The Triple Bottom Line Blog

If you keep tabs on media coverage of the environment, you may have heard about the recent about-face at The New Republic regarding its new blog focusing on energy and the environment. When the blog was first launched a week and a half ago, it bore the logo and message, "Powered by BP," representing sponsorship by the somewhat controversial UK oil company. It was the only portion of the magazine's website to bear such a logo (though advertising not linked to any particular magazine feature does appear elsewhere on the site).

Readers protested, the blog's chief writer wrote a post explaining his own discomfort with the sponsorship, and within hours the other shoe dropped. The following note appeared on the blog:

You may notice that this blog looks a little different. The phrase "powered by BP," which appeared in the banner when we launched yesterday, led to some (justifiable) confusion about the blog's relationship with BP. But TNR's agreement with BP was and is purely an advertising deal, and the company never had any say in our editorial content. Today, the TNR business staff and BP decided to remove their logo placement to make sure that relationship is clear.

It's an interesting story that illustrates yet again the great and growing power of grassroots stakeholders--in this case, the readers of The New Republic--to force companies to back down from policies or practices of which they don't approve.

What I find most interesting, however, is the reason those readers objected to the BP sponsorship. It wasn't, apparently, any fear that BP would be dictating or influencing the content of the blog. Writer Bradford Plumer had addressed this issue in his post expressing concerns about the relationship, titled with disarming frankness, "Are We in the Tank?" His answer, obviously, was no--and judging by the comments he received, most readers accepted it.

No, what bothered the readers was the possible impact of the sponsorship on BP itself. As a commenter known as Nippers wrote:

The danger for T[he] N[ew] R[epublic] is not so much that BP will influence its writers as that TNR will lend BP integrity and eco-cred. Running BP ads would be one thing. But pinning that little petrochemical boutonniere to the web site's lapel--well, it's a mistake the magazine would do well to reconsider.

In other words, readers of The New Republic for whom the magazine's reputation is important were upset with the idea that that reputation would provide a little borrowed luster to an oil company.

Imagine--a group of customers who care more about the halo effect of the company's reputation than the company itself does! And one that pays close enough attention to the behavior of firms in other industries (like energy) to consider itself capable of judging which companies are and are not suitable business associates for a magazine they respect.

Now that's what you call an active, involved set of stakeholders. The New Republic did the right thing by reversing the sponsorship plan so quickly. If you're lucky enough to attract customers who care that much about what you do, you'd better treat them with respect--as the business partners they are.

Labels: BP, Communications and Marketing, New Republic

In somewhat the same vein as the story we posted yesterday about reducing your computer systems' energy use, here is a nice little article about ten business practices that can lighten your footprint on the planet. It's from a site we just encountered called Ecopreneurist.com. No profound insights or amazing strategies here--just a collection of practical, down-to-earth tips you may find valuable if you're a business manager. If the concept of sustainable business is one you are just getting your head wrapped around--which we suspect is true of many visitors to this blog--this could be the shallow end of the pool that makes it easy for you to get used to the water. Enjoy!

Labels: Ecopreneurist, Megan Prusynski, Small Business, Sustainable Consumption

Following other signs of turbulence, including the resignation of the CEO, here's the latest in the saga of troubled Hershey Foods (makers of the iconic chocolate bar) and its largest single shareholder, the Hershey Trust:

In another high-level departure in Hershey, the chief executive of the Hershey Trust Co., Robert C. Vowler, said he would retire from the company that has overseen investing decisions for one of the world's largest educational endowments.

The Hershey Trust manages $8 billion in assets owned by the Milton S. Hershey School for underprivileged children. Among the school's assets is stock that controls the Hershey Co., the chocolate-bar-maker and major Pennsylvania employer, and the Hershey amusement park.

As president of the trust in 2002, Vowler played a central role in negotiating to sell the Hershey Co. to diversify the multibillion-dollar school endowment. But the deal encountered fierce community opposition and fell apart. Company and trust officials revived deal talks in 2007, again without success.

The Hershey Trust administers the estate of founder Milton Hershey on behalf of the school he created and the community he built. In our book The Triple Bottom Line, we told the story of the 2002 battle over corporate control among the company, the trust, and the town--a revealing parable of how the community where your company operates can exercise a virtual veto power over your business strategies in this day of intense mutual interconnections. Evidently the aftershocks from that struggle still aren't finished.

Labels: Finance and Investment, Hershey Foods, Hershey Trust, Robert C. Vowler

Here's a neat little column on making your company's IT department more environmentally friendly. It's from Preston Gralla, editor of GreenerComputing, and it's filled with simply, practical steps that take relatively little time or money but can reduce your energy consumption significantly. There are also links to other sites that flesh out the details and describe various techno-tools that can save you even more. And it does it all in just a few hundred words. It's a model of fine, useful sustainability reporting. Great job, P.G.!

P.S. Oh, and when you're ready to delve a little more deeply into the same set of issues, check out this article and the set of related links. As you can see, the folks at GreenerComputing have done a lot of thoughtful research into the kinds of practical info needed to make sure that environmentally-friendly IT practices really work. A great source for companies that are ready to travel this path.

Labels: energy use, GreenerComputing, information technology, Preston Gralla, Small Business, Sustainable Consumption

Our friend Joel Makower sends us a link to the latest issue of GreenBiz.com, one of the best online sites for sustainability news. Joel also links to stories about how diverse companies--Ford, Wal-Mart, Fiji Water, and Sierra Pacific--are all shifting their business plans in response to pressure from environmental activists. In his email, Joel then comments:

Such developments notwithstanding, my sense is that many of the environmental watchdogs have lost their bite. One reason is that while times have changed, many activists haven't. Yesterday's politics of complaint--of saying no and accepting nothing less than perfect--resonate less in a world where companies increasingly are on the march, proactively examining and addressing their impacts. With few exceptions (Environmental Defense Fund being the most prominent), NGOs haven't yet learned how to play "good cop," saying to companies the equivalent of "Thank you, now do more." It's always, "No, that's not good enough."

Still, as these stories suggest, the bad cop is still very much on the beat. This is a good thing. A healthy activist sector is much needed--and even welcomed by some corporate types. More than a few environmental professionals inside big companies have confessed to me their appreciation of activists in prodding their bosses in ways that the professionals hadn't succeeded in doing themselves. In some cases, activist campaigns justify the professionals' existence, giving them a new lease on life--or, at least, their jobs.

There's an old story about Franklin D. Roosevelt that captures some of this interplay. A group of activists met with FDR in the Oval Office to urge his support for some liberal reform (it doesn't matter what). After listening to their arguments, Roosevelt responded, "Okay, you've convinced me. Now go out and put pressure on me."

Roosevelt's point: Even a president can't always act with perfect freedom. He too faces constraints--powerful leaders in Congress, bureaucratic resistance and inertia, opposition from state and local government leaders, potential roadblocks in the courts, and so on. Sometimes a president needs "pressure" in the form of a visible, well-organized, vocal, and articulate public movement to provide him with both political cover and supportive energy that permits him to do what he really wants to do anyway.

Environmental activists can play a similar role as "friendly adversaries" for sympathetic executives inside corporate America.

Labels: environmental activism, Franklin D. Roosevelt, GreenBiz.com, Joel Makower, Personal Musings, Role of Government

Andy Savitz and Melissa Tritter have penned this story in the current edition of Ethical Corporation, highlighting a shift that has sneaked up on many of us in business--the emergence of "localization" as a force that is beginning to rival globalization in importance. (Actually those crazy Brits at EC insist on spelling it "localisation"--go figure.)

The story explains the new trend, describes how companies like PepsiCo and Whole Foods are capitalizing on it, and offers some advice for business managers on what it all means. The elevator version of their take-away:

The key is to be both big and small at the same time--big in terms of resources, scale, and positive impact; small in terms of supporting local economies and the consumers who care about them. To the extent that a large company can do all this, the same forces that are currently fuelling the localisation movement will support them, making it easier to do business in a profitable, sustainable fashion.

Follow the link to read the whole thing--worth a look, in our not-so-humble opinion.

Labels: Andy Savitz, Ethical Corporation, globalization, localization, Management and Organization, Melissa Tritter, Personal Musings, Supply Chain

Congratulations to the crack Global Rights Department at our publisher, Jossey-Bass, for concluding a sale of the Korean translation rights to our book, The Triple Bottom Line, to Keorum Publishing Co. According to the company's website, Keorum Publishing's motto is "Enriched Lives, New Knowledge," which sounds fine to us.

Labels: Personal Musings, The Triple Bottom Line

Recommended reading: From ClimateBiz, a fine article by Carolyn Sherwood Call on how carbon offsets actually work--exceptionally clear, thorough, and balanced. Call's bottom line:

If your company wants to put money toward reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, look first to make changes that reduce your own carbon footprint. Often, such investments are not only good for the planet; they'll also save you money over time. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents, using hybrid vehicles for the company's fleet, and installing building control systems to reduce energy waste can reduce your carbon footprint and improve the bottom line.

If you want to do more, offset purchases are worth considering. Revenues generated by offset purchases provide critical funding for many projects that reduce greenhouse gases. If you do decide to buy offsets, take the time to research the various offset providers. Look for details on their websites. The more transparent they're willing to be, the more likely that their projects and their calculations can stand up to scrutiny.

Managers considering carbon offsets as part of their green business strategy might want to circulate Call's article among their top decision-makers--it would be a good tool for getting an informed conversation about the topic started.

Labels: carbon offsets, Carolyn Sherwood Call, Climate and Carbon

Via Ted Samson's column at InfoWorld, here are the latest findings on the perennial question as to whether sustainable business practices help, hurt, or have no impact on the financial bottom line. According to a new report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, a focus on social and economic sustainability is associated with positive stock market performance among the companies surveyed. Key graf:

The survey does not claim that the adoption of sustainable practices causes companies' share prices to rise. It could be that companies with a strong financial performance simply have more resources to devote to sustainability. What the findings do show, however, is that it is possible to take a proactive position on social and environmental issues while still delivering robust financial growth. Indeed, companies in the survey that saw their share price rise by at least 50 percent in the last three years (share price climbers) place a greater importance on social and environmental goals than companies with share prices that have declined by more than 10 percent (share price losers). Social and environmental goals include improving environmental and human rights in supply chains, where 40 percent of share price climbers rank this as an important priority versus 18 percent of share price losers; reducing greenhouse gases (38 percent to 24 percent); and developing products which address social and environmental problems (49 percent to 35 percent). Share price climbers also put a greater emphasis on social and environmental considerations at board level.

Worth noting if you're among the many business people who find themselves occasionally having to defend an interest in sustainable business practices among skeptical or even hostile colleagues.

Labels: Economist Intelligence Unit, Finance and Investment, InfoWorld, Measurement, Ted Samson

Mark Powell, a scientist in Washington state who blogs about oceans, fish, and conservation at Blogfish, writes here about the challenge of setting the right tone when it comes to conveying messages about sustainability. Key grafs:

. . . I think most environmentalists would identify human desires as a problem. In this view, people want more . . . more money, more toys, more fun activities. And almost all of it means more conservation problems as we use more resources to satisfy the wants.

Do we really focus on trying to defeat human desires to achieve conservation? Yes, we do. We try, usually with minimal success, to scare or limit people to stop them from fulfilling their wants. We tell stories of impending crisis so they'll stop out of fear, or we try to make rules that stop the damage by denying people their desires. Conserve water or we'll run out and you won’t be able to flush your toilet! Stop driving your SUV or we'll all cook together on a warming earth! Etc., you've heard it before.

It's a reasonable way to go, but it isn't working. And perhaps even worse, it creates problems for the environmental movement. It casts us as the enemies of human desire, not a good role to be in. In fighting desire, we cast ourselves as grouchy preachers promising fire-and-brimstone for those who stray from the straight and narrow. That might be ok if it worked, but with this approach, our successes are often partial and short-lived. And it takes a toll on us; when we KNOW we're right but we still lose, our attitudes turn pessimistic, cynical or even bitter.

Powell goes on to talk about chef Barton Seaver who is trying to promote sustainable seafood using a different approach, one that harnesses desire on behalf of eating and enjoying fish (like sablefish) that are abundant and well-managed, rather than fish (like Chilean sea bass) that are scarce and endangered.


Of course Powell's overall point is well-taken and important. From a marketing standpoint, you never want to be in the position of defending negativity (fear, guilt, No) against positivity (optimism, pleasure, Yes). This is the mistake the Hillary Clinton campaign got boxed into a few weeks ago, when their candidate started mocking Obama's message of change and hope. Does Hillary really want to be identified as the "anti-hope" candidate? I don't think so.

Here is a crucial role for businesses involved in sustainability--to lead the quest for the right ways to market sustainable lifestyles and to make them feel cool, joyful, satisfying, luxurious, and self-indulgent. Because, let's face it, the vast majority of people in the developed world are not interested in developing new value systems (even if that might be a good idea). So our challenge is to show them how sustainable consumption fits into, expresses, and even fulfills their current value systems.

And after all, this is not really deceptive. Because, if we are going to frame the conversation in terms of "human desires," what do people actually want out of life? It certainly includes good food, cars, hot water for a shower, etc., etc. But it also includes clean air and water, thriving forests, vibrant coral reefs, abundant species, and all the other goods that only sustainability can guarantee to us and our grandchildren. Surely selling the fulfillment of such desires shouldn't be an insurmountable challenge for the greatest marketing civilization in the history of the world.

Labels: Barton Seaver, Blogfish, Mark Powell, Sustainable Consumption, sustainable fishing