e-marketing

My experience at Hubbub must have been pretty thought provoking, because I’m still thinking about the conversations I had with my discussion group. For starters, it was super interesting to hear the different perspectives on sustainability – is it a policy issue? A social issue? A business issue? It all depends on who you ask. The Econ students seemed to lean towards policy, while the City of Vancouver rep seemed to think that policy doesn’t always work – especially when it comes to improper implementation. And what about consumers? Should they be encouraging businesses to change, by driving demand for more sustainable products?

It seems that when we try to assign responsibility to one party over another, the sustainability conversation comes to a standstill. No matter which party is blamed, there is always a flaw in the argument. Thinking about this led me to an a-ha moment: in order to achieve change, there needs to be a collaboration between all three – policy, business, and consumers.

In class, when we talk about collaborations between a company and a group such as WWF, we see that good things happen when organizations collaborate. But, the missing link in many of these collaborations is the government. Imagine what could happen if a company going “sustainable” with the help of the WWF also had government policy on its side – perhaps in the form of tougher regulations that use the most sustainable company as the benchmark, instead of the least sustainable company. Such a move would encourage competitors to become more sustainable, and would actually reward the companies that are working to do so. Of course, a change of this magnitude can’t happen without collaboration between government and business.

One city that’s realized the power of collaboration is Philadelphia, through it’s partnership with Recyclebank. Here’s how it works: When city recycling trucks pick up residential recycle bins, they calculate the weight of the materials inside and scan a barcode specific to that address. Recyclebank credits participants with reward points according to how much they’ve recycled. Through partnerships with major companies  Starbucks, Apple) residents can choose a reward of their choice, depending on the amount of points they’ve accumulated.

The result? The City of Philadelphia saw a 4% increase in recycling between 2010 – 2013. Residents are rewarded for exhibiting positive behaviours that cost them nothing, and retailers get business they may not have otherwise seen. It’s a great way to encourage sustainable consumer behaviour, and hopefully one that we’ll see more often in the future.

Last Tuesday, Suzette and I had the opportunity to attend Hubbub, an event put on by the City of Vancouver’s CityStudio team. Our client projects – City Food, and Lawn Sprinkling – are part of a larger program (CityStudio) in which students from six Vancouver schools are given the chance to work on a project that might be implemented by the city. We met fine arts students from Emily Carr, engineering students from UBC, business students from SFU, and lots more.

We were asked to speak for two minutes about our client projects and what we’re aiming to achieve through them, and then we got to hear about the other projects CityStudio has on the go. Given that both of our client projects are trying to address a pretty big social marketing issue, I was surprised to hear what the other teams were working on. For example, one group was advocating for more street painting in Vancouver. To me, it sounded like an unlikely project at first, until I saw a photo of a street painting in Mount Pleasant that indicated where a creek used to be. I think this is a pretty creative way of showing residents what used to lie under the street:

Other teams were working on equally interesting projects, such as campaigning to bring public firepits to Vancouver beaches, or suggesting a master plan for the rejuvenation of an industrial area in the city.

It was really great to see how CityStudio is reaching out to students to get their input on ways to improve our city. The program has been running since 2011, and has seen over 900 students get involved. Some of these students were able to work on innovative projects at CityStudio for an entire semester (while earning 15 credits). I think this is a great program, and one that makes a lot of sense. University students need to get relevant work experience at a reputable employer, and the City of Vancouver needs help coming up with innovative ways to make our city a better place. It’s the perfect win-win situation. I only wish that CityStudio made more of an effort to tell University students about the full semester program, because I think it’s something that a lot of students would be interested in, if they were made aware of it.

Hot on the heels of our latest group presentation on Communication, Forbes has published an article that discusses the FTC’s latest efforts to protect American consumers, by cracking-down on bogus “green” claims.

The article claims that 90% of Americans consider environmental impact when making purchase decisions (I find that number incredibly high – perhaps that’s a bogus claim!). This makes lying about sustainability immensely profitable for shameless companies. The article lists several examples of companies that have recently been busted – and heavily fined – for lying about their “green” products.

Example one: Lights of America, which claimed their LED bulb would last 30,000+ hours. FTC testing found they only lasted a few thousand hours. They were fined $21m as a result.

Example two: gDiapers, which claimed their diaper liners were 100% biodegradable, and could simply be flushed down the toilet after use. The FTC found this was untrue – the diapers did not decompose within one year of hitting the landfill. Even worse, the company claimed that consumers could compost the diapers in their own gardens – but failed to disclose that this was totally not okay once the diapers were soiled with solid human waste. This company intentionally lied to moms! Their fine? $450,000.

The unfortunate thing about both of the above examples is that these companies are preying on customers who are trying to do the right thing for the environment. For some of these customers, it may have been their first attempt at shopping sustainably, and now their trust has been broken. We know that trust is so important in all consumer goods marketing, but even more important in sustainability marketing – where some customers are seriously skeptical about the products. Considering that the green industry already suffers from a lack of credibility, the ramifications of such deceit extend far beyond these companies – to the industry as a whole. This means that yet again, its up to consumers to do their research before buying green. Not so bad if you have time and resources, but for many consumers, this search cost raises the total customer cost to the point where it’s not worth it to buy green.

Well done, jerks.

In what is sure to be a contentious article, Kenneth Amaeshi of the University of Scotland states that in his opinion, business school curriculum has an overly narrow focus on economic performance, through finance and strategic management, with little emphasis on society and social issues such as sustainability. While I don’t agree with everything Amaeshi says, I do agree that there needs to be more emphasis on sustainability, in business school curriculum.

A quote at the beginning of the article took me back to the first day of 486F: “the real test will be whether [business schools] continue to see sustainability as an elective, an option, or as the keystone to business education for the 21st century.” I remember Tamar suggesting that in the (ideal) future, there will be no specialized sustainability courses – sustainability will simply be integrated into all business classes. While I agree that this would be ideal, I don’t see indications that this is going to happen in the near future.

We know that at Sauder, sustainability classes are electives. And, based on the size of our sustainability marketing class, they seem to be relatively under-subscribed electives. While I certainly don’t know the reason for this, I suspect that in part it is due to the fact that in lower-level business classes, there is little emphasis on sustainability. So, business students are not being taught that sustainability is becoming an increasingly important part of business strategy. I think this lack of awareness results in upper-level business students being hesitant to take sustainability classes, and yet, sustainability has been on the agenda of some of the largest and most profitable companies for a very long time.

If we know that sustainability is becoming increasingly important in the business world, should we let business students graduate without working knowledge of the sustainability landscape? I think this seems unfair to the students. And, I think by leaving sustainability off the agenda we’re missing out on an opportunity to make Sauder grads, from all specializations, even more competitive. For this reason, sustainability should be more than an elective or option – it should be fully incorporated into business school curriculum.

I should start by saying that architecture and design is what first got me “into” sustainability. As a result, for me personally, the word sustainability will forever be tied to the physical environments we inhabit. Fortunately, over time I’ve found that when architecture and sustainability intercept, some really amazing things can happen.

One of these amazing creations is the Bullitt Center in Seattle. This April 2013 article discusses the many ways that the building is pushing the boundaries of sustainable design. One notable goal is the achievement of the Living Building Challenge, the “the built environment’s most rigorous performance standard.” A few of the ways Bullitt Center will achieve this: 100% on-site renewable energy generation; 100% of water needs provided by harvested rainwater; and, a water-less toilet system that composts human waste and turns it into fertilizer.

The interesting thing about this article is that despite being written a year ago, it is still very relevant. Why? Well, in order to become a designated Living Building (in the entire world, there are only 5 so far) Bullitt Centre needs to be fully self-sufficient for 12 continuous months (after it is fully occupied), and it hasn’t hit the 12 month mark yet. Even so, there seems to be no doubt that it will achieve its goal.

Another aspect of this article resonates with me, in large part due to our in-class discussion about how maybe it isn’t enough for a company to create a green solution to a problem; the problem might be a consumer behaviour issue that needs to be addressed. (Remember: FreshPaper, which lowers food waste by extending the life of produce) This discussion came to mind when I read about Bullitt Center, because the tenants are forced to change their behaviour to adapt to the building. One example, there is no parking, only bike storage. Another example: a staircase is the only way to get from floor to floor (there is one slow elevator if needed, accessible by key-card only). While these are small sacrifices (it’s only a six-storey building), they are not ones that you often see in commercial architecture.

In my opinion, I think the Bullitt Center has truly pushed the envelope. (Talk about giving the Architect path to green growth some literal meaning!) And the best part is, Bullitt Center is committed to showing others how to do what they’ve done. According to the president and CEO of Bullitt Foundation, “If the building is still the highest-performing one of its kind 10 years from now, the experiment will have failed.” To me, this sounds like a challenge, and I’m excited to see who takes it on, and how.

While getting my weekly dose of sustainability news, I came across a reference to Levi’s waste<less program. Having never heard of the program, I had to investigate, and was intrigued by what I found.

The ad above kind of says it all. Levi’s takes plastic bottles and food trays, and turns them into a polyester fibre which is then incorporated into it’s cotton fabric. The result? A pair of jeans that contains the equivalent of 8 bottles worth of plastic. So what sort of environmental impact does this have? According to Levi’s website, “In the spring of 2013, we’ll recycle approximately 3.5 million PET plastic bottles.”

This is a pretty great environmental initiative from the world’s largest jean company, and it turns out it’s not the first. Levi’s also works with Better Cotton Initiative, to improve the lives of the people that produce cotton. And, in 2011, Levi’s launched water<less, a denim collection that uses significantly less water in its finishing process. In 2012, that initiative saved 170 million litres of water.

Levi’s seems to be taking a leadership role, promoting sustainability in every step of its manufacturing and sales process. And really, it should. Levi’s invented the blue jean, and I personally love it when a company that basically started an industry can change with the times and stay on top. (Anyone following recent Nintendo news will know what I mean).

There is one other thing that crossed my mind: what happens to the denim when it wears out? Levi’s actively encourages consumers to donate their used denim to Goodwill (which in my opinion, just makes sense) but what happens when the jeans are beyond repair? Most discarded denim ends up in the landfill, and I’m wondering how Levi’s plastic/cotton blend material will fare. Interestingly, the company doesn’t address this on its website. Personally, I would like to see Levi’s adopt a recycling program, such as the one offered by  Blue Jeans Go Green. Because, while it is great to have denim go to two or more users, the end result is the same: the clothing is discarded.

P&G recently announced that it plans to remove phosphates from all of its laundry detergents by the end of 2015. A P&G representative reported that the company is able to eliminate phosphates because they’ve invested in technology that allows them to create a phosphate-free detergent that doesn’t compromise quality. Given that P&G currently holds 25% of the world laundry detergent market, this is big news for the environment. Not surprisingly, the announcement has been picked up by many major news sources and sustainability websites, and is receiving mixed reviews.

[Side note: according to Wikipedia, the problem with phosphates is that they eventually find their way into waterways, where they cause algae blooms which deprive the water of oxygen, and no oxygen means fish can’t survive.]

As with any “green” news, the critics are asking some tough questions. The primary one is “Why now?”  Eco-friendly detergent brands such as Seventh Generation have been making phosphate-free detergents for decades. Furthermore, P&G itself stopped using phosphates in its U.S. and Western Europe-bound detergents in the ’90s due to environmental regulations, but it continues to sell detergents with phosphates in other countries.  So what has sparked P&G’s interest in voluntarily going phosphate-free, and without pressure from external regulators? P&G claims they’re doing it because they finally have the technology to do so. Critics question if the decision is related to the decreasing availability and rising cost of phosphorus (the mined natural resource that is the base of phosphates).

To me, this looks like a decision that just makes sense – from an environmental and a business perspective. Even if the move is largely profit-driven, is that such a bad thing? If we look at other companies that have invested in Eco-friendly initiatives, I think we’d find that many did so because of long-run profitability. For example, would any car company have invested in hybrid car technology if fossil fuels weren’t scarce? I don’t know the answer, but as a business student I assume that most companies don’t make decisions based on environmental sustainability alone. I suppose this creates a bigger question: Is the motive more important than the outcome?

Whatever the reason, I think we would all agree that this is a good move by a big company that has the power to change the entire market. Looks like Jason Clay’s TED talk was bang on.

Original article: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/proctor-gamble-remove-phosphates-laundry-soap

There was an article published by Bloomberg yesterday, January 23rd, that said that California would potentially become the first U.S. state to ban use of plastic bags:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-24/california-lawmakers-poised-for-new-plastic-bag-assault.html

I thought this was a really interesting article, for a couple of reasons. First, it makes me realize how quickly things can change. I remember being a child and going to the grocery store with my mom, and everything we bought was automatically placed in plastic bags. No one ever offered an alternative, such as paper bags, and as far as I know, none of the customers thought to ask.  Fast forward 10 or 15 years, and suddenly everything that seemed so normal not so long ago, is no longer okay. We talked about this in class briefly – about how the shift towards reusable bags started with a small group of people trying to change the actions of an entire society. I think it’s really impressive how far things have come, in a relatively short period of time

The second reason that the article is of interest is that my group is working on the project to promote water sustainability in the city of Vancouver. This project feels very similar to the plastic grocery bag problem, because we’re trying to change the way a group of people think about their water supply. Initially, this feels like a daunting mission. But somehow, after hearing that an entire U.S. state is considering banning plastic bags, it seems that over time, it is not impossible to change the way a society thinks.

Lastly, this article raises the point that some people feel this initiative is simply a cash grab. The quote in the article is: “It’s yet another job-killing, big-grocer cash-grab masquerading as an environmental bill.” I think this type of reaction occurs quite frequently when it comes to green initiatives; no one wants to pay more money  – especially for paper bags when they’ve become so used to free plastic bags. I know it’s tough to change, especially when some habits are so ingrained, but I think this type of behavioral change is a good thing. For me personally, I’m happy to take my reusable bags to the store. Especially if the alternative is seeing my discarded plastic bags washing up on Kits beach. Yuck.