After our last class on labelling, our team decided to check out Energy Trumps Labelling Cards. It was an interesting idea to say the least, essentially these cards are a deck of 45 cards that visualize the environmental properties of select materials. The nice thing about this tactic, is the cards are visually appealing, and have a very clean, simple, and modern look to them. It is a good way of informing companies on the environmental impacts of certain materials and help guide them into choosing more green friendly products, or in turn create their products with more sustainable materials.

Despite the novelty idea of these “cool cards,” I do see several inconsistencies with their message, as they are delivering the cards used to inform in a very inefficient and environmentally UNFRIENDLY way, compared to alternative ways of delivering that message.

They additionally have a web-app that works with the cards, to bring those materials to a 3D form on consumers screen and shows the different amounts of material you can get for 1 megajoule of energy.

The only thing that does not make any sense in my mind– is how these cards cost 12.50 UK euros, not including shipping– and they are a physical material which will probably end up in the trash after the card knowledge is absorbed by the consumer. For trying to encourage consumers to make “sustainable” choices in regards to materials or inputs for their products, they are doing a terrible job of being consistent with this message as they have a very wasteful product themselves.

I do understand that Energy Trumps is a business, thus the physical cards lead as a source of revenue for the consumer. But there could be alternate ways to inform and educate consumers whilst saving waste from the physical cards, or shipping.

 

A better way to do a business model out of informing and educating your audience whilst ensuring the cards use is still relevant? Make the cards have a DUAL purpose. So have the deck of cards that inform AND entertain (while being an actual deck of cards or sustainability game!) So consumers can continually use them after they achieve the intended purpose of acquiring the knowledge from the cards.

I understand their company mission is in the right place, but how they deliver that message to consumers through an unsustainable way is what stumps me. What are you  guys’ thoughts on this subject?

Source:

http://www.agencyofdesign.co.uk/energytrumps/

 

 

 

 

As most of you guys have probably seen the trend these days blowing up all over our facebook walls reading something about “Neknomination.”

Neknominations are short videos where essentially university kids drinking copious amounts of alcohol in ridiculous ways and then publicly nominating 3 others to join along in the drinking game. I have seen people beer bonging vodka– to drinking out of a shoe, to even shot gunning several beer upside down.

I have even been nominated 3 times myself publicly over facebook, but have turned the requests down. In my opinion, this is such a RIDICULOUSLY stupid competition and is just fostering terrible behaviour amongst our youth. However, I am intrigued at how this trend has spread like wild-fire from it’s origin in Australia.

The public video nominations continued to change and be altered, with the first version of this being a New Zealand “neknomination.”  In the video first Kiwi nomination that went viral, the gentleman gave away food supplies to a homeless man, and publicly nominated 3 others to do the same. This was a brilliant use of taking advantage of the social media trend for a great cause! Thousands of videos followed, copying the trend of doing something good for the less fortunate.

 

Another public nomination I’ve been witnessing lately, has been amongst girls raising awareness for breast cancer. Girl’s have been taking “Selfie’s” for cancer awareness, but with a twist– they aren’t WEARING MAKEUP! Lots of celebrities have joined in on this, and joined along supporting the trend. The nice thing about this photo sharing is there is a distinct call for action as participants are supposed to hashtag #nomakeupselfie and are prompted to text 70099 BEAT to donate approx 3 euros to the Cancer Research Society.

This was an amazing shift in what used social media to spread something harmful and disgraceful to society, to actually prompting people to share photos/videos for the greater cause. And unlike slacktivism actually issuing a DIRECT CALL FOR ACTION, if it be donating a meal to the homeless, or donating directly to the cancer research society through a quick text message, it makes a huge difference.

I love this change in using the power of social media and virility to do something good. What are your guys’ thoughts on the viral spread of nominating people publicly to do something good over the internet?

 

Souces:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588831/Women-taking-no-make-selfies-breast-cancer-accidentally-adopt-Polar-Bears.html

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/how-no-makeup-selfie-trend-suddenly-became-cancer-awareness-effort-156480

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/online-drinking-game-neknomination-raises-concerns/article16761879/

 

 

Does anyone remember the good old KONY 2012 social movement— or is it a long and distant memory that i’m sure a lot of us have forgotten by now.

Let me refresh your memory, Kony is an african warlord who was responsible for massacres, mass rapes, and creating a legion of child soldiers. He has evaded capture for nearly three decades.

There was a 30 minute film released on Kony, urging to make him famous and fight to find Kony and bring awareness. The video went viral and had over 100 million views.

As I got curious as to what impact the campaign made, I did more research and found out that there is a LOT of controversy towards Invisible Children organization, as out of almost all of the revenue they raised– SO LITTLE ACTUALLY WENT TO THE CAUSE. In 2013,  the organization made approx 32 million in received revenue , and you know what?… a whopping 82% of that went into “media, mobilisation, protection and recovery”, according to the report.

The biggest increase in expenses was for mobilisation, which includes film tours and music tours, international events and advocacy.

Kony 2012 brings up two strong problems I have with social causes:

1. How non-transparent these organizations tend to be, not being completely clear to consumers on how their donations will actually impact or reach the cause they are fighting for. Did consumers donate to the cause knowing the money is going back into advertising — or think it was going to the invisible children like Kony promotes?

2. These social movement crazes inherently create a lot of  Slacktivism in the system, where consumers all think that by “liking, or sharing,” the post is enough to change and actually feel less obliged to donate to the cause as they already feel as though they’ve played their part.

In fact, research shows that a large majority of an online community contributes nothing, fewer then 0.24 percent of consumers who show support to a cause online actually contributed in form of donations. Compared to traditional forms of mobilizing this is a very poor conversion rate!!

This resonates well with me, I mean I liked and shared the Kony Video and was an activist in the movement and in my head that was me doing enough (which turns out I’m happy I did as the organization did not seem to be so transparent or truthful then we all had hoped.)

That is my opinion on the whole Kony movement, would love to hear your guys’ thoughts on the subject!

 

Comment below!

 

sources:

http://www.news.com.au/world/remember-kony-2012-well-its-2013-what-happened/story-fndir2ev-1226550575923

http://governancexborders.com/2014/03/04/online-slacktivism-is-there-a-trade-off-between-virality-and-sustainability/

http://invisiblechildren.com/kony/

For those of you who don’t know what cause-related marketing is, it’s where an organization donates a portion of their product/service revenue to a charitable cause or nonprofit organization. This is often seen as an attractive option for larger organizations as they can improve their brand perception, boost sales and lastly receive a tax credit receipt from doing so.

Many articles say that cause-related marketing is a great thing, because essentially “everybody wins”-– the company, consumer and the nonprofit organization! The company receives the benefits mentioned above, the consumer receives intrinsic gratification and emotion benefits as they can now feel as though they’ve contributed to a greater cause, and the charity organization receives a ton of awareness and also receives some of the donations from the product/service.

“A Crucial Catch,” is a month-long breast cancer awareness campaign support by the NFL. Despite how great this cause may seem, there has been a lot of critics– questioning how much good the NFL is actually doing… or are they just “pinkwashing,” for their own personal gain and to just increase their own bottom line?

There has been a lot of criticism on how only 8 percent of all pink products is actually donated to the cause. Since 2009 when launching this campaign, the NFL have donated over 4. 5 million while the league has made over 9 BILLION in revenue just last year alone. If the point of the entire campaign was to ACTUALLY fight cancer, fans would have a much bigger impact just skipping the NFL gear and donating the $100 directly to the organization working to fight cancer.

One of the largest benefits for nonprofit organizations in cause-related marketing is the exposure they get from working with these large organizations. But one issue I want to bring to the table is— HOW MUCH IS AWARENESS WORTH? I mean we all know that Breast Cancer is a huge problem and affects thousands of women every year, we are not blind — we see the yearly campaigns and I think almost all of us can associate Breast Cancer with the colour PINK. But is awareness really worth that much if majority of people already know about the issue and if no/little money  is ACTUALLY going to the cause? 

Lastly, typically consumers who buy into the cause helps them feel good about “supporting” the quest against breast cancer with minimal time and effort. This could actually have a reverse effect, as they will feel less obliged to donate otherwise as they feel as though they’ve already “contributed.”

In my opinion,  I think cause-related marketing is somewhat beneficial for nonprofit organizations ONLY if the cause they are supporting is uncommon. As common causes such as Breast Cancer, already has HIGH awareness, and in turn they just receive less donations as consumers already feel like buying a product is contributing enough (when the cause receives very little from each product.)

What do you guys think? Would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Is the NFL using this strictly for their gain? or do you think they are trying to make a difference to the cause?

Sources:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2013/10/27/is-the-nfls-pink-breast-cancer-campaign-doing-more-harm-than-good

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/17/nfl-breast-cancer-pink-merchandise-profits

 

 

This title fits perfectly with my blog post, because when it comes down to it, being “Green,” has no universal meaning, and the definition depends and varies from person to person. To some, being green means that the product/service is healthy for them, it might mean to others that it’s recyclable and to some it may mean that it was ethically produced— green has many definitions, in which I hope one day a standardized definition can be created and universally understood.

It can even be argued that there is no such thing as a truly “green” product at all, as several green products on the market, actually take a lot more resources and energy to create them and in turn creates a lot of waste. Or often they may be green in one circumstances and not in another, like with Hybrid cars whom have batteries that are hazardous to expose of and bad for the environment. Additionally, often creating greener packages even requires more materials–so again cancelling out the cost and environmental savings.

In the industry there is a tool that combats this problem called the life-cycle assessment (LCA.) This tool essentially does a cradle to grave analysis on different products that companies have. This is very helpful as companies can use it to identify opportunities or areas where they can improve within their product’s product life cycle– from the manufacturing stage, raw materials or even to waste. It’s very valuable in particular for addressing energy usage and assessing where it can be improved.

The government is also trying to legitimize LCA and create a standardized system of analysis.  Then it could be used as a marketing tool for the industry, which in my opinion would be VERY useful for consumers like myself who would want FULL transparency.

What would you guys think  a LCA rating or badge that can be branded into product packages as an indicator of TRUE GREEN RATING? Do you think this would be a good idea?

Comment below your thoughts!

 

 

 

 

As most of you probably remember from our last Sustainability class on Innovation, we each had to split up with different teams and present an innovative yet sustainable business model for several different industries.

Our team thought it would be awesome to have the restaurant partly powered by bikes who could be rode by the guests who arrived. These guests could essentially “Peddle down their food bill,” while their food was being prepared in hopes of savings costs at the end of their meal. Not only would it be a super interactive activity and probably attractive to a group of people wanting an “interesting,” night out, but it would also be a good business model for the restaurant, attracting a lot of business, and saving money on power.

On that note, as the presenter talked about the Prisons in Brazil doing a similar thing, where the inmates had to essentially “Peddle their way to a shorter sentence,” I thought that was brilliant. The inmates were riding their bike seriously long hours from 9-5 and with breaks for lunch and the bathroom. One inmate lost 20 days from his sentence, and lost 4 kilos in the process. I think other prisons should adopt this, as they are being productive with inmates and using them for the greater good of society rather then just letting them sit and rot away behind bars.

Doing more research on businesses who award guests for helping generate energy, I came across Copenhagen Hotel. This hotel paid their guests to embrace green energy, and essentially bike to help power their generators that powers the hotel. The guests link up their iphones and if they generate 10-watt hours of electricity then they are awarded a 36 dollar restaurant coupon to the hotel, and this usually only takes approximately 15 minutes. I think this is such a great idea, and really cool to see if actually implemented, perhaps my business idea IS VIABLE one day. 🙂

Do you think that our group’s idea is viable or do you see anything wrong with implementing it? Let me know!

Sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brazilian-inmates-shorten-sentences-by-generating-power-1.1177631

http://inhabitat.com/copenhagen-hotel-pays-guests-to-generate-electricity-by-biking/

 

 

So after seeing several different instagram posts from Jessica Alba (Yes I follow her on IG, after all she’s only one my favourite actresses, and my number one style Icon– geeze), I finally decided to checkout what “The Honest Company,” was. After looking at their website and seeing their product offerings I was amazed that it was JESSICA who founded this company and social movement. The Honest Company is a sustainable lifestyle baby brand that offers moms baby and house cleaning products that are safe, non-toxic, plant-based and biodegradable available to purchase or through a monthly service.

They carry several different products for babies such as diapers, wipes, cleaning products, shower and bath products, toys, cradles— literally anything you can imagine your baby needing in that stage of life. The Honest Company lives, breathes and preaches their mantra of reducing our carbon footprint in the environment. The way their business operates is in a sustainable manner (with 100% renewable solar energy for example), only supplying products that are sustainable, natural and chemical-free from suppliers who abide by their code of conduct that addresses human rights, environment and documentation. To top it all off, they have created a social movement towards providing a safer and healthier environment for our babies to grow up to.

In several different press interviews, Jessica highlights that sustainability and eco-friendliness is just a side benefit to her product line, after all “Great first, Green Second.” In the interviews jessica makes CLEAR that her products work, they actually keep in the poop for your babies, or the dish soap actually cleans your dishes really well. The secondary attribute that they focus on is style and product design, they make sure they are fun, cute and parents are proud to show them off, and lastly affordable. This is exactly what we learned in class last week, that in order for consumers to purchase green products, they focus on performance first, when deciding on what products to use, and perhaps environmentally friendly after.

I know a common theme in our classes is, “yes this sounds great, but is not condemning MORE consumerism in society?” I would like to protest this argument, because when it comes down to baby’s this is a different story. The needs of baby’s are immediate, it doesn’t matter how much you want to avoid it but you MUST purchase diapers, and wipes, and toys and a crib. If you are going to do so, why not do it in the most sustainable way possible? It’s evident that babies cause a LOT of pollution (how many bajillion diapers are in the trash), and parents are going to be buying them either or– MIGHT has well support a sustainable company that offers bio-degradable diapers that are cute designs and work– rather then your average disposable diapers most buy. So essentially The Honest Company is offering an ALTERNATIVE solution to what already needs to be bought, in the best, most sustainable way possible.

I am all in for this company, and I really admire that such a famous figure such as Jessica Alba, is really trying to make a change, and use her power and influence to implicate positive change. I think that this company alone could be successful for it having trendy products, having a famous star endorses it, and having the products actually work, but having it be all for sustainable and all natural and save the environment– WHAT A PLUS!

What’s your thoughts on the company? I would love to hear what you guys think!

GREEN MONKEY OUT

x

Sources:

https://www.honest.com/about-us/press

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/7154/20140211/jessica-alba-a-green-latina-mom-on-a-mission-with-the-honest-company.htm

If you haven’t heard the new hype it town, it’s Sweetgreen salad-bar and fro-yo restaurant! This place is not only healthy, but extremely sustainable as they offer local organic home grown food to it’s consumers in 100% recyclable packages, and the entire store is designed with sustainable furniture and energy efficient LED lighting.

The founders Jonathan Neman, Nicolas Jammet and Nathaniel Ru  are on board to be opening their 11th restaurant soon. These young entrepreneurs graduated from Georgetown University and saw a clear void in the market for healthy fast food options. Not only did they fill this void, but did so and made it feel even more AWESOME to eat healthy and local again.

The boys do a good job, living, breathing and preaching their mantra of living green and also giving back to their community. In fact, one part of their business model is to be an active citizen in their communities, so there are several live bands who play in their restaurants, local cool merchandise to purchase, or other events that Sweetgreen partners with in the communities in which they reside. The live music in their business model, as now become an annual music festival called Sweetlife Festival featuring very popular DJ artists who come out to play.

What I really like about this story and brand, is how much they levered social media marketing and branched from not only being a restaurant food chain but into becoming a lifestyle brand with a zest for life. The more I read on the company, the more I come to notice that their business model is not just a restaurant to eat, but a place to connect with people through good food, music and other good causes.

In fact, the boys do such a good job of building their brand over social media that they have approx 12,000 twitter followers, 11,000 instagram followers, and 20,000 like on facebook. They have recently even tapped into a trend via it’s consumers who take pictures of their dinner plates and hashtag #foodporn. Rather than hashtagging foodporn, Sweetgreen has started #saladporn as a way to make consumers crave salad.

As you can expect, these gems are not only now loaded (they recently had $22 million invested into their company in Dec for further expansion) but they also were on Forbes 30 under 30 list, for being top new-coming entrepreneurs, having over $25 million in revenue annually, and with that expecting to increase by 50%.

Moral of the story, and what ties back to the video we watched in class, it is possible to do good for the environment and community, and personally benefit as well. Best touch of it all is their zesty touch of social media marketing, and really leveraging consumer trends to keep them differentiated.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/from-salad-shop-to-music-festival-sweetgreen-branches-out/2013/06/14/234aaeb4-cd2d-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html

http://sweetgreen.com/our-story/

http://mashable.com/2013/11/14/sweetgreen/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kat-haselkorn/5-local-startups-position_b_4541463.html

http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/03/salad-days/

As most of you have probably heard, there is a some what healthy and sustainable fast-food chain in town called…. CHIPOTLE!  They market themselves as an organic fast food chain that purchases grass and free run beef, and only use fresh local produce when they can. They are a healthy alternative to other fast food industry giants, and they place a large emphasize on choosing wholesome ingredients and encouraging consumers to make informed choices on what they are eating and how it affects the food system.

Let’s talk about what they are doing right:

1. Awareness is a huge issue, and Chipotle is tackling this issue head on by it’s video campaigns showing the impacts we are making on our environment by choosing the foods we are eating.

Here is a video of one of their marketing campaigns, they received a lot of positive press  and had over 1.9 million views!

Chipotle’s Scarecrow Commercial

2. They are making a positive influence on the industry. With being #18th largest fast food player in the US market, they probably have a large impact on its suppliers. So by supporting local farmers, and responsibly raised beef, chicken and pork they perhaps are encouraging more suppliers to change their ways of operating and farming.

3. They keep driving home the message through lots of campaigning, through some very popular youtube commercials which have gone viral and they have even released a video campaign called “Farmed and Dangerous,” a comic series that satirically explores the world of industrial agriculture in America. This is something that Chipotle does extremely well in– informing while entertaining if you can call it that.

However, despite Chipotle’s best efforts in making a change, there has been a lot of critics depicting their marketing tactics. Is it really to change the agriculture industry? Is it to hop on the sustainability trend , or encourage consumers to (again the main topic we talk about in all our classes)– TO CONSUME more. Are they really casually suggesting their product as a substitute, or rather wanting consumers to start consuming their product, who would have not thought to before.

There was also a time when the responsible beef supply was low, and in order to keep up to demand , 20% of the company’s beef came from producers that typically use GMO-based feed, antibiotics, growth hormones, feedlots, and all the other unsavoury aspects of industrial animal agriculture— ALL ASPECTS that Chipotle claims to rise above and condemns as loudly as anyone else on others who participate in it.

Chipotle is another industry giant- who’s main concern is PROFITS. And since they are such a big company with over 1.85 billion in sales  in North America, you need to remember that their main goal is to increase profit, whether it be to decrease costs or cut another area of their company.

Their spokesperson Danielle Winslow claims that ” [Chipotle’s]  first priority is to accommodate our customers”—AKA do whatever it takes to supply all ingredients at full capacity all the time, so essentially they will use organic produce when it best suits them and their business needs.

Sure they are spreading awareness about the problems in the food system, but doing so with a smile on their face, and with pockets nice and full. I doubt they would continue their activities if it detracted away from sales.

To conclude, Chipotle Food Chains make somewhat of an effort to increase awareness about this issue, make a change in the products they offer to consumers more sustainable and environmentally better options than competitors, but as long as it profits them in the long term.

A for effort chipotle, A for effort. And A for seeming like you care, A for bringing up the issue. B for sacrificing your integrity to keep up sales, B for encouraging people to consumer your product when it is not needed.

Pros cons to everything, What do you guys think??

Sources:

http://www.psmag.com/environment/chipotle-mexican-grill-fast-food-beef-sustainable-agriculture-67867/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2014/01/28/chipotle-satirizes-industrial-agriculture-in-farmed-and-dangerous/

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/top-50-sorted-average-sales-unit

 

Over 20 U.S leading companies from the fortune 500 list, have removed their “Anti-Paper,” go green campaigns from asking consumers to switch to paperless options for billing. This issue exactly fits in with the recent unethical trend of using “Greenwashing,” in achieving company objectives. This case is not any different, as environmental impacts from consuming paper vs, pixels is actually IN FAVOR and more sustainable in consuming paper products.

Company’s give the impression that by using paper for billing that we are “destroying the trees,” when really trees are a renewable source, that for example, in the U.S more trees are being grown per year- than what is being consumed (I bet consumers didn’t know that.)

Of course consumers know that if they choose to go paperless, it will evidently save the company some money from paper, printing and mailing costs. But does the consumer really know the bigger picture… that using paper is not “Saving the trees,” (a common phrase used to encourage consumers to switch) but rather only “Saving Costs,” for the giant corporations?

From a few different articles I have read, they bring up some interesting points that in fact, as a consumer I did not know.

Here’s a few points to consider:

1. Paper is made from a renewable energy source, where computers and the data infrastructure centres that supports them comes from finite resources and rare earth materials.

2. Consumer’s also don’t know that there is HUGE environmental impacts from switching from paper to e-media. Disposing of computer e-waste is  a lot more detrimental and adds a lot more to the global waste stream than does paper. In fact, nearly 61.5% of paper products can be recovered and recycled, compared to only 31% of computer products.

3. The claims are in fact working AGAINST the U.S Economy and threatening many U.S Jobs, as a total of 8.4 million jobs depend on the U.S mailing industry (paper production, printing, graphic design, mail distribution.) Again, working against the environment and it’s people.

4. Let’s be frank, although we all think we are making a difference with the environment and get the e-version, most of us need the actual documents for record-keeping purposes. So the bills are being printed out anyways.

I would love to see some company’s be thoroughly transparant with us, and instead of say “Go Green– Go Paperless,” say “Go Paperless– Help Cut Costs.” I would respect a company a hell of a lot more, and probably for the harsh honesty, decide to go paperless.

Would any of those aspects change your mind to receiving an actual bill or e-bill? What are your thoughts?

Personally, I still would receive an E-bill rather than a paper options only due to storage space, and getting a huge influx and accumulation of paper, where I will end up throwing them out anyways. Would love to hear your opinion on the subject. Comment Below!

Sources:

http://eeiplatform.com/13502/20-leading-u-s-companies-remove-go-green-go-paperless-claims/

http://www.twosides.us/US/Go-paperless-Go-Green-Most-consumers-dont-believe-it-Its-time-for-companies-to-quit-saying-it

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp