Aligning CSR Strategy with Brand

This is a blog I published on Cause Consulting's Blog Cause Nation a few weeks ago. I thought some of you, my lovely blog readers, might be interested to read it too. 

CSR/Sustainability and Marketing professionals have not always been the best of friends.
In fact, recently, Thomas Kolster, Creative Director and Author of Goodvertising, and Founder of Where Good Grows, posted a cartoon showing them at opposite ends of a couple’s therapy couch. However, when they do work together and see the benefits, there is potential for transformative, long-lasting social and environmental change.

So what are the requirements for a successful relationship between CSR/Sustainability and Marketing? This was the topic up for discussion at the Net Impact Boston Career Summit on Friday February 21st. Harriet Henry joined John Rooks, President, The Soap Group, Chris Mann, Vice President of Corporate Partnerships, City Year, Kyle Cahill, Senior Manager, Corporate Citizenship, Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, and Anne Erhard, SVP and NA Director, Corporate & Brand Citizenship, PurPle to discuss ‘Effective CSR Marketing: Aligning CSR Strategy with Brand Marketing Objectives.’

Here are the top five tips for effective CSR marketing discussed by the panel:

1. Start with a great strategy. An effective CSR strategy aligns closely with core business and brand objectives; the more closely aligned, the more successful it will be, and the more authentic any marketing and communications around your CSR activities will be. Take the time to develop a killer CSR strategy and engage your marketing teams in the process, as they understand your brand and target audiences better than anyone.

2. Engage your employees first. Everyone on the panel agreed that it may take time before you’re ready to communicate your CSR activities externally. Typically, your first audience is your employees; they are the people that will execute and bring the CSR strategy to life.  They are also the strongest brand ambassadors you will ever have. Only once the CSR strategy is embedded and generating wins internally should you start to think about going external.

3. Don’t try and go it alone – talk and listen to your stakeholders: It’s likely that your CSR strategy will deal with some complex social and environmental issues, and it is unlikely that you will have all the necessary expertise in-house. So go out and find subject-matter experts, nonprofits, and other stakeholders who can help you shape your plans. Even if you think you have a winning strategy, it never hurts to validate what you know and, what’s more, seeking support and guidance is respected and may win you essential allies and partners for the future.

4. Don’t preach: When you’re ready to communicate your CSR initiatives to consumers and customers, remember that they already have a long list of worries and don’t want something else to feel bad about. Make them your partners, treat them like humans and be humble. No one has all the answers and no one is perfect, so be honest and tell your consumers this. In the end, they’ll like you more for it!

5. Make it relevant and fun:  As good as it is, your CSR strategy is not what most people want to hear about. Similarly, just because you think something is important or interesting, it doesn’t mean others will. Talk to your consumers and customers, find out what they care about, and then engage them in a fun way that they will remember.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Sustainable Soda Stream Commercial Causes Controversy

So just in case you hadn't noticed (ahem), yesterday was Super Bowl Sunday; not only the climax of the football season, but apparently also the second largest day for food consumption in the USA after Thanksgiving, and the day when companies are prepared to fork out as much as $4 million for a 30 second advertising spot. With viewing figures of over 110 million in recent years, it's not surprising that the Super Bowl commercial spots command such a premium price. Getting it right can give a huge boost to a brand - think of the 'Wassup' Budweiser frogs - and getting it wrong means weeks and weeks of re-runs, media commentary and social media mentions; not ideal but not always a bad thing either...

After all the build up last week - and yes I'm still talking about the commercials rather than the football, they even air commercials for the commercials - I was expecting to see some creative advertising. Unfortunately I'd have to agree with Stuart Elliott from the New York Times that "the commercials that CBS broadcast nationally during the game were, by and large, disappointing". And, disappointingly, from a sustainability perspective, the only advert that even touched on the subject was the controversial Soda Stream creation from ad man turned consumer and social advocate Alex Bogusky. 

It was touch and go as to whether or not the Soda Stream advert would even be aired as it showed "denigration of the bottled drinks market" and would upset Pepsi and Coca Cola who are major sponsors of the game. In the end, it was agreed that a 'gentler ad' that doesn't mention any specific soft drink brands.  This is not the first time that this advert has caused controversy, in fact, it has even been banned in the UK. However, as we've seen, trying to prevent these adverts being seen can actually do more harm than good - the unaired version of the commercial has already clocked up nearly 4 million views on You Tube and counting...

I would like to say that Soda Stream's commercial is a sign of things to come - Super Bowl Commercials will start to portray meaningful, values-led messages, rather than meaningless stunts and celebrity appearances; however, I don't think we're there yet. Nevertheless, it is good to see a brand using a sustainability message to differentiate itself from its competitors.

Don't forget about business

As we're new to Boston, we're being keen beans and doing all the tourist 'must sees'. At the end of last week we went to the Harvard Museum of Natural History, which has some amazing exhibitions and a huge collection of skeletons and fossils that will excite even the most sceptical visitor. One of the exhibits, put together in collaboration with the Harvard University Center for the Environment, is about climate change: how this has affected our planet in the past and what challenges we face in the future. The best bit of this exhibition was a video outlining the actions required to slow climate change and what this means financially for each family in the USA. At points, those watching the video are asked to vote as to whether or not they're willing to take these actions. Perhaps the most testing question is whether or not individuals in the USA are prepared for the government to invest in climate change initiatives in other less-developed areas of the world i.e. individuals in the USA pay for changes in their own country as well as funding initiatives in developing countries. Not an easy question to answer by any means, especially when the financial costs are made clear...

However, it's not just individuals and the government that need to take action. What is missing from this video is the role that business plays in tackling climate change. Whilst there are actions that individuals and governments can take, there are also ways that the business community can make a huge difference through their own initiatives and through collaboration with others. Real and lasting change will happen when all these efforts combine.

In a post on the BSR blog the other week, Solitaire Townsend, Cofounder of Futerra Sustainability Communications, talks about the critical role of brands in influencing and changing consumer behavior. As she puts it: "Brands carry promises and guide our behaviors—from doing laundry to buying a new car... As consumers struggle to balance their aspirations with reality, they will look to brands for answers. Right now they are asking, but soon they will be demanding.” Of course, the way that businesses respond to these demands will be very different - it might be through a transition to a new business model and, as Fiona Bennie describes it in her blog Same Brand, Different Business Model on the Sustainable Brands Blog, "[holding] customers' hands as they transition to and adopt new ways of consuming, of lending and borrowing, and ultimately of meeting their needs". Or through the adoption of more 'durable design' so that products change over time and continue to interest and inspire their owners. These are just some of the ways that businesses can work to make their own operations and the lives of consumers more sustainable.

What's important for consumers to understand is that they're not alone. Whilst this doesn't mean we should all sit back and do nothing; we shouldn't be daunted by the action that needs to be taken because businesses, governments and individuals are all in this together!

New Year, New Label

Over the years, our industry has had more labels than I can remember: corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, community affairs, responsible business, corporate responsibility and, of course, the most recent addition, shared value. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting these terms  all mean the same thing. In fact, as someone, who religiously chooses to use 'corporate responsibility' over 'corporate social responsibility', I'm very conscious that they don't. On the whole, the development of these new terms is a good thing and the number of them reflects the face pace of innovation. However, the introduction of 'social licence to operate' as the new 'shared value' for 2013 seems to me to be a step too far.

In an entry on the Forbes CSR Blog, Paul Klein, suggests that 2013 will be the year of the Social Licence to Operate (SLO). This is not a new term. It has traditionally been used by companies in the resource extraction sector to describe the importance of engaging local communities and other stakeholders whose support is required to secure government approval or raise capital for their projects. However, as Paul Klein argues, with the increasing use of social media the concept of a Social Licence to Operate should no longer be thought of solely in the context of the resource extraction sector; it's relevant to all companies. In today's world, there's no longer anywhere to hide and all companies have to recognize the importance of stakeholder support to continue doing business. 

It's not the argument I disagree with, it's the term Social Licence to Operate that feels wrong. I actually quite like the term 'shared value' as it expresses the balance required; it's about finding that sweet spot between business objectives and social and environmental objectives, balancing the concerns of shareholders and stakeholders. Social Licence to Operate loses that - it sounds like companies are at the mercy of what stakeholders want and need to justify their business actions accordingly. 

It's not just semantics, the way we talk about things and the words we use can have a real impact to how a concept is received. So I'm afraid my vote is for new year, old labels.