Talk to the hands cos the face ain't listening

As I keep saying, far too many ethical businesses are presenting themselves like clones. When everyone is saying the same things, no one gets the credit for saying it.

On this note, there are two things that I seem to see everyday, but can never remember where I saw them.

Firstly, the hands of sustainability. Sometimes holding the earth, and sometimes a leaf. It doesn't really matter which the effect is the same.
And then there is this slogan:

'[things] that don't cost the earth'

Apparently nothing costs the earth these days. I'm sure it seemed really clever when they first came up with it, but the novelty has worn off.

Please, please never use these devices again. Ever.

Nope, I'm not listening. I've heard it all before. Talk to the hands!

This blog is supported by the ethical brand consultancy, Scamper Brand Strategy.

Best Green Companies are a sign of the (Sunday) Times

The Sunday Times has just launched a competition to find the best green companies in the UK. As they say, in a world where there are an increasing number of green certifications competing for attention, being featured in the Sunday Times could really help you stand out. True enough, and it is a positive sign of the times that a national paper like the Sunday Times is running a competition of this kind. It seems that environmental responsibility is genuinely becoming a serious issue for both business and consumers.

At first glance the competition sounds like a great idea. They've even enlisted a professional environmental consultancy to do the judging and have divided companies up into high, medium and low impact industries to make it fair and inclusive.
What's sad though is that when you read in more detail, you find that the entrance fees range from £500 to £1500+VAT and the competition is only open to companies with more than 50 employees, ruling many of the most exciting and innovative green businesses now entering the market. When you consider that the only prize is a logo to put on your marketing materials and your name listed in the paper, it means that basically you are buying a very expensive lottery ticket with the only real prize being to get your name in the Sunday Times. It all seems a bit bizarre when they claim in their publicity that companies can be nominated by anyone from the CEO to the cleaner, or even a customer or outsider who believes that the company deserves an award, but then you have to pay the entrance fee when you nominate, so its unlikely that many cleaners will be signing up for their employers.

Overall, its great that The Sunday Times is taking green business seriously, but its not really the open, independent competition that they would like to make out, and its unclear what it will really achieve other than create yet another green accreditation to confuse consumers. Hopefully though, some really excellent green companies will enter and get some major publicity to reward them for their responsible attitude to business.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Eco-nique Climate Positive

Here's an interesting example of the green marketing dilemna. Today I stumbled across a company called eco-nique that claim to be a climate positive company, selling climate positive products.

What are these products? Mobile phone and MP3 cases. No, they're not some nice organic cotton or bioplastic sleeves - just your usual PVC, leather and silicon cases, whose environmental impact clearly spreads further than their carbon emissions.

The company themselves don't mention any environmentally positive actions either (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy, recycling etc). They're just a normal company selling phone cases on the internet (see their main website www.i-nique.com) who have realised that by buying a few tonnes of carbon offsets from Climate Care, they can create a separate 'eco' brand to appeal to the growing green market.

Very shrewd, but doesn't this highlight the problem with carbon offsetting. People can pretend to be really good for the environment, when in fact they're doing nothing at all. They're just buying the right to pretend to be good.

This is not to say that carbon offsetting isn't a good thing. It does help to reduce global emissions, and through some schemes can increase woodland areas and provide funding for energy efficiency projects in developing countries that benefit the local people. However, it only works if we recognise that it's only an interim measure to help us minimise our damage while we move to more sustainable practices in the long term. If we treat offsetting itself as the solution then we're probably doing more harm than good, which makes the use of the term Climate Positive somewhat dubious.

Selling carbon offsets with little control over the way that they are communicated is also damaging to the offsetting industry too, as its becoming clear that cynicism towards the concept is growing. Promoting the benefits while discouraging the exploitative use of offsetting is going to be an interesting challenge for the industry.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Green Business Brands Video Presentation

The first in our series of video presentations is now available to view here, giving an overview of the issues to consider when developing brands for green businesses.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Not exactly 100% sustainable

This week the 100% Design exhibition is on in London, and this year is themed around sustainability. It's an interesting show for anyone involved in interiors or the built environment, and there is clearly an emphasis on sustainability in some of the exhibits and seminars.

However, what's worrying is the amount of companies making unsubstantiated claims about their environmental credentials. We asked almost every exhibitor we visited whether their products were environmentally friendly or sustainable. All but one answered yes and gave us what was in most cases a fairly plausible sounding justification. Its concerning because for the majority of people who are not actively engaged in issues of sustainability, it would be extremely hard to distinguish between the genuine and more dubious claims. In the long run this could severely damage consumer trust in environmentally friendly product claims.

Its also making life harder for those companies offering genuine environmental benefits to stand out and attract the customers attention. Long gone are the days of simply stating that products are green or eco-friendly. Producers of environmentally friendly products are going to need to become much more sophisticated in the way they communicate their story to the customer if they are to achieve the competitive advantage that they deserve.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Farm Bill Food Battle

Free Range Studios have created an excellent video to support the campaign for a fairer US farm bill.



This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Advertisers misleading with Green Claims

According to the Sunday Herald, the number of complaints about green advertising has almost tripled in 2007 compared to 2006. Big brands are jumping on the green bandwagon trying to profit from the surge in interest on environmental issues.

The complaints upheld in the last few months include one about a Lexus SUV advert claiming that it had "low emissions" and "zero guilt". Lexus, the luxury car division of Toyota, was told not to imply in future that a car caused little or no harm to the environment. A claim that Toyota's Prius model emitted "up to one tonne less CO2 per year" could not be proved in comparison to equivalent vehicles. Volkswagen was taken to task for describing its Golf GT TSI as having "low emissions". The ASA pointed out that car's emissions were not low when compared to all cars.

A claim by budget airline, easyJet, that its planes "emit 30% fewer emissions per passenger mile than traditional airlines" was dismissed as inaccurate.

Scottish and Southern Energy failed to substantiate a claim that it planted trees "to balance out the CO2 that your gas heating and household waste produces".

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has warned companies not to exaggerate environmental benefits and to avoid "pseudo-science" and "sweeping or absolute claims".

Its an inevitable but sad case that big companies are jumping on the bandwagon because it not only misleads the public, but it also erodes public trust about 'green' products and services. Its a good sign that the ASA is taking the issue seriously and clamping down on those making false or unsubstantiated claims.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Why should I buy eco?

A new brand of carbon neutral car insurance has been launched on the UK market. Ibuyeco joins the likes of CIS and Climatesure in providing car insurance policies with carbon offsets. It’s a positive sign that public interest is now sufficient to justify the creation of another brand and it will hopefully increase the demand in the category.

However, it is a shame that with their name and product offering, they are clearly still targeting their services at the environmentally conscious minority.

Look below the surface and ibuyeco is simply an online insurance broker, who find you a competitive quote from a third party provider and add on some carbon offsetting, provided by the Carbon Neutral Company.

The trouble is, that as ibuyeco is basically selling two separate things – insurance and carbon offsets, it’s not clear what their brand really offers. With no background information or product innovation, the brand has no real value in itself, other than the benefit of combining two transactions in one and allowing those who wish to claim, “I buy eco!” Personally, if I don’t buy into the organisation itself and there is no clear service benefit, I would rather shop around for the best insurance quote, and then offset the emissions from a provider of my choice as a separate transaction.

What the market really needs is for an insurance company to use carbon offsetting as an integral part of its package, included in the price, and with the benefits clearly communicated. The offering would have more integrity and appeal to a wider audience. If the difference in price between two trusted suppliers is small, and one includes carbon offsetting as standard and the other doesn’t, many customers would happily choose the carbon neutral option and feel good that they had done something positive for the environment. However, it’s unrealistic to expect many people to be interested in paying extra to offset their carbon emissions unless you can clearly show how it benefits to them.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Virgin Blue going Virgin Green

The aviation industry is often criticised for its contribution to global warming. Increasingly low airfares encourage more air travel for both holidays and business. Concerned travelers are now taking action by offsetting their own carbon emissions through companies like Climate Care. But many are now asking whether the airlines themselves should take responsibility for their emissions rather than leaving it to the consumer to deal with.


Virgin Blue, Australia’s low cost internal airline, implied that this was going to happen in a recent campaign that renamed the airline as Virgin Green and stated that Virgin Blue is going Carbon Neutral. Closer inspection reveals that this is sadly not the case, but it is also clear that it is more than just a publicity stunt as the airline is pursuing a number of strong strategies to reduce its environmental impact.

• Virgin Blue is the first airline in Australia to offer customers the opportunity to neutralise their emissions. The money earned through this will be contributed towards projects dealing with forest activities, energy efficiency measures, waste diversion and renewable energy.

• The carbon emissions generated by the crew and the staff on business travel will be offset.

• The airline has joined 800 other companies in the Australian Greenhouse Challenge Plus Program to measure, monitor and report on overall emissions with the goal of reducing them every year.

• Virgin blue has decided to apply special “green” paint on 70 aircrafts, as part of a major new investment in environmentally friendly cleaning and maintenance technology.

• Virgin Blue also claim to have the most fuel efficient airline fleet in Australia.
  

Although not perfect, Virgin’s approach is clearly a step in the right direction and a milestone in the aviation industry. However, it is disappointing that the airlines are still not prepared to take responsibility for the carbon emissions of their aircraft by offsetting the emissions for all passengers. Considering that it only costs about AUS$1.50 to offset a passengers flight from Brisbane to Sydney, it could surely be included as part of the ticket price.

Virgin Blue have clearly recognised the growing level of public concern about environmental issues and the value that taking a lead on these issues can add to their brand, but they need to show firmer commitment to tackling carbon emissions before they can justify calling themselves Virgin Green.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy

Renault Eco 2 good to be true?

Amid rising concerns about climate change, car manufacturers are starting to jump on the green bandwagon and promote their environmental credentials.

Notably Renault recently launched its Eco 2 brand, which is applied to its more efficient cars and means that they:

• Have CO2 emissions of less than 140g/km

• Are produced in an ISO14001 certified factory

• Are 95% recyclable

Its true that Renault have made some significant improvements in recent years, but schemes like Eco 2 are misleading and confusing. After all, how much is 140g/km CO2, and why does the claim of 95% recyclable include incineration as a form of recycling?

Its good that manufacturers like Renault are taking notice of public concerns about climate change, but there is a major risk that if manufacturers like Renault continue trying to portray fairly ordinary cars as environmentally friendly, they will in the long term simply fuel skepticism towards 'green' brands and towards their company's own green credentials.

This blog is supported by Scamper - The pioneers in Sustainable Brand Strategy