Sustainability in Marketing

When I think about sustainability, I instantly think of LUSH. LUSH sells bath and body products that are handmade with fresh ingredients. They source ethically and only from suppliers that do not test on animals. What I like about the organisation, and what I think makes them so successful, is that they are green at their core. When LUSH Director of Brand Communications Brandi Hall spoke at Chasing Sustainability in 2013, she mentioned that the company does not have a sustainability department because the whole organisation is sustainable. Their whole business model of fresh, handmade cosmetics automatically requires them to be green.

I feel like LUSH has taken the “good first, green second” concept to another level. I would argue that their products work so well because they are green, ie. made with fresh, natural ingredients. It’s refreshing to be able to pronounce everything on the ingredients label, especially for body and cosmetic products. In this way, LUSH is transparent about the ingredients they use. In fact, in some of their products, you can actually see slices of orange or kiwi seeds in their soaps. To me, this increases their credibility significantly. Consumers know exactly what is going into LUSH products. Apps like Good Guide and Think Dirty are helpful resources for determining which products are “clean”, but consumers are still relying on the apps to tell them which ingredients are safe and which ones are harmful.

I think this highlights LUSH’s success as an organisation. By being transparent and thus, credible, they can focus on promoting how well their products work rather than how green they are. This is a perfect example of “sustainability marketing” that is, simply, “marketing”.

The Sustainable Destinations Alliance for the Americas (SDAA) recently launched to support Caribbean and Latin America cities in their sustainability efforts. The SDAA is made up of the Organisation of American States Caribbean Tourism Organisation, NGO Sustainable Travel International, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and the US government. The SDAA is currently offering support to 7 cities in the region but hopes to expand to 30 destinations in the next few years. Working together with the alliance, these cities will hopefully be better equipped to evaluate, prioritise, and implement sustainability practices.

I think in general, alliances and partnerships are a great way for organisations with similar goals to collaborate and come up with solutions together. It makes sense that Royal Caribbean Cruises joined the SDAA because the health of the Caribbean and Latin America is directly related to its business model. Its profit structure cannot be sustainable unless the major tourism destinations in the region are sustainable as well. I think it’s great that private organisations are able to work with NGOs and governments to come up with solutions. Interestingly, some Caribbean countries are already embracing sustainability. Aruba, for example, is developing clean energy initiatives and aims to be energy-independent by 2020.

Perhaps the SDAA will be less useful for countries like Aruba who are already proactive about sustainability. However, many countries in the region may not place as much importance on sustainability or lack the infrastructure to do so. These countries will be the ones that benefit the most from the SDAA. It is too early to say how effective the SDAA will be but I think its formation is definitely a step in the right direction.

SEA-TAC Airport, managed by the Port of Seattle, has partnered with Alaska Airlines and Western Washington Clean Cities to convert all their vehicles from diesel to electric power. They are installing nearly 600 electric charging stations to facilitate this. This project is supposed to save the airport $2.8 million in fuel costs & reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10,000 tons.

As part of the partnership, Alaska Airlines has agreed to use 204 electric vehicles in its ground operations. As of now, it is the only airline in the program but more are scheduled to join later in the year.

I did not realize that the Port of Seattle seems to have many sustainability projects that have already been implemented or are still in development. For example, they have a fleet of compressed natural gas (CNG) buses to transport travelers between the airport terminal to the LEED-certified rental car facility. In addition, all taxis that serve the airport must be CNG taxis or have fuel-efficient engines. They have an outline of 25-year environmental goals related to pollutants, energy, wildlife, noise, and recycling.

I think this project is interesting because when people think of sustainability, we tend to think of the environmental cost of flying the planes, but we often forget about the airport operations themselves. It seems that the Port of Seattle is fairly committed to sustainability as not all of their green initiatives are economically driven. Converting vehicles to electric power will save fuel costs, but restoring wildlife habitat or requiring taxis to be fuel-efficient does not have any direct economic advantage. It will be interesting to see if other airports will follow SEA-TAC’s green example.

We all need to eat, but what factors do we consider when buying groceries?  One point of differentiation that produce growers have honed in on is sustainability.

Interestingly, the terms “organic” and “local” food have become synonymous with “sustainable” food for many people.

Buying local sounds great and is a feel-good purchase, however, it is not always a simple case of local = better.  According to the CFIA, food can be labeled “local” as long as it is produced within the same province, or within 50km of a neighbouring province. That means in BC, food labeled as “local” could have been grown anywhere from a rooftop garden in downtown Vancouver, to the Okanagan, to western Alberta, to, theoretically, southern Yukon. Food grown just over the US border, however, would not be considered “local”.

From a marketing perspective, the ambiguity of current labeling standards in Canada make green washing easy. Many consumers do not bother looking beyond the “local” label and take the claim at face value. Even if consumers were interested in the source of the produce, how would they trace its origins? These circumstances make it easy for organisation to make sustainability claims without following through on them. It also poses challenges for organisations that legitimately source locally. How do they establish credibility?

Food labeled as “local” only tells consumers where it was sourced, not whether it is grown organically or via fair labour practices. I wonder how much consumers care about whether food is local and sustainable vs. just looking for a feel-good purchase.

In Johannesburg, South Africa, Citiq has re-purposed empty grain silos and shipping containers into university dorms. The silos were scheduled to be demolished until Citiq purchased the property and added shipping containers to make the 14-story building. In South Africa, student housing is in short supply; only 5% of university students live in official university housing. This development fills the void and helps students attain convenient and affordable housing while they are in school.

The composition of the building itself is green in that it repurposes existing silos rather than using new materials. The accommodations also include various energy-efficient components, including heat pumps and low-flow showerheads. While these two elements make the dorms less environmentally impactful than the typical building, Citiq notes that the design was made from a cost perspective, not a green one.

I think this is a great example of how sustainable ventures can often come from a desire to save money, rather than wanting to save the planet. Citiq was able to cut costs by tweaking an existing structure and reusing empty shipping containers, rather than purchasing new materials. Features like low-flow showerheads and heat pumps use less energy and thus, save on energy costs. Even though the environmental benefits were more of an afterthought and almost an unintended by-product of the project, it still sounds like a win-win-win situation to me where the developer, South African students, and the environment all benefit.

A similar building model is being used in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta to house the influx of workers in the area. The company responsible for repurposing shipping containers into living space, 3twenty Modular, even built an apartment complex for a Canadian airforce base in Alberta and is looking into housing for remote First Nations reserves.

These two examples are innovative and sustainable solutions to housing shortage and affordability problems. It could be particularly useful in remote areas or regions with an influx of temporary workers. In the case of 3twenty Modular, I think it was the right decision to market their product as durable, portable, and functional, rather than sustainable. It goes to show that organisations can be sustainable without marketing themselves as such.

Source: Pure Magnolia

Weddings make up a whopping $300-billion worldwide industry. It is a notoriously extravagant industry driven by people’s desire to have the “perfect wedding”. The possibilities are endless if you can cover the costs. For many couples however, the “green wedding” trend may stem more from a cost-savings mentality, rather than an eco-friendly one.

Pure Magnolia is a North Vancouver company that provides eco-friendly wedding dresses. They do this by using vintage and new fabrics that have minimal impact on the environment. In addition, they accept donations of old dresses, adding them to their fabric collection and redesigning them into new dresses. The price range of their dresses is fairly standard. In this way, Pure Magnolia is targeting eco-conscious brides, including those who may not be willing to pay a premium for it.

For brides who are more price-sensitive, Pure Magnolia does offer dress rentals. While rentals are a more cost-effective option, selection is limited and the dresses cannot be altered. However, it does solve the problem of storing the dress once the wedding is over. It is an issue that is particularly prevalent in Asian countries, including Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea, where urban density is high and free space is scarce. In these countries, it is very common for brides to rent their wedding dresses. In North America, however, the wedding gown rental market is only beginning to catch on. As with Pure Magnolia’s customers, the rental market seems to be driven more by a desire to save money and to be environmentally friendly, rather than saving space.

It will be interesting to see how the wedding dress rental business in North America will change, and how businesses in the industry will respond to brides’ growing environmental concerns.

Last year, Tesco, the largest grocer in the UK and third largest retailer in the world, reported that its stores produced almost 30,000 tonnes of food waste in the first half of 2013. A breakdown of their most wasted food is summarized below:

Source: Tesco

According to Tesco, a whopping 68% of their bagged salads go to waste. Nearly half of their baked goods and apples are never consumed. That’s a lot of food (and money) being poured down the drain.

Tesco has taken steps to reduce their environmental footprint, citing reducing food waste as one of their “Three Big Ambitions”. Their other two goals are improving health and creating opportunities.

Tesco has identified that food waste occurs mainly in agriculture and their supply chain, and from customers. Their plans to reduce food waste target both of these streams. For instance, Tesco no longer offers multi-buy promotions on their salads and sells them in re-sealable bags.  The company is working with banana suppliers to make the fruit last longer during transportation and revamping their ordering process to avoid overstocking. Any food waste they do produce is converted into energy or donated to food distribution charities.

To compare, Sainsbury’s, the second largest grocer in the UK, achieved its goal of “zero waste to landfill” last year. The food waste they produced was processed for animal feed, converted into energy, or distributed to charities.

While reducing the amount of waste going into landfills is great, Sainsbury’s does not seem to have made an effort to reduce the amount of waste they are producing in the first place. It’s like recycling plastic water bottles vs. switching to reusable bottles. I feel like Sainsbury’s is only addressing one side of the food waste issue, diverting waste from the landfills, whereas Tesco has targeted both sides, reducing the amount of waste and diverting what’s left.

As the 3rd largest retailer in the world, I think Tesco has a responsibility to tackle problems like these. Hopefully, it will push other grocers to take notice as well. It seems grocers in the UK are already doing so. The four largest UK grocers, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, and Morrisons, plus Marks & Spencer, Waitrose, and the Co-op have agreed to release information on the amount of food waste they produce beginning in 2015.

It will be interesting to see what next steps these companies take, and if other grocers outside of the UK will follow suit, if they haven’t already.

It is common for people to make resolutions at the beginning of each new year. This year, Telus started 2014 a little differently, with its 31 Day Sustainability Challenge. The campaign invites individuals to “consciously participate in one sustainable action for 31 days and then share it with [Telus] via Twitter, Instagram or Facebook using #31DaysOfGreen.” Individuals and organisations alike have joined in the conversation:

  Meanwhile, Telus posts its own daily tips on how to be sustainable:

Telus’ 31 Day Sustainability Challenge may simply give people some ideas on how to be more sustainable. It is difficult to say whether people will actually implement these ideas and stick with them long-term. In my experience, it takes a conscious effort to make changes, even small ones, in our everyday lives. A few tweets from a telecommunications company likely won’t be changing any life habits. However, I think conversations about sustainability are always valuable. Even just getting one person to switch to buying groceries locally or not eating meat on Mondays is still a step in the right direction. As with all social media campaigns, the more people it reaches, the more valuable it is.

On its own, #31DaysOfGreen is simply a catchy marketing campaign. It’s an opportunity for people to share tips on living sustainably, with the possibility of winning some prizes. However, coupled with Telus’ other sustainability commitments, like its various LEED-certified buildings and Team TELUS Cares program, the organisation is certainly taking a leading role in sustainability. Not to mention, Telus was included in the 2013 Global 100 Index, a sustainability index that rates publicly traded companies based on twelve key performance indicators, from energy use to employee turnover rates. No other North American telecommunications company made the cut. I’d say Telus is definitely on the right track and has set the standard for other organisations in the industry.

To read more about Telus’ commitment to sustainability and triple-bottom-line approach, check out their Corporate Social Responsibility Report here.