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.