I feel, the illustrates the different role corporates need to play in different markets. Increasingly there is a social requirement from firms above and beyond the legal minimum that arguably fills the regulation gap caused by liberalized and relaxed markets. I’m going to hold off on commenting on that as I would like to see what you or people think of the comments on consumer differences between markets. As I said at the beginning, we do not profess to have the answers and it’d be interesting to hear alternative takes on it.

I will post some of our thoughts re’ corporate behaviour in the next day or so, but just as an intro to that area, it is interesting to think about the following: climate change is a global issue and needs a global solution – or it certainly needs global co-ordination. If this is the case, should we not turn to the most efficient global entities to address this – global companies and brands?

G

Questions from the webcast launch of the research material

Hi,

A day later than we wanted, but here we go with the responses to the questions that were put to us during the webcast but that we were unable to get to because of time issues. Remember, if you didn’t get to see the webcast and would like to, you can still watch it via the Havas Media website. If you click here, it should take you to the registration page and then on to the webcast.

Thanks to those people who submitted questions - some of them we have answered directly and the rest are about to appear here with the first pass of answers. For ease, I will start each question in a separate entry, so if there is some discussion, the threads stay coherent. 

Give me two minutes to get the first one in place…

G

Welcome to green-think.org

As the title suggests – or says in no uncertain terms – this is where we propose to discuss, develop and ultimately implement new ideas around the climate change and sustainability issue.

Yes, we know there is already a sea of blogs on the environment and sustainability. But we hope green-think will be different.

For starters, we are an off-shoot of Havas Media, the global media network, so we are very interested in developing new strategies for brands and their guardians that help them help the sustainability cause. We don’t feel business needs to be pitted against society when it comes to sustainability, but rather that liberalised markets need brands and their guardians to expedite shifts in social trends and make them something more solid, more tangible. But that is getting ahead of our selves slightly.

At this stage, we want to say that we are here and ready to go. In fact, on Monday, May 12th 1500 BST we are launching a sizeable piece of global research that looks at consumer sentiment and perception around climate change across a number of markets. If you would like to be a part of the webcast launch, we would love to see you there.

Simply click here to register.

We believe this research project is one of the largest of its kind. And we embarked on it for a very simple reason; we feel sustainability is the single largest challenge to the ‘business as usual’ model we have faced since the industrial revolution. Things have to change.

So there is plenty to talk about. And plenty to do. And just because we are born out of a media company, it does not mean we are automatically advocates of selling more stuff, but just more concentrated and in smaller bottles.

Instead, this blog aims to be about the longer term, the significant changes that we all face and how we can all inch our way forward to find a sustainable path. Now more than ever, brands and their guardians need to demonstrate credibility, legitimacy and transparency. It is ironic that at a time when we arguably need companies and their brands the most, we are largely at our most sceptical of their social value. That makes for a tough job and one where the debate is already rich.

Here at green-think, we hope we can be instrumental in solving these challenges – not just through detailed discussion but by sharing and road-testing proprietary research and developments from our relationships with some of the most influential business schools and academics and Havas’ own strategists.

Our research launch on Monday represents the most comprehensive snapshot we could have taken at this time. It will be up to green-think to keep updating that snapshot.