#Giving Tuesday - From Good to Great!

#GivingTuesday is the ‘antidote’ to overspending, but shouldn't we be diluting the poison?

'Lovely Bird!'

Last Thursday was my first Thanksgiving in the States. I followed advice from US friends and colleagues and spent the day eating, drinking and watching football – it’s a holiday I will be happy to adopt long term!

However, considering it’s a time of year for reflection and gratitude, it’s ironic that this is totally overshadowed by the retail advertising onslaught surrounding Black Friday and Cyber Monday. The message to consumers is not 'be thankful for what you've got,' but 'go on a spending frenzy and fill your lives with a whole lot more stuff.'

I’m not the first person to notice this. In 2012, New York’s 92nd Street YMHA, a non-profit cultural and community center, launched #GivingTuesday, a campaign to create a day of giving at the beginning of the holiday season. #GivingTuesday is a platform and a moment in time for community organizations and non-profits to raise awareness and funds for their programs and projects.

One of thousands of emails that
overtook my inbox yesterday

"The 2012 debut of #GivingTuesday saw 2,500 partners signed on and a 53% hike in charitable donations over the same day the year prior." It’s not just individuals involved; companies are also making and matching donations, and facilitating and incentivizing employee volunteering.

On the one hand, I really like the concept of #GivingTuesday; it helps non-profits maximize revenue generation in the build-up to Christmas and, as Aaron Sherinian, Vice President for Communications and Public Relations at the United Nations Foundation puts it, break through the retail noise and "offer an opening day for people to talk more loudly about what they're doing." Philanthropy is such an important part of US culture that it seems right for it to be celebrated during the holiday period. As Co-founder Henry Timms, Deputy Executive Director of New York’s 92nd Street YMHA, explains "We have two days that are good for the economy. Here's a new day good for the soul."

However, there’s a part of me that can’t help but feel like the concept of #GivingTuesday simply perpetuates the 'offset mentality' – in other words, spend now and atone for it (in a slightly removed way) later. It’s even marketed as "the antidote to overspending this holiday season".

I would also question whether #GivingTuesday really engages existing donors or reaches anyone who does not already make donations. Going to the Facebook page, you are confronted with endless petitions for support from a multitude of non-profit partners. Just like the Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals, it’s hard to work out what is worthy of your money and what isn't, so if you don’t already have an organization or cause in mind then where do you start? Is #GivingTuesday missing the opportunity to engage existing donors in a meaningful way to build long-term, sustainable relationships, as well as reaching out to those who wouldn't normally think to support a non-profit?

To take it a step further - what if #GivingTuesday was not something separate? What if, retailers donated a small percentage of every purchase made on Black Friday or Cyber Monday to support a strategic non-profit partner and make a big impact on a challenging social issue, or better yet but even more wishful, pledged to invest in making their businesses better for consumers, employees, suppliers, and the wider world. That would be something worth celebrating!

It's Complicated But It Doesn't Have to Be

Consumers need clarity to help them make the right choices and live more sustainable lifestyles

Bike schemes are now a common feature of most major cities. The front runner was Paris with its Velib; London has its Boris Bikes; Boston has its Hubway; and now New York City has Citi Bikes. The Citi Bikes first appeared in May and since then ‘NYC bikers have collectively pedaled 9.4M miles and taken over 4.7M trips’ – the scheme has been a great success. What I was interested to read is that the launch of the bike scheme coincides with a ‘12-point increase’ in the number of consumers who believe that Citi Bank is a ‘socially responsible company’. This is a huge jump considering the high level of consumer mistrust in the banking sector - poor Barclays must be kicking themselves for letting Boris Johnson get all the credit for the London scheme!

The extent to which positive perceptions of Citi Bank as a responsible citizen can be attributed to the company’s support for the bike scheme is unclear; however, it does raise questions about how consumers judge companies and brands.

Almost every week there are new survey results claiming that consumers increasingly believe that it’s important to factor social and environmental factors into their purchase decisions. Last month, BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility released the 2013 Aspirational Consumer Index. According to the results, 92% of ‘aspirational’ consumers (36.4% of consumers globally) ‘desire for responsible consumption’ and 58% ‘trust in brands to act in the best interest of society’. What’s more, a staggering 90% ‘of them are even willing to pay more for products produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way’. Bear in mind that it is very easy to make these claims in a survey without actually doing the action in real life. This aside, the question for me is how consumers feel able to make these decisions when they are surrounded by so many conflicting messages.

A recent interview with Mark Crumpacker, Chief Marketing Officer at Chipotle, highlights the predicament of the consumer trying to make informed decisions. He cites the example of a competitor restaurant that lists grilled chicken that is ‘cage-free, skinless with no hormones added’ on its menu. Sold? The reality is that boiler chickens are never raised in cages and there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved hormones for use in chickens. The important consideration when it comes to chicken is whether or not antibiotics are used but this gets no mention. The restaurant in question seems to be intentionally misleading its customers.

It is not always so intentional. Just the other week Good Morning America featured a story about a woman in the UK who claimed that drinking 6 bottles of water a day had made her look 10 years younger. I’m not going to go into the validity of the claim – let’s just say that the light was significantly more flattering in the after image! What worried me was that the presenters were telling viewers how important it was to drink plenty of water, while sipping from plastic bottles. Not once did anyone think to refer to drinking from re-usable water bottles or glasses. Why should they? The story was not about recycling or sustainability right?

My instinct is to call on companies and brands to make it easy for consumers; reward consumer trust in brands to act in the best interests of society by actually acting in the best interests of society. After all, the task of educating consumers to make the right decisions feels like a daunting prospect.

However, as Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, writes in his book Change by Design, in reality it has to be a ‘two-way process’. ‘If people do not wish companies to treat them like passive consumers, they must step up to the controls and assume their fair share of responsibility. This means that we cannot sit back and wait for new choices to emerge from the inner sanctum of corporate marketing departments, R&D labs, and design studios.’

In order to help consumers live up to their side of the contract, at the very least, there needs to be transparency so that consumers who want it, have the necessary information to make informed decisions. This is vital to help us all, as a global society, move further along the path to more sustainable consumption.

The Way We Think About Charities and Companies is Dead Wrong

How out-of-date perceptions and expectations of NGOs and Companies are preventing progress

The title for this blog comes courtesy of Dan Pallotta and his thought-provoking Ted talk The way we think about charity is dead wrong from earlier this year. I finally got round to watching it the other week and it didn’t disappoint. Dan presents a very compelling argument, highlighting the fundamental contradiction between what we expect NGOs to achieve and what we allow them to achieve.  

In the same sitting, I watched Michael Porter’s recent Ted talk Why business can be good at solving social problems. This is a great introduction to the key principles and arguments of ‘Shared Valued’ and, again, it is a very compelling argument for changing our preconceptions of what companies are here to do.

The word that comes up again and again in these talks is scale, both in terms of the enormity of the social and environmental challenges we face, and the resources and capabilities required to solve them.

The problems we face in the world today, such as climate change, poverty, disease, are huge. Some of these challenges have been around for a number of years – in fact, as Michael Porter points out in his talk, it’s a bit embarrassing how little progress has been made considering how long we have been ‘tackling’ the problems.

And this is not going to change unless we rethink our approach.

Now you’ll have to forgive me, but to make my point, I’m going to turn to the wonders of PowerPoint shapes. In its simplest form (disclaimer), this is what is needed to get to transformative change:

When we think about solving social challenges, we commonly turn to NGOs but, in the way that they are set up today, they will struggle to move beyond incremental change:

As Dan Pallotta points out, whilst NGOs have specialist knowledge, expertise and a huge amount of passion, they lack resources – charitable giving has remained stuck at 2% of the GDP since the U.S. started measuring it in the 1970s (and, remember, this is the U.S. where philanthropy is big!). They also struggle to attract the best talent because they can’t compete with the remuneration packages offered by the corporate world, and the result is that they are unable to achieve the scale or reach that they really need to successfully tackle the social problems.

Think about the last time you gave money to charity? I imagine that you wanted every penny to go towards the beneficiaries, not to cover overheads. This is a real issue for NGOs – the expectation is that they are there to solve the world’s problems but without, God forbid, spending money on marketing, fundraising or salaries. Would you expect the same of a business?

The answer to that last question is no, however our expectation of companies is equally strange. A company has resources, talent, scale and reach but, in the majority of cases, these inputs are focused on generating profits rather than, and in some cases to the detriment of, solving social and environmental problems.

 What if…

·         Companies focused their energy on finding ways to sustain growth and profits through playing a role in helping solve some of the world’s big problems?

·         NGOs could invest in talent, fundraising and marketing and scale to the size where they could really make a different to the world’s big problems?

·         Companies and NGOs collaborated – bringing together different strengths and skills – to tackle the world’s big problems?

None of these ‘what ifs’ are impossible, in fact, some of them are starting to happen already. Look at the Gates Foundation, which is investing in talent, research and innovation. What is crucial is that we rethink our age-old perceptions and expectations of companies and NGOs. As a society, we need to allow these institutions the permission to evolve and change to meet the challenges of our world today. That is when we will see transformative change.

More than a Sport?

I was in San Francisco recently and was lucky enough to catch the first day of racing for the America’s Cup.
In recent years, the America’s Cup has been transformed into the Formula 1 of the ocean. Teams now compete on multi-hull, high-tech vessels that literally fly across the water – it’s amazing to watch.

As you can imagine, these flying machines don’t come cheap and you’d be forgiven for questioning whether the money could be spent on something more meaningful.

The first point to make is that the design and creation of these boats is driving engineering and technological innovation, which has the potential to benefit social and environmental causes in the future. Just think of the advances made by Formula 1, which was recently praised for ‘reaching beyond the racing circuit and providing sustainable solutions to "real" life challenges’ in an article by Mike Scott for the Guardian.

Secondly, there is evidence of efforts by the America’s Cup to use the reach and popularity of its brand to raise awareness about key social and environmental issues. In their words, it's 'more than a sport'.

Beer-swilling Kiwi

Walking into the America’s Cup Village - once I’d made it through the swarms of beer-swilling Team NZ fans - I came to an area dedicated to the America’s Cup Healthy Oceans Project. This is a campaign in to raise awareness about the problems threatening the world’s oceans, namely marine protected areas, sustainable seafood, and marine debris/plastics. In the Village, there were people on hand to talk about the campaign, petitions to sign and videos and photographs showing both the wonders of and challenges facing our oceans. In addition, throughout and outside of the weeks of the competition, there have been a number of Healthy Oceans Project events taking place in San Francisco and around the world.

Walking a bit further into the village, I was asked if I wanted to sign the Clean Boater Pledge. This is an initiative run by California’s Boating Clean and Green program, which aims to protect San Francisco’s waterways by encouraging responsible boat ownership.  

Go to the America's Cup website and there's an easy-to-find sustainability section. There is also a Sustainability Plan, however, it’s a pretty dense read!

I do question whether the emphasis on delivering a ‘model sustainable event’ would have been quite so strong had the competition not taken place in a ‘world-leading sustainable city’. Motivations aside, it is refreshing to see a sporting event the size and scale of the America’s Cup, taking sustainability seriously, and using its brand influence to raise awareness about important global issues. It’s not the overriding message – nor should it be – but, it’s a start and maybe it will grow into something bigger over time.

The Power of a Shower

I was lucky enough to take a vacation in California last week. My last stop was San Francisco, which is a place I love. The steep streets, the trams, the ocean, the Golden Gate Bridge; it's a beautiful city! However, there's another side to it, which people don't often think about; the 6,500 homeless people living on the streets. As I explored Downtown San Francisco, I have to admit that I was shocked by the number of homeless people I saw and the stark reality of the conditions that many of these people are forced to endure.

Upon returning to Boston, you can imagine my interest when my colleague emailed me today with this video made by a new organization in San Francisco called Lava Mae.

Lava Mae (the name comes from the Spanish for 'wash me', 'lavame'') is a nonprofit organization, which aims to provide showers for the homeless community in San Francisco. Most of us take our daily showers for granted, but the basic act of washing and keeping clean is a real issue for the homeless. For example, in San Francisco, there are only 8 facilities with 1 or 2 stalls each, where people living on the streets can go to take a shower. That's a total of only 16 showers! And you thought you had a long wait for the bathroom in the morning...

I'll never take you for granted again!

Lava Mae is working to tackle the problem by providing mobile shower units, which can travel round the city and reach the homeless where they are. They are working in collaboration with a number of other organizations already supporting and providing services for the homeless population in the city, leveraging existing knowledge and expertise to make the initiative a success.

You'd be forgiven for questioning whether homeless people really need showers? Of course, ultimately, they need shelter, regular meals, employment, access to education, medical help, counselling, the list is long. However, the reality is there is no quick fix and the act of providing regular showers does so much more than simply enabling them to keep clean. It restores a sense of dignity, confidence and self worth, all of which are a vital for anyone trying to survive and escape life on the streets.

Changing Philanthropy As We Know It

Since writing my last blog Challenging the Status Quo, an op-ed in the New York Times by Peter Buffett,

better known as ‘the son of Warren Buffett’, was bought to my attention. The article, published at the end of July, is a provocative piece which calls for a ‘new operating system’ for philanthropy and criticizes the current system or, as he describes it, the ‘perpetual poverty machine’.

Strangely appropriate (just imagine the extra 't')

According to Peter Buffett, who heads us the billion dollar NoVo Foundation, which he set up with support from his father, despite the fact that inequality is still on the rise, philanthropy has burgeoned into a ‘massive business’ and has become the ‘it vehicle to level the playing field’. He laments the prevalence of ‘"conscience laundering" — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity’.

Whilst, as Ruth McCambridge puts it in her recent article for Non Profit Quarterly, ‘his strokes are so broad that they are nothing short of flat-footed’, he does raise some really important questions about whether philanthropy is as effective as it can be in tackling key social issues; whether it is really solving problems or simply propping itself up to maintain the status quo.

The end of philanthropic giving as we know it?

It has been interesting to see the response to the op-ed remarks, which, as you can imagine, came in thick and fast. The majority have picked up on his inaccurate assertions about the growth of philanthropy in the U.S. According to Tom Watson, Journalist and Contributor to the Forbes Site, ‘philanthropy today represents roughly two percent of GDP – and has been stagnant at that level since roughly 1970’. Phil Bucanan, President for the Center of Effective Philanthropy, also questions his ‘sweeping generalizations’ about the motivations of philanthropists; in other words, that they ‘give back’ in order to be able to ‘sleep better at night’.

However, most of the responses have seen some value in Buffett's challenge. There is recognition that the current system could be improved - simultaneously making sure that those who depend on nonprofit social services are not abandoned - and a clear aspiration to explore new, more creative ways to achieve ‘greater prosperity for all’.

Whether provocative or refreshing, the op-ed from Peter Buffett is important insofar as it has re-stoked the debate. What is most important is that individuals and organizations continue to innovate, challenge and disrupt so perhaps the more provocative the better!

Challenging the Status Quo

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend the Conference Board’s Corporate Social Impact Conference. This annual conference brings together a varied audience comprising philanthropists, non-profits, foundations, companies, local government and consultants from around the U.S. It was a great chance for me to meet people and step outside my usual sphere of corporate work to understand and listen to the trends and challenges faced by different organizations across the social impact/sustainability community.

There were many interesting presentations and panel discussions but I’m going to single out a couple of speakers, who inspired me with what they said about the importance of focusing on solving problems – despite the discomfort and potential disruption - over maintaining the status quo.

The Heat and Warmth Fund (THAW Fund) helps Michigan residents who are struggling to pay their energy bills. Those who receive support include the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled and, according the organization’s website, "70% of the households assisted have a child or senior in the home". THAW Fund receives support from a multiple utility companies in the Michigan area – it’s a partnership that works insofar as both parties are able to achieve their existing aims; however, when you think about it, in many ways both organizations are merely circling the problem. THAW Fund CEO, Susan Sherer, wants to change this. Her team is now working with the regional utility companies to find ways to stop people getting behind in their energy payments in the first place. It’s early days and we’re talking about a complex problem that won’t be solved overnight, but at least both organizations are taking the first step towards tackling the root problem, rather than doggedly maintaining the status quo.

The other speaker I want to mention is Yasmina Zaidman, Director of Communications & Strategic Partnerships at Acumen Fund. Acumen invests in social enterprises, emerging leaders and breakthrough ideas to tackle poverty. Its model empowers local people to find ways to solve challenges facing themselves, their families and their communities, giving them the dignity to make decisions and take responsibility for their futures. Yasmina spoke about the opportunity for large corporations to learn from the innovative solutions developed by social entrepreneurs and their approach to finding solutions. Corporations will never have the agility of small enterprises; however, they can play an important role in supporting, mentoring and investing in social entrepreneurs and their ideas. Through doing this, they will have access to cutting edge innovation and, potentially, solutions to challenges that may threaten the long-term viability and sustainability of their business and the world in which it operates. Recently, the Acumen Fund convened a meeting between large corporations and social entrepreneurs in Nairobi to explore potential ways to bring social entrepreneurs and corporations closer together. There were a number of challenges raised by both sides – both real and perceived – but, the very act of being there shows a willingness to explore new paths and move away from simply maintaining the status quo.

What I admire is the courage of these different organizations – from THAW Fund to the corporations involved in the summit convened by Acumen – to look at things through a fresh lens. After all, as George Bernard Shaw put it, “progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”.

It's been emotional!

Don't worry about the tennis; it's the tears that count!

When Andy Murray broke down in tears during his runner up speech at Wimbledon in 2012, it was a turning point in his career. Not only in his tennis career – he then went on to win an Olympic Gold Medal and the U.S. Open – but in his ‘public’ career. It was the moment that he was accepted and started to be cherished by the British media and the British Public. Andy Murray has always been a fantastic tennis player, but it wasn't until he showed his human and slightly more fallible side that people started to believe in him. Emotion is very powerful.

Recently I've been thinking quite a bit about emotion and the role it plays in inspiring change. My instinct when it comes to selling in sustainable business practices has always been to move away from emotion and stick to rational arguments; after all, the struggle has always been to get leaders to see sustainability as core to the business so how would bringing emotion into it help? Of course communications to engage employees and consumers could depict human stories in a conversational and approachable way, but not the communications to Senior Leaders or Management. My view on this is starting to change.

In his book, Start With Why, Simon Sinek makes the compelling argument that “people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it” – you might remember this from my blog on 21st April. Simon argues that inspiring people with why you do what you do, appeals to the Limbic part of the brain, which is separate to the area of the brain which processes rational, analytical thought and language. The Limbic brain is “responsible for all our feelings, such as trust and loyalty…It is also responsible for all human behavior and all our decision making” (Ch.4). Based on this, the easiest way to persuade or convince your audience to make a decision or take action, is to appeal first to the heart and then to the mind. As Simon points out in his book “I can’t help but wonder if the order of the expression ‘hearts and minds’ is a coincidence…Why does no one set out to win ‘minds and hearts’?” (Ch.4)

So, we need to bring more emotion to the table. The increasing focus on a company’s purpose – the why – enables us to do this whilst remaining within the comfort zone of most business leaders. Over the past few months, I have been working with a U.S.company to help it articulate its core purpose. Last week, the purpose was unveiled to the wider leadership of the organization and, considering that the audience was predominantly made up of middle class men, it was a surprisingly emotional event; there were tears! On reflection, it isn't that surprising – a purpose makes the connection to the broader ‘why’ of the business; it demonstrates the human/social impact of the business beyond generating profits and, inevitably, provokes people to question their own values and motivations. However, it was incredible to see the energy, enthusiasm and inspiration as every member of the company’s leadership team understood the positive, human impact of what they do every day.

Ultimately, in order to influence change within the corporate world, we need to tailor the message to suit whatever type of organization or people we are dealing with. However, emotion and business, particularly as we move towards business as a force for social, environmental and economic good, are not as far apart as they first seem.

Because there’s no... urm plan B

So Branson is back! Last week Richard Branson launched his B Team, a group of global business leaders
who have joined forces “to create a future where the purpose of business is to be a driving force for social, environmental and economic benefit”. In typical Branson style, the project was launched with a big media splash and, rather infuriatingly for people who work in this sector, he talks as though he invented sustainability. However, I digress…

Superhero?

For those of you in the UK, the irony of the name, considering M&S’s Plan A (“…because there is no plan B”), won’t be lost on you. The name has caused a stir in the US for different reasons given the recent moves by the Government, and associated media attention, to prevent teens from obtaining the morning after pill, Plan B, without a prescription.

What the B Team is actually going to do is still somewhat vague. The group is committed to tackling three initial challenges “to help focus business away from short-term gain and to balance the long-term benefits for people and planet”:

• The future bottom line: to include people and planet in business’ bottom line.
• The future of incentives: to catalyze incentives that benefit people and planet alongside profit.
• The future of leadership: to ignite a movement of leaders committed equally to people, planet and profit.

The details of how these challenges are tackled is still to be fully disclosed – and perhaps worked out – but,  crucially, the B Team will play a convening role, bringing together influential figures and decision makers from Governments, non-profits and the corporate sector.

Although Branson’s style is a little difficult to swallow, it’s early days for the B Team so we should give it the benefit of the doubt. However, for me, there are two key questions:

• Are we just preaching to the converted? As Toby Webb pointed out in his recent blog, our sector is becoming more like a ‘cocktail party’; people circulating and telling each other what they want to hear. Richard Branson has bought together ‘believers’; it’s a great line-up of sustainability greats, such as former Chairman and CEO of PUMA, Jochen Zeitz and Unilever’s CEO, Paul Polman. The question is, are these people going to be able to influence the non-believers? Or will they just be the same voices, preaching the same messages? They've been ignored in the past so what are they going to do differently to engage the skeptics going forward?
• What is Team B’s special sauce; what is it that will enable them to succeed where others have struggled? It’s not so long since everyone was talking about the revolution of Shared Value, and now it’s gone rather quiet. That’s not to say that Porter and Co. are not making progress but it’s not changing the world over night. Is the same thing going to be true of the B Team?

Just in case, is there a Plan C?

We need a Captain Planet to get rid of our Eco-Villans once and for all!

I went to my first Green Drinks Happy Hour the other week… no, not an event for people that like green cocktails, although that could be fun! It’s a monthly event that brings together sustainability professionals in the Boston area. It was fun evening and great to meet some fellow sustainability enthusiasts; however I had two conversations that really stood out and, if I'm honest, despair of humanity.

Number 1: it didn't take me long to track down the fellow Brit in the room, who was an academic from the UK, currently doing research at Harvard University. He is looking at the public policy implications and barriers linked to the climate change mitigation strategy of blocking the sun. My initial reaction was a mixture of incredulity and horror; for starters, ‘blocking the sun’ sounds like a plan from Captain Planet and, secondly, why would anyone want to make the world colder and darker? But immediate reactions aside, it is actually a very interesting idea. Some advocate the use of a giant mirror positioned hundred of km above the Earth’s surface to deflect some of the sun’s rays away from the Earth. However, the same effect could be achieved by shooting sun-reflecting sulfates into the lower stratosphere to create a barrier, which is, apparently, not very costly or difficult to do. Temperatures would be reduced by 1-2 degrees so we wouldn't be walking around in the cold and dark (or so I am led to believe) and, in only a couple of years, it could significantly slow down the rate of climate change.

The real barrier is not the science or individuals, like me, who like the sunshine; it is getting global consensus. In order to go ahead, the plan would need to be agreed by leaders all around the world, which is the final nail in the coffin as that is unlikely to happen. This is nothing new – Climate Change would have been addressed long ago if we weren't all so busy protecting our own interests. Maybe blocking the sun is not the answer but it still makes me sad that, in an ever more global world, we are still so far from being able to make rational, considered decisions for the greater good.

Number 2: I got talking to a lawyer, who had come to the event to find out more about ‘this sustainability stuff’ and, particularly, the business case as it relates to shareholders. I began my usual spiel about how, if done strategically, corporate responsibility is good for business and benefits all stakeholders. However, he stopped me and pointed out that many shareholders still think in the short term. If, as a result of running the business in a more sustainable way, there was any affect on the dividends they would receive for that year, even if the longer-term profit forecasts were bright, they would never agree and may even sue the company. Again, this is not news. I am aware of huge mindset shift that needs to happen worldwide to get more companies to adopt a more sustainable approach to business. Nevertheless, it still astounds me at the ability of people in the world to blindly act according to their own interests rather the interests of their communities, countries, or even the planet.

Maybe we need Captain Planet after all!

Method in the madness - brand confusion in Boston

Making the move to the States felt like it should be an easy transition to make – same language, similar
culture and standard of living…right? However, there are a couple of things that I didn’t anticipate. One, technically we speak the language but the reality is that we really don’t – trying to order tomatoes at the deli is a nightmare! Second, the disorientation from not recognizing brands. My first few trips to the supermarket were fairly time consuming outings as I tried to work out what was good/bad. Particularly as a ‘concerned consumer' who would prefer to pick products that are sustainably sourced, produced and packaged; it bought it home to me just how much you rely on brand recognition as you make your day-to-day choices.

In the UK, my go-to brand for washing detergent or cleaning products was Ecover. Not only does the brand have great sustainability credentials – it creates plastic packaging from raw sugar cane, has green roofs on its factories and introduced the first phosphate-free washing powder – but the products also work really well without the need for potentially harmful chemicals. So, on arriving in Boston, I was on the hunt for the American equivalent.

Meet Method. It first came to my attention when I read about an amazing company that was making packaging from ‘ocean plastic’, the several million tons of plastic that ends up in the oceans every year. Then I saw a video of Eric Ryan talking at the Conscious Capitalism Conference – dressed as a crazy scientist he stood out a bit – and now I find out that Method and Ecover have just merged to form the World’s largest ‘green cleaning company’.  It’s rapidly gone from being a brand I’d never heard of, to one that seems to appear everywhere!

What’s interesting is the impact that brands such as Method are having on the cleaning industry. Other companies and brands in the sector are starting to think about the impact of their products on the environment – just look at Clorox Green Works, which launched a huge new campaign this year, injecting some rare humor and attitude into its communications.

It will be interesting to see what happens following the Ecover-Method merger. In contrast to lots of the ‘good’ brands that have been bought by larger conglomerates e.g. Kraft + Green & Blacks, and Innocent + Coca Cola) this is a ‘marriage’ of equals. The merger will give both brands additional leverage in their existing and new markets and it’s unlikely that their sustainability credentials will only become more impressive.

In the meantime, I have solved my brand confusion and my house is clean – still looking for a reliable brand of chocolate though. Might take some time!

Would you buy a cup of coffee for a stranger?

A couple of blog posts ago I talked about the 'pay what you can' model that was being rolled out by Panera. Then today I came across a video on the BBC about the concept of Suspended Coffees. First started in Naples, the idea is that consumers can buy an extra or 'suspended' coffee for someone in need. Just like the 'pay what you can' model, it's a simple way to enable consumers to do something good as part of their everyday routine. It has certainly inspired Starbucks, which recently announced that it will shortly be rolling out a version of the Suspended Coffee scheme in the UK. However, whilst the original scheme was based entirely on trust - recipients of Suspended Coffees didn't need to prove that they justified the gift - Starbucks is retaining some control through partnering with the charity Oasis. For each Suspended Coffee purchased, Starbucks will make a donation to Oasis and coffees to the value donated will be distributed through the charity's community hubs around the country.

It's great that Starbucks is taking the Suspended coffee idea and using its size, scale and influence to take it to  huge numbers of people around the world. My only question is whether, by formalizing the model through a more conventional charity partnership, the idea loses some of its magic? We shall see... In the meantime, look out for Suspended Coffees in a Starbucks near you.

People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it

Back in the days when I was fundraising for a nonprofit, my communications always focused in on the 'why' – what is the need or problem and why is it important that we address it now. Of course, the funders that I was talking or writing to were interested in what we were doing to address the problem, but, ultimately, the reason that they decided to make a donation was based on the difference that they thought it would make, the positive impact that they would have on the cause in question. Learning to present the 'why' in a compelling way was fundamental.

The importance of the 'why' reaches far beyond the realms of the fundraising world. Simon Sinek, author of Start With Why, gave a great TED talk back in September 2009 that explains the importance of the 'why'. It’s a great talk and I would thoroughly recommend watching it but, in short, the key point is that what inspired leaders and inspired organizations have in common is that they focus on why they do what they do, rather than simply what they do. He uses the example of Apple which sells its products by sharing the core belief that is driving the business – as Simon Sinek puts it, they say to us, “Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make computers. Want to buy one?" It seems so obvious but it’s amazing how few companies actually do this.

However, where understanding the ‘why’ can be really powerful is in terms of understanding the broader purpose of a company – the reason it exists and what it brings to society/the world. Apple is actually an interesting example because it hasn’t done this. Whilst Apple clearly understands the ‘why’ in terms of product strategy and marketing, it has been slow to recognize, articulate or act on the social or environmental opportunities of the business. You could say that it's only identified half its purpose. In today’s world, consumers want more than that – they want to understand the ‘why’ of a company from a product/business perspective as well as a social perspective. By understanding and articulating their ‘why’ or ‘purpose’, companies are in a much stronger position to drive authentic, sustainability activity, derived from the core of the business.

Empowering consumers to do good

Back in 2007, the band Radiohead released its album In Rainbows without a price tag. This was a deliberate ploy to give fans the freedom to pay what they thought it was worth. When you went to the website to download the album, instead of a price, the words 'it's up to you' appeared in the check out box. Although, it's difficult to get a clear answer on the success of this initiative - the band's Publisher did reveal that "Radiohead made more money before In Rainbows was physically released than they made in total on the previous album Hail To the Thief". Perhaps, though, this says more about the quality of the previous album!

Nevertheless, the concept of letting the consumer decide the price is a really interesting idea, particularly when you link it to a social cause. Back in 2003, Denise Cerreta pioneered her 'pay what you can' model, setting up the One World Cafe in Salt Lake City, Utah. Her vision was "to help people see the value of food as more than a mere consumable but rather, as a glue and a catalyst for healthy people, relationships and communities". It seems to have been very successful. The idea of paying what you can to support others who are less able to pay appealed to consumers' social conscience and generosity and what's more, as Denise puts it, "because customers choose their own prices, their portions tend to be more mindful and reflect that they will actually want to eat, with the result being little or no food waste". Denise now advises cafe owners all over the world on how to put the 'pay what you can' model in place, including a recent high profile adopter, the nationwide bakery chain, Panera.

For non-U.S. readers, Panera claims to stand for so much more than simply being a place to get great soups, salads and sandwiches. You can find out more by watching its recently launched Live Consciously, Eat Deliciously commercial:

Back in 2010, Panera trialed the 'pay what can model' at a new Panera Cares Community Cafe in St Louis. It went so well that now you'll find Community Cafes in Michigan, Oregon, Chicago and Boston. Just like the One World Cafe, the company plans to cover the cost of meals for those who can't afford to pay with money collected by those who overcompensate by paying more. According to an article in the International Business Times, the cafes bring in "an estimated 70-80% of the revenue compared to stores that stick to the traditional menu prices" but Ron Shaich, founder and CEO, claims "that's still enough to make a profit". If it continues to go well, the plan is to open other community cafes, as well as to roll out a 'pay what you can' promotions across selected menu items in over 1,500 of the company's locations across North America.

Of course there will always be consumers who take advantage - a number of Radiohead's so-called fans didn't pay a cent to download the album - however, putting a social cause at the heart of it does help reduce this risk. A 2010 study conducted by Leif Nelson of the University of California supports this - it found that customers at pay-what-you-want establishments are more likely to donate when charity is involved. What I like about the initiative is its simplicity - it's such a great way for a company to 'team up' and connect with its consumers to have a meaningful social impact in a really straightforward way. It also, crucially, maintains an element of choice. Let's be honest, for most of us, it's not really a choice because our social conscience tells us what we should do, however, the appeal feels much more positive; Panera is empowering us to be generous, not appealing to us, as many organizations do, through guilt.

Isn't it a bit idealistic?

A new video popped up on my Twitter feed last week. It’s quite a cute film made by the University of St Gallen, which sets out what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is all about. If you’re new to the concept of CSR, then it’s definitely worth a watch as it sets out the key points in a way that’s easy to digest.

When people ask me about what I do - after I've fielded the usual question ‘so you work for a charity?’ - I often get the following comment: ‘that’s great, but isn't it a bit idealistic?’ And the answer, to a certain extent, is yes. What unites people in this field is that they are aspirational and passionate about changing the world for the better; they dare to dream. However, this is coupled with strong sense of realism. The ecomaginations and Plan As of this world are still far and few between and those of us close to the action know better than anyone how much work there is still to do. It’s a positive thing - as the video shows, we know where we want to go; we're just figuring out the best way to get there.

Just in case you don’t have time to watch the film, here is a summary of the key points. The language is a bit clunky but you’ll get the general idea:

• CSR is based on the question of good business for a good society, today and tomorrow
• CSR is not charity. It is about the way a company earns its profits, not how it spends them
• It takes employees of integrity plus appropriate organizational structures to realize CSR. It is a matter of individual and institutional ethics
• Politics continue to play an important role but in a globalized world the effects of regulation can be limited, thus…
• Companies play an increasingly important role
• Soft laws are new governance mechanisms based on a company’s self commitments
• CSR has arrived in business practice and it’s necessary to support these developments professionally but also to provide critical perspectives with respect to them

Happy Watching!

Ruggie's Rules - The End of the Beginning

Ask the CEO of a multinational corporation “does your company respect and protect human rights?” and the answer is unlikely to be negative. But go on to ask another question “how do you know?” and you’ll probably get a much less confident response. The truth is that, until very recently, they didn't have to know. What’s more, if a problem or an accusation was filed against them, there was no international legal framework against which they could be brought to justice - existing national frameworks were inadequate or simply not relevant.

This was the challenge given to John Ruggie, Berthold Beitz Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government and an Affiliated Professor in International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, by the United Nations Human Rights Council – to bridge the gap between national public governance frameworks and the governance of global businesses.

Last night, I went to a talk by John Ruggie at the Harvard Bookstore, to mark the launch of his book Just Business. He talked about his approach to the challenge and his experiences of working with governments and corporations all over the world to agree a set of guiding principles, perhaps better known as Ruggie’s Rules. It became clear to him very early on that there was no silver bullet - it wasn't about creating a legal instrument and expecting everyone to adhere to it because, as we saw with the Kyoto Protocol, this would be far too easy to ignore. What was required was a ‘building block approach’, establishing a common platform (i.e. the guiding principles) and then gradually bringing organisations on-board. For example, having agreed the guiding principles, John Ruggie and his team approached national export agencies and persuaded them that, when promoting companies overseas, there should be some due diligence built into the process to ensure that they are not promoting companies who do not respect or protect human rights. This has proved to be a clever and successful means of pushing the guiding principles out into the global corporate network and a start towards changing the status quo.

As you’d expect, the guidelines have received mixed reactions. Activist organisations don’t think they go far enough with the organization Human Rights Watch saying that the UN Human Rights Council “squandered an opportunity to take meaningful action to curtail business-related human rights abuses.” Other commentators, such as John Braithwaite, Corporate Criminologist at the Australian National University, are more encouraged by the steps taken: “I’m a strong supporter of progressive UN framework agreements that seem pretty wishy-washy at first…“ in the long run they can make a huge contribution from limited beginnings.”

Whilst, I don’t believe that extensive regulation is the answer to making companies more sustainable, it is helpful to have some frameworks in place to ensure a minimum standard of practice. As John Ruggie put it last night “it’s the end of the beginning”; in other words, Ruggie’s Rules are not going to eliminate abuses of human rights by global companies over-night but they create a baseline to support companies to start answering the question “how do you know?” with confidence.

Embrace change - it leads to success

Nike has made huge leaps forward in addressing the social and environmental impacts of its business. Not so long ago, the company was mired in controversy over allegations of human rights abuses in the factories making its shoes and clothing around the world – there were large protests, boycotts and widespread criticism from the media. Today, it's considered a sustainability leader.

The company’s vision is to deliver innovation and inspiration to every athlete and sustainability is central to how they do that. Hannah Jones, VP of Sustainable Business and Innovation at Nike Inc., summed up the approach in a recent tweet:

The key word is ‘innovation’ and ‘opportunity’. In order to become more sustainable, businesses need to see it as an opportunity and it means change, not a few tweaks here and there, but real change. The good news, to steal Hannah Jones’s tweet style, is that change = profit.

A recent report by MIT Sloane Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group, The Innovation Bottom Line, demonstrates the link between business model change and profiting from sustainability. 50% of survey respondents (executives and managers from commercial enterprises) who had changed 3 or 4 elements of their business strategy said that they had profited from sustainability activities:

And more change = more likely profit because, as you can see, only 37% of the respondents who had changed one element of the business model said that sustainability adds profits.

The change doesn't end with the business model, as report outlines, to “hit the sustainability bull’s-eye”, there needs to be:

• Support from the top and full integration across the business
• Clear goals and effective measurement - get the numbers that people can’t ignore
• Understand what your customers think and want in terms of sustainability
• Collaborate with individuals, customers, businesses and groups outside the business

Check out the report for more details - there are some interesting statistics. 

In the words of Charles Darwin “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” 

Lights, camera... where's the action?

Each year, the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship holds a film festival, which gives companies an “opportunity to demonstrate how they have utilized video as a communication tool”. There’s a public vote online – it ends tomorrow in case you want to have your say – to decide a shortlist and then the overall winner is selected by a panel of judges at the International Corporate Citizenship Conference in April. 

There are a total of 76 entries so it’s quite a feat to watch them all; however, in my quest to find out about corporate responsibility in the States, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to explore what companies are doing and how they’re talking about it.

Video is such an engaging mechanism for telling a story and companies increasingly use it to communicate their environmental and social messages to employees and consumers. In recent years, we've seen some compelling examples of how effective video can be, from the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty videos, which went viral(see below), to Virgin Media’s video-driven approach to sustainability reporting. There is some really innovative and creative thinking out there.

I have to admit that not many of the film festival entries grabbed my attention. I accepted quite early on that the majority of the videos were going to be about philanthropic activities and that I shouldn't try and evaluate them with my strategic sustainability hat on. Some of the videos made reference to the broader social and environmental objectives of the business but, where they did, it felt like a bit of an after-thought. Broadly speaking, I'd divide the entries into two categories: 

• Emotional stories: personal stories from veterans, cancer survivors, single mums, people with disabilities about how they – or the charity that helped them - have been supported by the company and the impact on their lives. 
• Volunteer montages: clips of volunteers in corporate T-shirts painting schools, packaging up food bank deliveries or completing a 5 km run. 

Videos in both of these categories used similar ‘emotional’ music, and the commentary was provided by staff members, who said very similar things using slightly different words.

Now before you accuse me of being British and cynical, I should say that I was impressed by how much philanthropy seems to go on. The videos really convey the enthusiasm and excitement among employees in the US for ‘giving back’ and there are some really nice examples of how companies are supporting the communities where they operate. Perhaps my expectations are just too high – I believe that business can be a powerful force for good and therefore it’s frustrating to see companies wasting the opportunity to show what can really be done.

Content aside, at the very least, I was looking for a strong message, some creativity in the techniques used, and, most of all, a clear aim; by that I mean that I wanted to understand why the video was made and who it was made for. Only a very small number of entries ticked all these boxes.

In the future, it would be great to see the introduction of categories for the film festival. All the entries are currently lumped together as ‘corporate citizenship’ videos, but perhaps the inclusion of categories would help companies think more broadly about what corporate citizenship means and perhaps to submit something other than the usual volunteering or philanthropy video. The added benefit - it would help balance the expectations of viewers who are (ahem) harder to please.

What good can come of Horsegate?

The new arrival

There was a rather strange new arrival at Boston’s Logan Airport this weekend – a giant red cow. It was shipped in from Switzerland by the owners of family-run Massachusetts bakery Swissbäkers, who are opening up a new bakery in Boston and will be adorning the new location with this bovine statue. The best bit is that they’re running a competition to name the animal – surely, in the wake of the horse meat scandal, this is a chance to have a bit of fun - you might opt for Red Beauty, or Red Stallion or even Skydancer? Although I have a feeling this might be lost on most Americans.

Perhaps not so much in Europe where controversy about Horsegate continues to grow… Just today Ikea pulled meatballs from its UK stores as a precautionary measure and Nestlé faced further questions about its involvement with the scandal. The food industry is firmly back in the spotlight and the whole situation raises a huge number of questions about supply chain management, food sourcing, and, most of all, about trust.

Whilst child labor scandals associated with fashion brands such as GAP or H&M have led to boycotts, the food industry is in an even more precarious position because of the nature of the consumer's relationship with food. It’s linked to survival, nourishment and, even, comfort; the fact that consumers have been duped about what exactly they're eating feels like a much bigger violation than finding out the truth about how their t.shirts are made. It’s not even the fact that we’re talking about horse meat, although admittedly for some this is a real sticking point, it’s really the fact that consumers feel they've been tricked by the brands they thought they could trust.

So how is this going to play out? What can the food industry do to win back consumer trust? To be honest, it’s a bit too soon to tell as we’ve yet to understand the full extent of the problem. At the very least, this should serve as a wake-up call to companies who are not taking steps to address responsible business practices across their supply chain. There are good examples of what can be done to inspire and support supply chain partners to take a more responsible approach to the way they do business, e.g. Walmart, who selects its suppliers based on whether or not they adhere to the same social and environmental standards, rather than purely on price, and who has opened up a dialogue to “learn, connect, inspire and drive sustainability through collaboration”; or GAP, which is helping its suppliers to improve their human resource capabilities to prevent problems, such as underage workers, becoming an issue in the first place. However, there is still a way to go and many more companies that need to act.

In the longer term, perhaps this controversy will prove enough of a disruption to accelerate a number of companies – not just the food industry – to think differently about the way they do business. In Corporate Citizenship’s report, Future Business – the four mega-trends that every company needs to prepare for, which was published today, there is clear evidence that the period of choice is over. By that, I mean that the era when businesses could decide whether or not to do business in a more sustainable way is coming to a close; in the future, and as we’re already starting to see today, rapid population growth, increasingly limited resources, emerging markets becoming more powerful, as well as changing consumer demands and increased scrutiny via social media, will force private companies to adapt or risk going bust. Wouldn’t it be easier to take action now? That would be a positive outcome from Horsegate.

What a diverse bunch!

It's always interesting to meet others who work in the Sustainability/Corporate Responsibility sector because it represents people with such a diverse range of skills and experience. Within sustainability consultancy firms or in-house sustainability teams, you'll find people with backgrounds in PR, Marketing, Advertising, Research, Management Consultancy, Fundraising, Journalism - there's no set path.

Two of the panel members from the Boston Net Impact Careers Summit last Friday provide a nice example of this. Kathrin Winkler, VP Corporate Sustainability and Chief Sustainability Officer at EMC Corporation, previously worked as Senior Director of Product Management for the company. As part of her role in product management, Kathrin was already thinking about energy efficiency and waste reduction and this led to her teaming up with like-minded colleagues to think about a broader program of measures to improve the sustainability of the organisation. With time, these measures were turned into a business plan, which got buy-in from the C-Suite and led to the introduction of a more strategic approach to sustainability and the creation of Kathrin's position.

In contrast, Christine Riley, Director Corporate Responsibility and The Dunkin' Donuts & Baskin-Robbins Community Foundation at Dunkin' Brands Inc. (phew that's a long job title) was an external hire. She started out in the not-for-profit sector doing corporate fundraising, which led to consultancy experience at Boston-based PR, Marketing and CSR agency Cone Communications, and then to her current position, heading up sustainability at Dunkin' Brands.

Despite their different skills and experience, the key skill they have in common is their ability to build relationships and leverage these connections to successfully achieve a project goal. Kathrin's knowledge of the company, its operations, and crucially, it's people has been invaluable when trying to instigate change across the organisation. Christine's experience of managing relationships as a fundraiser and as a consultant has enabled her to seek out and exploit the relevant knowledge and expertise within the business to make things happen. For both of them, whilst they lead the change and need the skills to do this, it is the business that has to deliver it.

Kathrin and Christine's experience matches findings from research carried out by Vox Global, the Weinreb Group and Net Impact Berkeley, which was published in the 2012 report Making The Pitch: Selling Sustainability From Inside Corporate America. A survey of sustainability leaders working at Fortune 100 companies showed that, whilst prior to taking the job, sustainability leaders felt that subject-matter expertise was going to be the key to being successful, once in the job, they all agreed that "interpersonal skills - rather than subject matter expertise - is the most important attribute a sustainability professional must have to be successful".

Overall, I think this is encouraging - it shows that sustainability roles are no longer 'specialist' positions on the periphery. Sustainability leaders are senior executives with diverse experience and a range of skills. What is most important is that they have an influential voice, excellent people and relationship building skills and that they are able to use these talents to maximize their company's potential to be a force for good.