In an article by the Huffington Post, “sustainable seafood” has become a common industry buzzword.  Words such as “sustainably harvested” are often ambiguous and leave consumers wondering, “What does this mean?”  The term “sustainable seafood” may refer to the avoidance of fishing in depleted waters, the practice of sustainable catching or the abiding of government regulations.   However, the HuffPost argues that the seafood industry’s lack of regulation is a problem.

“There is no one unifying standard across the industry to define what sustainable seafood is.”

According to HuffPost, more than 80% of consumers surveyed responded that sustainable seafood was an “Important Issue”. However, more often than not, businesses such as WholeFoods combine several sustainable standards into one that fits with organizational values.  In such a case, is sustainable seafood truly green or a “defensive green” strategy that is used as a reactionary measure to consumer concern?

By implementing John Grant’s Green Marketing Grid, we may be able to understand how the lack of sustainable seafood regulation coincides with businesses’ Green marketing objectives [as opposed to Greener or Greenest].  The use of Eco-labels, for example, is a popular way to certify seafood as sustainable and is often used by organizations with Green marketing objectives.  However, Eco-labels such as certification by the Marine Stewardship Council have been heavily criticized for fallible standards.  In a report by the Marine Policy, 31% of MSC-certified stocks were overfished and subject to continuing overfishing.  Has sustainable seafood become a greenwashing tactic?  At present, it seems that the lack of unified, and regulated third party certification may make it so.

In a recent blog post by All About The Green, this savvy sustainability marketer examined a new model of business: buy less for more.  Although this strategy encourages the sustainable behavior by “cutting” consumption, it has been one that many businesses have been slow to adopt.  All About the Green said it best when [he/she] noted that this business model encourages consumers not to over consumer.

A business that actually doesn’t want you to consume? Isn’t that the exact opposite of everything you know?

True, the logic may seem reverse.  However, businesses such as Patagonia that sell high-quality products for a premium price adopt a value-based pricing strategy that emphasizes a response to a change in consumer culture.

Where I differ from All About the Green is [his/her] comment regarding how less consumption means less profit.  I believe, however, that value-based pricing is indeed profitable in the long-term.  What I admire about businesses that encourage value-based purchases is that it is not so much a purchase as it is an investment.  This strategy encourages all consumers to feel invested not only in the product or service, but in the brand.

By re-enforcing the long-term benefits of these products or services, businesses are likely to position themselves as trusted brands, build brand loyalty and prolong the customer’s lifetime value.  In addition, the negative stereotypes associated with retail giants such as Walmart as cheaply manufactured or ineffective have increased market share for value-based businesses.  Accordingly, although this pricing strategy may not apply to all industries, I believe that it represents a shift in consumer culture that encourages long-term sustainability.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is a proposal to construct twin pipeline between Bruderheim, Alberta and Kitimat, British Columbia.  The eastbound pipeline would import natural gas condensate to dilute crude oil produced from the Athabasca oil sands.  The westbound pipeline would then transport petroleum to the new marine terminal in Kitimat, BC where it would be transported to Asia by oil tankers.

Although Enbridge claims that the proposed pipelines would provide residents of northern BC and Alberta employment opportunity, skills development, procurement opportunities and contributions to the community and province through a secure tax base, the project has been highly contested by First Nations groups, environmentalists and oil sands opponents.

“The war is on,” said Nadleh Whut’en Chief Martin Louie after an Enbridge shareholder meeting.  “Enbridge and the government are going to go on fighting us. How far are they willing to go to kill off the human beings of this country?”

Environmental groups including GreenPeace have cited their opposition to the pipeline proposal.  Environmentalists argue that the transport of crude oil from Kitimat is risky.  In a YouTube video, environmental activists describe the narrow passageway off the coast of Kitimat that prove to be rough navigation for an oil tankard.  Should a spill occur, it would be especially hazardous due to the explosive properties of diluted bitumen and the concentration of toxins.

Whole Foods has established strong brand recognition as your local organic food foraging, pesticide and GM-food criticizing grocery store.  It’s sustainable values  attract a clear market segment of “foraging foodies” and “vivacious vegans” who are more than willing to pay premium for a bag of high quality granola.  But in an ironic twist, WholeFood’s CEO, John Mackey, is not your average “Green” CEO.  Despite having lived on a vegetable commune (oops, I mean co-op) and maintained a vegan lifestyle, he does not share the same liberal views as most sustainability advocates.  In fact, he doesn’t believe in climate change.

In an interview with ABC News, Mackey described climate change as “not a big deal.”  In fact, climate change is “perfectly natural and not necessarily bad.”

This blog post is not intended to lay waste to Mackey’s views; however, skeptical they may be.  The question is how will Mackey’s views conflict with the Whole Foods brand?  Mackey has already ticked off progressive grocery store go-ers, by comparing Obama-care to Fascism.  It’s his views on climate change, however, that conflict with the values of Whole Foods.  Surely, if Whole Foods values are centered on sourcing sustainable opportunities of growing and distributing food, it must hold some opposition towards climate change.  Perhaps it just goes to show that “hippie companies” aren’t really as liberal as you might think.

In an article by Forbes magazine, Prof. Edward E. Lawler made the not so surprising conclusion that organizational programs aimed at social responsibility do not produce long-term results.  Like programs that are focused on improving areas such as quality, costs, and customer service, these sustainability programs produce initial gains that soon dissipate.

Lawler concludes that organizations must make environmental and social performance a part of the way the corporation operates just as much as it does financial performance.  The “triple bottom line” approach has worked well for new start-ups whose sustainability goals are an integral part of their business model.  Consider ethicalDeal, an e-commerce “Group-on” of sorts whose promotion of sustainable products and services is a core component of its brand.

Recent surveys show, however, that most organizations “pre-sustainability” do not integrate social and environmental performance into the way the organization operates.  They are not always on the table when new projects and products are being considered. They are not part of the training programs of organizations.  They are, in fact, an add-on to effectively counteract public criticism.  According to the Green Marketing Strategy Matrix, most organizations would then be labeled “Defensive Green.”  Low in terms of differentiability of greenness, but high in terms of segmentation of green markets, these organizations will continue to be criticized and vilified for their poor social and environmental performance.

In a recent article by Bloomberg, Chrysler Group LLC shared their perspective on what it means to be sustainable.  The debut of the 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee at the Detroit auto show boasts the ability to drive 700 miles between fill-ups and gets 30 miles per gallon on the highway, with a eight-speed automatic transmission and a gasoline-saving “eco” mode.  Jeep brand President Mike Manley praised it as a fuel saver, but it certainly isn’t a “subcompact fuel sipper.”

Chrysler’s Jeep is indicative of a significant problem in the auto-industry where manufacturers must reconcile the trade off between fuel-economy regulations and staying true to their brand by minimizing the impact of the trade off.  The 2014 Cherokee is perhaps the latest in a string of “spinning” attempts by automakers to pay lip service to the importance of sustainability while introducing bigger, more powerful cars and trucks.

“Clearly the auto companies are trying to tell the government that they’re following the law, while they’re telling consumers come buy our biggest gas-guzzling trucks.” – said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign.

It’s unclear as to whether the 2014 Grand Cherokee will live up to U.S. standards for fuel economy.  But the question remains as to whether Chrysler’s message to drivers is a good one: Can you have your cake and eat it too?

The FIFA World Cup is the biggest single-event sporting competition in the world and its impact on the environment is indisputable.  Having defined a clear, ambitious, and yet realistic focus for their approach, the 2014 FIFA World Cup is poised to establish a unique platform to raise awareness and highlight select social and environmental concerns on a global scale.  By capitalizing on existing communication lines and governance structures, FIFA is poised to maximize the impact that the 2014 World Cup will have in terms of promoting sustainability.

Green buildings

Many stadiums in Brazil are planning to achieve LEED certification for green buildings, reinforcing Brazil’s commitment to international sustainability standards.  Over one thousand photovoltaic solar panels on stadiums’ roofs will also be installed to generate renewable energy in a partnership with World Cup Sponsor Yingli Solar.  Yingli is the first Chinese company and renewable energy provider to sponsor the World Cup, highlighting the global interconnectedness of this event.

Offsetting carbon emissions

In an article by Reuters, Brazil is poised to produce 11.1 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from the events leading up to the 2014 FIFA World Cup and 3.01 million tonnes during the event, roughly 0.8 percent of Brazil’s annual emissions.  Brazil is thus, investing heavily to expand roads and airports trying to relieve the perennial congestion that common in its major cities.  FIFA as also mentioned that it would spend around $20 million for the project to offset most emissions from the event by buying carbon credits in the voluntary market.  This is surplus to the recommended $15 million cited by CO2 Zero to offset emissions produced during the event.

Corporate partnerships

Reduce, re-use, and recycle has been the key phrase for FIFA Partner Coca-Cola.  The corporate giant recently made its own mark on the 2014 World Cup by launching a campaign for the donation of plastic (PET) bottles to be reused in the linings of 6,773 seats in the new Maracana Stadium.  Coca Cola’s small, but measurable culture of recycling has hit a positive note with 50 percent of the Brazilian population who believe that stadiums should have facilities for recycling and proper disposal of waste.

Within the area of environmental protection, six key areas have been emphasized including waste, water energy, transportation, procurement and climate change.  By understanding the extent of its environmental impact, including its carbon footprint, FIFA has taken steps to evaluate what emissions are caused by in the lead up to the recent FIFA World Cups.  Through the combined efforts of FIFA, the LOC, the federal government of Brazil, and corporate partners, sustainability has become an integral part of the FIFA World Cup.

If you’ve ever searched a Google “street-view” image of your home (and lets be honest, we’ve all done it), you’ve probably found a less-than-perfect, pixelated image that resembles Lego building block than an actual home. When UrtheCast founder, Scott Larson, partnered with the RSC Energia to provide online users with a near-live HD video feed of of Earth from space, he had a vision of creating a tool that would change the way we look at the Earth.  By working with renowned aerospace partners from across the globe, UrtheCast is building, launching, installing, and operating two cameras on the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

After having the opportunity to speak with Larson briefly during his case workshop at the Enterprize Canada Conference, I was inspired by how, in a matter of years, UrtheCast would change not only the way users interact with each other by integrating social media platforms on the HD video feed, but how we interact with the natural resources around us.  By creating a way for environmental organizations to virtually monitor the melting of arctic glaciers or the deforestation of the Amazon, UrtheCast is single-highhandedly raising awareness of environmental issues in real time.

As a self-declared sustainability enthusiast and marketing student, I believe whole-heartedly that UrtheCast is setting a precedent for social enterprise by integrating technology and social media in such a way that addresses existing world issues to a mainstream audience.  For more information, check out their blog for updates on UrtheCast’s voyage to the International Space Station:

http://www.urthecast.com/blog/home/

In Jordan Huang’s blog entry, Branding: Developing the Perfect Promo, Jordan elaborated on the idea of using the promo as a means of showcasing all the features in which an “iPhone could change what a phone could do for you”.  However, while a promo video is a promising way to share the ‘luxurious, hi-tech, and sexy technology’ of the iPhone, the value of the promo video is not the video itself, but how it is shared online to transform a passive form of visual media into an interactive experience.

I recently came across a new TV series called Fashion Star, a reality program that showcases the clothing of up and coming designers in front of three very well-known retailers, H&M, Macy’s, and Saks.  Buyers from each retailer then have the opportunity to bid on a particular design if it strikes their fancy.  The real clincher, however, is that after each air date, the designer’s clothes are made available both online and in-stores.  Yes, it’s that fast.  And the speed with which the clothing appears in retail seems to strike a cord with consumers. In fact, the retail sales numbers are higher than the show’s own ratings.  To elaborate on Jordan’s idea of the promo, visual media – particularly reality TV – allows consumers to get up close with not only the product, but the designers and retailers.  It provides consumers with a story, and resonates in their minds, thus creating a stronger reason for them to buy.

Passive advertising tactics such as product placement are slowly being replaced by a more active method of imbedding the brand directly into the premise of reality TV.  By engaging consumers in what they watch and making what they see accessible, retailers are finding new ways to improve direct marketing.  In essence, Fashion Star is the lovechild of an infomercial and reality TV, and while it may seem like a very long promotional video for some, I see it as an opportunity to influence consumer decision making and create a stronger brand image.

YouTube Link: Kony 2012

In an interesting blog post by Leigh LePage, the CMA blogger describes what differentiates Gen Y (Mellennial) from its Gen X and Baby Boomer counterparts.  LePage describes how Gen Y ‘desires to become socially/globally responsible citizens’ and noted that ‘over 60 per cent of Generation Y will pay more and become more engaged with organizations that align themselves with causes and practice corporate social responsibility’ – a large percentage that should definitely be recognized.

But what makes these social enterprises so marketable to youth?  Gen Y has grown up in an age of Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  We are so accustomed to sharing our photos, status updates, friends, and likes with others that we have become more of a homogenous and coherent generation than any other.  Never before has any generation felt the need to embrace cosmopolitanism and global citizenry rather than traditional conservative ideals.  This is a powerful and compelling feeling, one that I believe can create positive change on a global scale.  However, this can also be exploited by marketers using the exact same tools that Gen Y embraces.  A recent viral YouTube video, dubbed Kony 2012, amassed a seemingly cult following of Gen Yers within days of being posted.  Youth everywhere were posting Kony 2012 on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter feeds alike in the hopes of making Joseph Kony ‘famous’ and pressing for his arrest.  The video is a slick social media phenomenon that is participatory, personable, and has a certain degree of unexpectedness.  And while I do applaud the effort to stop Kony and the LRA, there is something inherently unsettling about the Invisible Children’s marketing campaign and its ability to quickly mobilize youth to action.  The problem that Gen Y faces is not that it is afraid to accept a call to action, but that it does so so willingly and without thinking.  Without taking the time to research alternate views of an organization such Invisible Children, Gen Y has the potential be susceptible to the marketing tactics of any organization that advocates ‘a cause’.

Upon further research of Kony 2012, I learned of the criticisms it faced.  Despite having amassed over $5 million in less than 24 hours, the Invisible Children organization made no acknowledgement as to what percentage of these funds actually went to providing resources for children in Uganda and what percentage went into their own pockets.  In addition, the organization has been criticized for its choice of buzz words in its viral YouTube video.  In a blog post by Yale University’s Chris Blattman, the prof in political science said that he felt the film had an uncomfortable tone.  ‘There’s something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. It’s often not an accidental choice of words,’ Blattman states.  ‘It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, the saving attitude pervades too many aid failures, not to mention military interventions.”

On a personal note, these remarks do not suggest that every marketing campaign launched by an NGO should be met with fierce adversarialism.  On the contrary, many of these organizations should be applauded for their dedication to their respective causes.  However, today’s Gen Y should take note of their tendency to create a so-called ‘tyranny of the majority’ as they quickly rise to action.  Perhaps instead, they should recognize viral videos for what they are, a marketing campaign that is meant to persuade.