It’s been said that there won’t be any sustainability in business until someone can make a case for them that makes financial sense. Of course, it also used to be the case that companies viewed their sustainability initiatives as side shows, and refused to invest the capital in them that they needed to really return actual results.

The same old adage applies in business as much as it does everywhere else, you get out what you put in. Ultimately, a business has to be willing to invest money into their sustainability programs, departments, or initiatives, or else the results will be minor or nonexistent.

Luckily, this outlook is starting to change. A recent article from The Guardian has discussed how money is no longer the “dirty word” it used to be in corporate sustainability. Companies like General Mills are spending upwards of $100 million on renewable energy and running an efficient company.

This seems like common sense. The more you invest in sustainability, in improving the lives of your workers, the more money you make, right? But it has taken a shockingly long time for business to come around to this, and many businesses still focus on minor CSR initiatives that are purely for image and not really about helping anyone.

The idea still exists that the way something has always been done is the best way, and that’s simply not the case anymore. The truth is business has an even more important role to play in shaping the future of the world, its peoples, and its environment. Millennials already expect the companies they work for to demonstrate care for the environment and social goals. Generation Z, the ones after us, expect companies to not only care about the environment, but to make decisions on profits factoring in environmental and social issues.

Once, a business could wait for government regulations or consumer pressure before making a decision. Today, the only way for a business to survive in a rapidly more competitive market is to outpace competitors and be able to provide more value to consumers, value that can often be added to by sustainable programs and demonstrating to consumers that all stakeholders are important and valued. Transparency, sustainability, and value are the keywords that will separate those that will survive and those that will not.

What is the duty of a corporation, and is CSR a necessary and effective part of it?

If you’re Milton Friedman, it’s to make as much money as possible for the shareholders within legal limits.

If you’re Kenneth Arrow, it’s to provide CSR to address externalities on 3rd parties, but still with a preponderant emphasis on profits for shareholders, with some concern for stakeholders.

There’s also the newer view that we’ve discussed in class, that CSR for many companies is largely ineffective, and even more problematically, mostly window dressing. It’s a tacked on program that has no real goals, no real results, and mostly exists because businesses feel that it HAS to exist. However, does this mean it can never be a positive force for good?

Not at all, argues Patrick Moorhead in his recent article on Cisco and their CSR program. In the article, he discusses how the CSR program has been a massive pillar in the tenure of their current CEO, Chuck Robbins. He points out their clear goals and progress, and talks about how it’s run like a real business with actual metrics and actual accountability. Their investments and partnerships with non-profits point towards an actual desire to provide genuine responsibility for all their stakeholders is a key argument he makes.

So, is it THAT perfect? Is Cisco’s model the exact type that companies should be working towards?

Well, not quite exactly. Cisco’s model is excellent, and it has some of the things that any sustainable model within a company needs. It has the clear leadership and support from someone at the top of the chain. It also possesses clear goals, target dates, and perhaps most importantly of all, it possesses transparency. Cisco releases reports on their CSR progress every year and is honest about the places they still need to go. Great, right?

But it’s still lacking the thing I feel separates CSR from what a company should strive to be, and that’s a company-wide sustainability drive that is present everywhere, in every department. The CSR initiative at Cisco is still one small area, one that’s hidden away on their website. While their progress is real, there’s no guarantees that it will stay when the CEO leaves. The philosophy and company-wide acknowledgement of the needs and importance of sustainability. While Cisco’s program may be what CSR needs to be, it’s not what business should strive to be. There’s always progress to be made, but making sure that the philosophy and push for the stakeholder is present through every member of the company, top to bottom, is a necessary but tough step.

Still, I can’t fault Cisco too much. Don’t get me wrong, their CSR program is extremely effective, FOR a CSR program. But CSR is no longer the optimal way forward, and business needs to look ahead to having corporations be just as much about sustainability as they are profits. There’s a ways to go, but Cisco is well on the way.

“But how much will it cost?”

It’s one of the first things that will be asked when someone is trying to start a sustainability initiative. One of my first questions for the Zero Waste Market was what kind of budget they were looking at. The sad truth is that for the most part, businesses and consumers ultimate decisions are based on cost.

This becomes especially apparent through recent articles examining the so-called “green gap”, or the gap between consumers who profess to purchase based on a products green attributes and the number who actually do. Somewhat unsurprisingly, people’s self-assessments rarely translate into actual sales. This leads to the question of what is the best way to improve actual sales while still prioritizing sustainability initiatives, whether social or environmental.

The article’s conclusion is that the best way to finally overcome this “green gap” is to drop the focus on sustainability for the most part and focus instead on a mixture of quality and/or price, factors that will make a much bigger impact on consumers.

This argument certainly has a point. If one thinks of certain brands like Patagonia, it is the quality of the goods that determines the sales just as much or even more than the sustainability drive behind it. However, I don’t think that one needs to focus on quality/price and ignore sustainability to close the green gap, but merely integrate the three closer together.

Simply look at the way Unilever has done it. While they are working towards becoming a registered B-Corp, one would never know their work on sustainability simply looking at the packaging. However, they haven’t abandoned any of their work on environmental sustainability and supply chain efficiency. As I’ve talked about earlier in a previous blog, if a company can reorient their design and product philosophy towards sustainable goals, efficiencies and creative thinking can even help erase certain costs, especially in areas of efficiency. Cost, quality, and sustainability marketing don’t have to be opposed, and the correct way to think of closing a “green gap” is ultimately making sure that all of those 3 match up.

According to a recent article by Skyword magazine, 2016 is “the year of the influencer.” In a world where people are bombarded by information, consumers still predominantly make decisions by using the advice of friends, family, and trusted online presences like blogs, Youtube channels, and sites. The article posits that marketing in this day and age has become about influencers and less about traditional channels, which people are more likely to shut out or ignore.

In a situation like this one, it’s possible to engage in short-term relationships with influencers, such as when Professor Milne would send Robeez to various family blogs in order to build buzz and get reviews from people that are trusted into the hands of consumers. However, these relationships exist in flux, and very often have little behind them but the product. For producing an unbiased review this is ideal, but in the age of influence, a company should think about investing in long-term relationships with influencers and working to turn them from basic influencers producing content about a subject to a advocate working to advance the goals and causes of a company.

In much the same way that companies build relationships with consumers, the same must be done with influencers. I personally connect much more with companies that I feel appreciate my feedback and input, and care what I have to say. There are companies as well like Bose that I have interacted with in the past in a negative way, and have completely turned me off mentioning them or recommending them to others. While I cannot say that I am an influencer in general, the truth is that the same methods apply to just about any person, young or old. There’s a desire to connect with products, especially in the tech and outdoor gear worlds, to not only have them deliver solutions to the customer but also to be a part of their life, and share in their experiences. In such a world, building advocacy relationships with a consumer is not only sustainable business-wise, but it’s the ideal move to make.

The future is this: A company can release a new product or sustainability initiative, and more and more of the marketing will be done for them by a network of “advocate influencers.” As public relations rise in importance and company needs the public to be aware and yet avoid the stigma of greenwashing or simply trying to build hype, turning influencers into full-on advocates will be even more important, and the best way to do that? Develop relationships with them, take what they say into account, and give them some trust. They’ll do the same for you.

I’ve written before on the importance of business being transparent and open with consumers, not only with any and all aspects of environmental sustainability, but also with labor relations and any social sustainability programs the the company is undertaking and not undergoing. The age where a company could close ranks around an issue and wait for it to go away has for the most part gone away. While it is true that the media cycle will rapidly move away from a story the more time passes, customers in the last 5-10 years are more and more willing to move away from or even boycott products or companies that aren’t honest or transparent with them.

Eventually, almost every corporation will get to the point where it is easier and better in the long run to take a more proactive and open approach with consumers, as well as trying to become a more sustainable company. This is even the case with giants, like Amazon. Amazon has historically been a quiet company, not only with it’s reports but also with it’s sustainability initiatives. The company has never released a sustainability report, and even heavily criticized giants like Walmart or Best Buy do more work with non profits and work more on trying to make their supply chain more efficient. In the past, this sort of behavior led to massive gains in business, but is starting to lose traction as a business practice.

In fact, Amazon has just hired Dara O’Rourke, a leading expert on supply chains and one of those who first created awareness of the rise of sweatshop labor. Ultimately it will remain to be seen exactly how Amazon will create a more open and transparent company more devoted to sustainability, but the need exists. As the 7th largest company by market capitalization, it could seem that Amazon is unassailable, but time has shown how unwilling people can be to support a company that is completely closed off to consumers. While drone programs to reduce fuel usage and further cut costs, as well as its pledge to make sure 40% of electricity is from sustainable sources by the end of 2016, there’s still a lot of work to be done. 

In fact, as discussed in the article, there’s a lot more Amazon could be doing to make customers more conscientious of the resources they are using. Psychologically, Amazon Prime giving customers free shipping gives people the ability to consider shipping as free, when it is demonstrably not so. In addition, for shipping Amazon only gives people the option of consolidating shipments into fewer boxes and deliveries, when this should be either required or heavily recommended.

Irregardless, Amazon still has a lot of work to do as they work towards being more sustainable and transparent throughout, and is yet another example of the importance of transparency in this day and age.

In 1973, the OPEC oil crisis started. It nearly brought America to its knees. Jimmy Carter started a large amount of reforms focused on clean energy and reducing America’s reliance on foreign oil. He installed solar panels on the White House and lead a push for wind and solar energy. However, as quick as it started, the crisis ended, and Reagan entered the White House. Once gas prices fell, pretty much everything Carter had set up was slowly dismantled, and 30 years of inefficient cars and reliance on oil began.

Over the last 10 years, the steep rise of gas prices has led to a resurgence of sustainability and hybrid cars, most prominently represented by the Toyota Prius. However, it’s important to note that many of those driving the Prius are not driven by it’s sustainability-minded marketing, but by the economy of having the electric option, especially when city driving. This exists in much the same way that Tesla sells more often to luxury and design-oriented markets despite how sustainable of a vehicle it is. What this has led to is a culture where people are only driving hybrids because of economy and convenience, and now that gas prices have dropped below $2 a gallon in much of the US, it’s as if everyone has forgot the lessons of the past.

The New Prius: Redesigned to target new markets

Toyota is learning this the hard way. Within the last 3 years, almost a quarter of US Prius purchasers no longer exist. Now they’re redesigning the car to focus on performance and style, and going all-in on an expensive Super Bowl ad to showcase the new vehicle. While some think that it will be hard for the Prius, long known as the representative of the hybrid and green driving category, to reposition to target those who are now focusing on brands like Nissan and Tesla, it remains to be seen. Toyota itself thinks that the Prius is so iconic that in essence it doesn’t need to mention being green in order to be seen that way. I think, that this is just another representation of how consumers are more focused on economy and convenience over sustainability and being green, and getting consumers to change their mindset with smarter marketing or focus on those two factors are really the only ways to create long term change and prevent people from switching back to Hummers and trucks as soon as gas price lowers or water becomes more plentiful or any other sort of social or environmental change.

How do you define success? How do you decide what it means to “succeed” in a place as varied and filled with choice as college? Not only that, but what does it mean to fail, and what is the stress placed on students who do so?

Every year, thousands of students enter universities and colleges across Canada. There, many struggle with stress, depression, and mental illness. According to a Globe and Mail article, 9.5 percent of the 30,000 university students surveyed endured suicidal ideation at one point. Mental health, not only in universities, but as a general health issue, currently is at the forefront of public consciousness.

This summer, UBC won first prize in the CAOBO productivity awards for their Thrive program, which has steadily grown from its introduction in 2009 to have over 10,000
participants across the campus. By all accounts, it’s a marvelous success, creating a greater awareness for mental health and a more welcoming community. But is it actually helping those most in need?

I would argue that it is not. In fact, I would say that Thrive is yet another method by the University of British Columbia to place style over substance. The truth is that most people are already aware of mental health, and in a place as liberal as UBC, the social support is either already there or is not being aided by the program. In 2010, Cheryl Washburn at UBC wrote a study titled “Campus Suicide Prevention and Intervention: Putting Best Practice Policy into Action.” In it, there are 9 methods advocated to helping prevent suicide and placing students into a better state of mind and more closely-knit community. While the Thrive program functions excellently as a piece of social marketing, it doesn’t affect what I would consider to be the most important part: Mental Health Service (MHS), or counseling and therapy.

While UBC spends 100 million dollars on a brand new student union building and places orange signs all over campus, the counseling department has been on the back burner. It’s very hard to get an appointment and takes time that students who are struggling might not have. UBC tries to shuttle students to off-campus, more costly therapy as soon as possible, and has ran out of room for counselors at Brock Hall, moving them all the way towards Marine Drive. In a sense, there’s a desire to focus on the glossy presentation of the school to attract new students instead of making sure that the services that students who are struggling with mental health issues need are well-supported. Thrive is essentially a nice marketing campaign, but doesn’t actually give much help and support to those who need it, and mainly gives a morale boost and allows people to practice further “slacktivism” when it comes to mental health and actually reaching out.

For a school of 60,000, being able to connect with students on a more meaningful level and show that there is a level of care beyond a student number or tuition check is extremely important. The Thrive campaign is a surface-level social marketing initiative that gives UBC an award while not permeating the organization as a whole. As Jacquie Ottman states, the whole philosophy of an organization must be devoted to something, bottom to top, for authenticity and meaningful progress to be made. Surface-level environmental or social initiatives might do a bit of good, might raise a bit of awareness, but won’t get to roots of problems, and more importantly, might not make a bit of difference for those who cannot see the light.

Do you know where your supply chain leads? According to a new Amnesty International report mentioned in Forbes, tech giants like Apple and Microsoft have been linked to child mining of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This isn’t new, though. Over the past five years, there have been building collapses and extensive use of child or sweatshop labor throughout industries from shrimp to clothing and now tech. A large part of this comes about through improper auditing and lax management of suppliers and overall supply chain.

Cobalt Mining by children in the DRC

For the most part, any large multinational corporation will hire auditors, essentially creating a burgeoning industry. However, for the most part these auditors will dig only as far as the company wants them to go. There’s a general belief that as long as the problem can be ignored, it might as well not exist. However, as consumers become not only more aware of the products that they are buying, but where they are starting to come from, this is becoming an untenable proposition.

Simply put, the age where a company could excuse itself from blame with a half-hearted apology and claiming that they had no knowledge of the sourcing of suppliers is over. Even today, many still equate Nike with sweatshop labor. While this sourcing of cobalt from child miners will probably not destroy or even make a large dent in the profits of Microsoft or Apple, it goes to show how prevalent it is for large companies to truly have little control over their suppliers.

Sooner or later, consumers will wonder what goes into it

So what can companies do? Well, instead of using private company-hired auditors, use one’s from neutral third-parties who will have incentive to dig deep and examine the entire supply chain, all the way back to ingredient sourcing. Then, actually use the data instead of sitting on it or making small claims. Consumers respond much better to company actions than words. Multinational corporations have the power to demand better labor treatment and environmental care from their suppliers, and they need to use it.