James Shaw's Blog

Has sustainability marketing changed how you think about how you live your life as a consumer?

For the time being, no, but this is only because I am currently a broke student. Of course I would love to buy Organic, Fair Trade, etc. but right now my demand is pretty price elastic. After I graduate and (hopefully) get a good job though, I will absolutely look for these kinds of labels, and really research my purchases to make sure every dollar I spend is going to the most ethically-sourced, environmentally-friendly products available. But has sustainability marketing changed the way I think about my life as a consumer? Well… to some extent, I suppose. I guess I’ve always thought of consumption as “bad”… I’m just as guilty of being a consumerist as the next guy, but I think I’ve always been aware of this. Sustainability marketing has maybe made me think about this more, though, and perhaps given me some hope. So instead of thinking “well, even if I buy that ‘green’ brand, it’s not going to make much of a difference,” I might be more likely to give the ‘green’ brand a shot. Although I still think, perfect world, I would grow my own garden in my back yard  and have my own farm and eat only from these sources, and consume absolutely no non-essential products… but let’s face it, that’s not going to happen any time soon.

Has sustainability marketing changed how you think about business?

Absolutely. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m still super skeptical about any business claiming to be ‘green’, but I think if there’s one thing this course has taught me it’s that sustainability is not black and white; it’s a spectrum. So sure, no company is truly sustainable in the true sense of the word, but different companies are at different places along the spectrum, and I think it’s all about supporting the companies that are closer to the sustainable end. Companies like Patagonia, Mountain Equipment Co-op, and Nature’s Path, that really go beyond the profit-maximizing paradigm and into the territory of pursuing the triple bottom line at all costs. And while I still maintain that government regulation is the key to becoming a sustainable society, I do think the progress by companies like these is commendable.

Has sustainability marketing changed what you think a sustainable society might look like?

Well, somewhat… I mean it all goes back to this whole idea of “cut vs switch.” Like, I know we can’t reverse globalization. In the developed world we are so used to all the luxuries we have available to us, we think it is our right to have access to coffee for $2 and bananas for 25 cents, in addition to cell phones, running water, electricity, and so on. I went into this course knowing, and came out of it still with the view, that it’s going to have to be a mixture of both. Goods are inevitably going to become more expensive, as wages in the developing world rise and governments (hopefully) begin to heavily tax carbon. We’re going to have to live with less, but will we have to revert to the stone age? Well, before taking this class, I might have answered “yes”, but I think now I might lean more towards the “switch” side. Again, it needs to be both, but no I don’t think every luxury we have can vanish overnight, and at the same time I don’t think we can fully depend on technology to save us. We’re going to have to reduce consumption dramatically, but certainly innovations in production and transportation, and green energy, are going to be vital to creating a sustainable society.

With inspiration from Megan’s post, “Social Entrepreneurship and Transparency on the Rise.”

To change things up a little, I decided to write about something positive I see coming from the business world, as opposed to critiquing capitalism and corporations. I think Megan is absolutely right in identifying the trends of social enterprise and transparency, and this fills me with hope. The websites she mentioned are great – Karma Exchange for buying products that use revenues to do something charitable, Good Guide to see ethical evaluations of various companies, and Ethical Deal to get coupons for use at businesses deemed to be ethical. It’s refreshing to see businesses take on socially beneficial actions in addition to profit-seeking, and these websites are clear proof of the importance for companies to be transparent with what they’re doing. We’re no longer living in a world where corporations fully control the media; with the rise of the Internet and social media, “consumerspace” has been created, where consumers can share with each other their opinions of companies and nothing can be hidden (for long, anyways).

Continuing on with this theme of “going social”, there are some other areas of business that take on similar traits as well. With social enterprise comes the ability to do well by doing good; i.e. make profits while contributing to some social good. The picture at the top of this post articulates this perfectly – it truly is a balance of compassion and money. Money, unfortunately, isn’t going away any time soon. It’s a way for individuals to specialize in tasks and get paid according to value added, and then exchange this money for goods that they deem of equivalent value to the given amount of money. And any social enterprise needs money to get started, which is where social finance comes in – the concept of funding projects that add “social equity.” A great website for doing this is Kiva, where you can make loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries around the world, working to expand their farm, textile business, etc. So, while solely profit-driven companies continue to be the dominant form of business, it is encouraging to see other business models transpire, and with this rise of “everything social”, it is my hope that social enterprise and social finance will flourish, with help from social media and citizens concerned with the social good.

Inspired by Laurel’s post, “What is Recycling“, I began researching, well, what exactly recycling is. Turns out, recycling isn’t as great as we think. We’re taught from a young age the 3R’s – Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle – but what we’re not taught is the relative importance of each. I’m not saying we shouldn’t recycle; of course, if we’re going to buy something that is not directly reusable  it makes sense to recycle it and salvage whatever material possible. Unfortunately, however, the energy saved from recycling varies substantially by product class. According to popularmechanics.com, recycling aluminum and PET (the material used in plastic soft drink bottles) results in huge energy savings of 96% and 76%, respectively. Other materials are not recycled as efficiently, with recycled newsprint saving only 45% of energy, and recycled glass a meager 21%, compared to what it would take to make the materials from scratch. So while Laurel is completely justified in being angry at the lack of recycling she witnessed in the US, and this makes me upset as well, I think we need to focus on the other 2 R’s much more than recycling. Maybe don’t buy the bottle of Powerade in the first place, or if you do, reuse it for awhile! The beer industry is a great example of this, in which glass beer bottles are taken back by liquor stores and given to the beer companies to clean and reuse. More products need to follow suit with this concept, to a point where, I hope, you can go to the grocery store with your own containers and just buy bulk amounts of every item – no packaging required.

This post is a response to a classmate’s post titled “How Green is Starbucks?”

Of course, this is not an easy question to answer, and much has been written by academics, the media, and other classmates, I don’t think it’s as simple as saying, “okay here’s a scale of 1-10 and Starbucks is at x.” We have to start out by clarifying what we even mean by green, because if there’s one thing we learn in Comm486F it’s that everyone has their own definition for sustainability. If we’re talking purely in terms of emissions, well, Starbucks has a long way to go. According to this source, Starbucks emitted about 300,000 tons of C02 in 2003 across all their cafes and coffee roasting facilities. While this number is a bit dated (I tried to look at Starbucks’ most recent sustainability report, but ironically the link didn’t work…), it just shows how massive the emissions of any large company are bound to be. Of course, since then, Starbucks has invested heavily in carbon offsetting projects, and granted, they have made some progress in reducing waste and energy use. As my unnamed classmate mentions in their post:

“Their stores are built with recyclable tiles, improve light efficiency and allow temperature in their stores to reach 75 degrees F instead of 72 degrees F. They also encourage consumers to bring their own tumblers to reduce the paper cups they use, and promote it by taking 10 cents off of their coffee!”

Well, that’s all fantastic, but is it going to save the planet? NO. Now call me cynical but I just don’t think these kinds of efforts are nearly enough; in fact, this whole idea of “CSR” may actually be dangerous, as consumers think their purchases are actually doing good, when in reality it’s just less bad. In a perfectly sustainable world, well for one thing we wouldn’t drink coffee in North America… the transport of coffee beans from Central American countries emits massive amounts of C02. But I think what really needs to change is CSR can’t be optional – it can’t just be something that companies tack on as a “third button”, because they’re only going to do things that result in higher profits. This, to me, is the tragedy of the corporation; the fact that corporations are mandated to pursue profit as their primary goal. Change this and I’d have no problem with Starbucks, or any other corporation for that matter. The Benefit Corporation designation is a start, but as I said, governments need to make CSR legally binding, forcing corporations to pursue benefits to people and the planet as well as profit.

While my previous posts have focused on larger, broader topics, this time I thought I’d get more specific with an example of sustainable innovation that I found pretty cool: rock paper.

Yes, you heard right, paper made out of rocks. Didn’t think it was possible? Neither did I, until I heard about TerraSkin, the company behind this seemingly crazy idea. Basically, they take stones and grind them into extremely fine powder, extract the calcium carbonate (CaC03) from them, and add high-density polyethylene (HDPE) to create a pulp-like substance which can then be made into paper. The company claims this paper is more tear- and water-resistant than regular paper, as well as being a more sustainable option. On this front, I’m a bit divided: true that rock paper saves trees, supposedly doesn’t require any water or chemicals to be processed, and is 100% recyclable, but there are some down sides too. HDPE is essentially plastic (so I don’t see how they can claim there’s no chemicals used in production…), and on their website they straight up tell you they use a high-temperature press to make the substance into paper – could this really use less energy than traditional paper? Well according to them, “TerraSkin’s energy consumption is only approximately 50% of pulp printing paper’s energy consumption,” but if there’s one thing we learned in Comm 486F, it’s that companies can pretty easily manipulate figures to make their products look sustainable (example: GE’s “sustainable” jet engine).

So well the jury’s still out on whether or not rock paper is a sustainable alternative to regular paper, there are some factors TerraSkin must take into account if they want their product to be successful; namely, the rate of adoption factors. They definitely have a relative advantage, as long as they can convince consumers that rock paper really is more durable and more sustainable than regular paper. Rock paper may have some compatibility issues, particularly if it is heavier or thicker than the traditional variety – people might be reluctant to fill their binders with it. Complexity is medium, as the process is probably a lot more complex as I have described, but the website lays things out pretty simply. Getting consumers to understand the value proposition of rock paper will certainly require some education about how the product is made, so this must be done carefully so as not to confuse people. Observability could be a big one for TerraSkin, as students in elementary, high school, and university can all see what their friends write on, and if they can make rock paper stand out in the class room, they’ll gain excellent product awareness. Finally, trialability will depend on price and availability. I haven’t seen this product in any stores yet, and the website didn’t have a price, so I am unsure how easy it will be to try. My recommendation would be to set up demo booths at popular back-to-school retailers like Walmart and Staples in September, as children and young adults will be excited at the opportunity to try out this new innovation.

In the three years I’ve been at Sauder, my opinions about sustainability have changed radically and multiple times. When I first got here, I thought sustainability was a joke – just something companies and institutions (including UBC) say they pursue to make themselves look better, while doing little to actually preserve or improve the environment.  Essentially, I thought all sustainability marketing was greenwashing. Then came my rebellious anti-Capitalism phase, which I went through after travelling to Guatemala and seeing the severe poverty many people face there. I developed a hatred of corporations, after hearing stories about certain mining companies taking aboriginal land away from locals without any consultation, and certain coffee companies paying farmers pennies to toil on coffee plantations day in and day out. Recently, however, my views have started to shift again, largely in part to this sustainability marketing course. I now believe Capitalism can benefit society and the planet, but it is certainly not doing so currently. Some major changes need to happen, and following are some new perspectives I believe could – to use John Restakis‘ term – “humanize” the economy.

Most importantly, businesses need to change the way they look at the marketing mix. Like we talked about in class, the traditional “4 P’s” model needs to be replaced with the “4 C’s” sustainability marketing mix. Instead of selling products that are designed to satisfy fleeting desires and only last a few months, companies should focus on providing customer solutions. An example of a company that does this is Patagonia, the outdoor sports equipment retailer that recently became one of the first companies to be designated a Benefit Corporation. At Patagonia, products are built to last, and customers are actually encouraged to bring in broken gear for repair rather than buying new gear. The next C is customer cost, meaning that prices should reflect the true costs associated with a product, including its impact on society and the environment. Is it fair that we can buy a coffee for $2, yet the farmer who harvested the beans for it will only see a few cents of that, and the C0₂ emissions from the transport of the coffee are enormous?  This brings me to customer convenience, an important facet of sustainable consumption. This is because, for consumers to make more sustainable choices, it needs to be as easy as 1-2-3 to do so. Reusable containers should be available at grocery stores, with all products coming in bulk, eliminating waste from packaging. Companies must clearly identify how to recycle/reuse their products, and create more recycling facilities. Finally, we have communication, a new way of looking at promotion. Instead of marketers bombarding consumers with images of unattainable beauty and luxury, a 2-way conversation needs to be facilitated. Using input from consumers (crowdsourcing, for example), products can be designed in a more sustainable way, and their benefits can be communicated via less traditional means, e.g. online instead of mass paper advertisements.

So, as we’ve seen, there’s a lot that needs to change. And let’s face it – businesses aren’t going to make these changes out of the goodness of their hearts. Consumers need to demand it, and in my opinion, governments have a role to play in forcing companies to comply with strict regulations. When being environmentally responsible becomes more profitable than pillaging the Earth, industry will follow suit, and we may have a shot at sustaining human life on this planet.

When researching sustainability marketing articles to get my brain going for this blog post, I was delighted to stumble upon this article about crowdsourcing and how it relates to sustainability. It confirmed something I have been thinking about a lot lately: that crowdsourcing is an important marketing tool, and harnessing its power could be instrumental in making business truly sustainable.

If you don’t know what crowdsourcing is, 1) get out from the rock you’ve been under! and 2) it is a method of idea generation using input from a large audience, made possible only in recent years thanks to the Internet and its elimination of distance barriers to communication. Crowdsourcing is already being used by forward-thinking companies like Unilever and GE, but it’s potential is huge – if its critics can be convinced of its merit. As the author of the article suggests, many business leaders are wary of crowdsourcing because they think of it as a passing fad, destined to go the same route as flashmobs and QR codes. But grey-haired CEOs often lack the ability to accept new and creative ideas, which poses a problem for any kind of innovation. The aforementioned companies have enjoyed great success, however, as evident from their Ecomagination and Sustainable Living Lab initiatives, respectively. The former draws suggestions from a long list of experts, with ideas as crazy as powering 50% of the world with wind power by 2050 and using household trash to fuel airplanes. The latter is focused on bringing groups of people together online for long periods of time to hash out more detailed and potentially more feasible solutions.

Alas, regardless of my pro-crowdsourcing views, it would be unfair to discuss only the positive side of this recent marketing development. It is true that some companies have had crowdsourcing turn around on them, most notably McDonald’s with their #McDstories failure. This campaign aimed to get people talking about pleasant experiences they had at the fast-food giant, using the hashtag #McDstories to post their stories on Twitter. Unfortunately, the vast majority of tweets were not what the company had expected, with tales of bones found in McNuggets and debilitating food poisoning quickly filling the Twitterverse. So my only caveat would be that companies have to be careful with what they ask for, and as the author of the article points out, sometimes it may be necessary to regulate crowdsourced content, and having a 3rd party facilitator always helps.

I found it interesting that COMM 486F started off with talking about the Industrial Revolution, and the history of sustainability since then. At first I was confused – this isn’t a history class, I thought, so why learn about something that happened over 200 years ago? But as I thought more about it, I realized how pivotal the Industrial Revolution truly was for humanity and the environment.

The Industrial Revolution began in the mid-1700s in Great Britain, when machinery began taking the place of manual labour in production. The adoption of steam power and inventions like the spinning mule (a mechanized device for spinning cotton) increased productivity exponentially, and resulted in a shift from the “cottage industries” of people working in their own homes sewing textiles or manufacturing simple goods, to the mass concentration of workers in factories. Most importantly, this era was a turning point for the environmental impact of humans on the planet, as fossil fuels – coal in particular – replaced wind, water, and wood as the primary source for generating power. This would prove to be the beginning of a rapid increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in the graph below:

Despite these horrifying figures, and the continual growth of fossil fuel-powered industry, I do believe there are some more positive changes happening as well. As discussed in class, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, people didn’t even consider the effects their actions had on the planet. The mindset of the time was that the Earth’s resources were practically infinite, and that the abundance and improved quality of products that industrialization provided would have no repercussions whatsoever. Nowadays, of course, we know that neither of these things are true. And the fact that most people now agree with the fact that the Earth (read: humanity) is in trouble, as alluded to multiple times in Ottman’s “The New Rules of Green Marketing,” is surely a sign that times have changed. People are, albeit slowly, coming to realize that we cannot keep on living the luxurious, excessive lifestyles we have enjoyed over the last century. Here is where marketing comes in.

Since its inception, marketing has aimed to increase consumption by “communicating value” (read: feeding lies) to consumers. But, as consumers begin to demand more sustainable products and practices, it is my hope that this trend will change. Perhaps the future will still involve consuming some goods beyond necessity, but if the human race is to exist much longer, we will need to make drastic changes. Marketing can aid in this transition by showing consumers how ‘green’ can be ‘cool’, and by using sustainable means for communication. Maybe we don’t need a “De-Industrial Revolution”, but we do need to rethink whether we really need the latest version of the iPhone.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there’s no such thing as a free app either.

In Wei-Ting Leong’s Blog, she talks about how wonderful these supposedly free apps are, providing endless hours of entertainment at no cost. While this sounds amazing, I think this is the fundamental trap we get into as business students, learning only to think in dollar terms. Wei-Ting is correct in saying the app costs $0, but she is neglecting to take into account non-monetary costs. Nevermind the time wasted on these apps – one could argue this time would be spent unproductively anyways – my main problem with free apps is their excessive use of advertisements. It’s not enough that we have to be bombarded with ads in subway stations, on TV, and on the internet; advertisers are now infiltrating our cellphones, tricking us into getting these “free” apps so they can force their messages upon us everywhere we go.

While this disgusts me, it is simply the way business works. The reason the makers of these apps are able to make such huge profits are because of advertising. That means employing people, and theoretically creating a value exchange between consumers and producers. My problem is that advertising can tempt people to buy things they otherwise wouldn’t. And moreoever, consumption in and of itself is unsustainable. We can’t consume resources forever… we live on a finite planet! Ethics and the environment aside, it’s still brilliant marketing. Consumers like things they think are free. Advertisers get to target unwilling consumers. Sounds like a win-win situation, doesn’t it?

If there’s one thing about our generation that sets us apart, its our need for customization. As the Viral Buzz Marketing blog says, Nissan has mastered this product. Everything from the wheels, to the paint job, to even the cup holders, is made custom to the buyer. This is a key point of difference for the Cube; few vehicles have as many customizable options. Furthermore, the design of the vehicle itself is intriguing and individualistic. Who says a vehicle has to have one back window, rectangular-shaped? Nissan follows no rules in its design, making the window stretch across the lefthand side of this boxlike vehicle. I know that I already want to buy this thing – there are even plans to come out with an electric model! It is sure to appeal to all Millennials, as we crave products that suit our lifestyles.