Green Options

The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program has left me torn: is this a genuine attempt to preserve biodiversity, or just another exercise in corporate greenwashing?

The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program is a work in progress.  Its name includes that reviled word “offset”, a red flag for many deep greens.
However, unlike the dreaded carbon offset, this is not a market mechanism which allows industry to greenwash its way through normal operations.

Instead it’s a recognition that large industrial developments have a huge impact upon sensitive natural environments and can undermine the cultural lifestyle of local populations.

Last week Greenpeace said it was okay to buy Kimberly-Clark (K-C) products again so I loaded up my shopping cart with Kleenex, Scott paper towels and Cottonelle toilet paper.  After years of fighting, Greenpeace and K-C finally reached an agreement.  The corporation will begin sourcing fiber responsibly, and the NGO will end its Kleercut campaign.  It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.  Or is it?

Sites such as Treehugger.com and Grist.org applauded the agreement.  Even the environmental organization, ForestEthics told Grist that K-C’s new sourcing policy “is among the strongest in the world … truly impressive.  ForestEthics congratulates Greenpeace and allies for a campaign well run.”  Wow, I’m getting all teary-eyed just reading the accolades.  I think I need a Kleenex.  So why are some folks crying foul?

Writing for three green business blogs, I come across and write about my fair share of ideas. My greenwash filter is quick, swift, and merciless. And then you come across something like Wild Wool, and everything gets confused.

The front page has pleasing images of piles of soft, fuzzy fabric and clothing, made from what it describes as, “…a 100% natural fiber product made from 60% merino wool and 40% paihamu spun together to make a premium cashmere-like fabric that is softer, warmer, and lighter than plain wool.” Sounds good so far, right?

My eyebrow started to cock when I read a seemingly throwaway sentence, without a connecting justification for it: “Eco-friendly and practical - talk about a great way to reduce, reuse and recycle.”

Going to the Ecological Profile page to learn more, I was surprised to read what I can say is the most unique claim to being sustainable I’ve seen in a while - Basically, by killing them for their fur, they are helping restore ecological balance on New Zealand.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced that BMW is giving the city a fleet of MINI Es as part of a feasibility test. In fact, BMW will be testing 500 electric MINIs worldwide. Other cities included in the program are Los Angeles, London and Berlin.

MINI E is the first product from BMW’s Project i program. Project i takes aim at vehicle and transportation strategies for the world’s mega-cities. The cars will be loaned to both customers and the cities for a full year.

Last week, Tom Lauria, Vice President, Communications for the International Bottled Water Association commented on a post about greenwash happening over at Nestle Waters where he accused me of being an anti-corporate type that hides behind ’saving the earth’ to bash businesses because I hate capitalism. My sense is that Tom, and quite possibly others, do not think there is any valid way to criticize green claims made by companies without being anti-corporate and anti-capitalist.

What about when a Dell Exec Knocks Apple’s Green Ads? Is Dell anti-corporate and anti-capitalist because it wants to set the record straight?  Dell is currently ranked No. 25 among the Fortune 500 companies and No. 88 in the Fortune Global 500. Since its pretty hard to be anti-corporate and anti-capitalist with those stats, maybe Dell is just calling it like it is.

And as business people, why should we complain about greenwash anyhow?

First, it is not anti-corporate and anti-capitalist to set the record straight on environmental achievements versus environmental distortion.  It is every business person’s—from the entrepreneur to the VP of communications at a Fortune 500 company—job to do just that so we do not dilute real environmental achievements.

Second, Bob Pearson, VP—Communities & Conversations at Dell said it well in his blog post:

“…companies who choose to lead have an obligation to be open and transparent. We have a responsibility to engage in dialogue about the environment, whether we agree or disagree with an individual person or group. It all contributes to the greater good.”

Reading forums about the evolution and revolution of organic and natural cosmetics is absolutely mind boggling. Think of revamping the FDA for insight! By necessity, the proposed standards are written for those who know chemistry.

The good news is that this daunting task for harmony is getting done. International collaboration between six European certification bodies: ICEA (Italy), BDIH (Germany), Bioforum (Belgium), Cosmebio/Ecocert (France) and Soil Association (UK) is in process now. Combined they aim to clarify requirements and definitions for organic and/or natural cosmetics to appease formulators and consumers alike.

A few days ago I posted about how the Director of Communications at Nestlé Waters North America took issue with a previous post about their CEO. This time, Tom Lauria, Vice President, Communications for the International Bottled Water Association responded:

…it’s the middle of day, and you’re running erands and you’re thirsty. You can buy a coffee or a cola but you want something healthy and refreshing, so you buy a nice cold bottle of water. Zero calories. Major hydration — it wakes you up! Any attempt by anyone to get people to drink less water is not in the public interest. Why are you targeting the packaged beverage with the smallest possible carbon fooprint? And it is clear people drink more water when they drink bottled water! At the end of day, there’s GREENSMOG…where anti-corporate types hide behind “saving the earth” to bash businesses because they hate capitalism.

First, I want to say that he has a point.  From a public health perspective it is better to promote water that coffee or soda.  But what about water fountains?  What about Nalgenes and Siggs? That said, I have to admit Tom’s response actually made me roll my eyes.  The Vice President of Communications for the bottled water industry thinks that we shouldn’t criticize…the bottled water industry.  Surprise, surprise.

However, the part that really got me was how he made one good point and then, given the paucity of reasonable defenses, devolved into grade-school, 1950’s rhetoric:  Anti-corporate types bashing businesses because they hate capitalism.  Anti-corporate? Hate capitalism?  Um, Tom, this is a blog about being an entrepreneur. 

A few weeks ago I wrote about how the greenwash continues at Nestle Waters as their CEO Kim Jeffery Whines But Still Doesn’t Walk The Walk in a recent Businessweek article. Their Director of Corporate Communications “respectfully disagrees” with the charges.

I would have written about it sooner, but I just noticed this response from Jane Lazgin, Director, Corporate Communications, Nestlé Waters North America:

We’re pleased you agree we should be talking about our Eco-Shape bottles. Like you, we think reducing the plastic content in our bottles is an important step toward a lighter environmental footprint. The Eco-Shape half-liter bottle uses 30% less plastic than the average juice, soda, or other brand of bottled water containers. And, when more than 70 percent of what we drink comes in a bottle or can, why not choose the lightest beverage package?

Let’s Implement a Clear Cut Ban!

Encouraged by reading about heroes who have taken direct action through non-violent resistance, I recently contacted the California’s North Coast chapter of Earth First! to volunteer my services.  You can imagine my surprise when they explained to me that their top foe, the Maxxam Company, was recently taken over by the Humboldt Redwood Company and the Mendocino Redwood Company.

In direct contrast to its predecessor, HRC has committed itself to preserving the remaining old growth forest on its property. Now, North Coast Earth First! is focusing on introducing a bill that will ban clear cutting in all of California.

Research quickly revealed assembly bill 2926, a bill proposed by Sally Lieber  last April but killed in committee after heavy opposition from timber lobbyists.

I checked the Humboldt Redwood Company’s web page but the site was under construction under the some sections like forest management and issues & policies. I also checked Mendocino Redwood Company after hearing about positive reformation from them too from NCEF.

In a recent Businessweek article, Kim Jeffery the CEO of Nestlé Water North America, makers of Poland Spring waters, whines (yes, whines) that they are misunderstood and not given the credit they deserve.  Clearly he thinks all the charges of greenwash are unfair.

But, are they? The article tells of all the environmentally preferable things that they had done but that no one knew about.  The article then goes on to say:

Part of the reason Nestlé Waters wasn’t touting its environmental efforts, according to Jeffery, was that he and the rest of management considered such actions business as usual.

Yes! That’s the point. the “green” things Nestlé were doing were part of normal business operations, many of which saved the company lots of money. Are they good for the environment? Of course. But that’s not really what greenwashing is all about. Its about consumer marketing. This is where the real greenwashing occurs. Before I go on, I want to say that I truly applaud the industry for implementing eco-bottles. That said, it seems to be a blatant case of greenwash to position bottled water as being good for the environment. Water companies should tout eco-bottles, but they shouldn’t suggest that they are good for the environment. They should sell the water, not the the environmental friendliness of the packaging. I would like to ad, that Nestlé is not the worst offender of greenwashy bottled water ads and their ad campaigns are far less offensive than those for Fuji Water and Deer Park.

Environmental Research reports that Cause Marketing can Make a Difference which is good news for social entrepreneurs. A recent survey conducted on consumer packaged goods found that, yes, consumers do prefer and purchase products associated with a charity or cause.

74% increase in actual purchase for a shampoo brand when associated with a cause

(47% of participants who saw the cause-related message chose the brand while only 27% of those who saw the generic corporate advertisement chose the brand)

28% increase in actual purchase for a toothpaste brand when associated with a cause

Triple bottom line entrepreneurs, of course, already know that, or at least have hoped that their efforts to give back will make a difference in sales. But, just giving back isn’t always enough.

Qualitative consumer responses showed that the issue, the nonprofit and the inherent nature of products were key factors in making cause-related purchasing decisions and helped explain why movement in (some) categories was not significant.

In other words, choose well and choose wisely, not only in the non-profit you plan to support, but in how you promote your connection and how you market your product.