Not such a rotten Apple after all?

It’s revealing that Apple has chosen to highlight the green credentials of its latptops in its latest piece of marketing. Among the ‘reasons you’ll love a MacBook Pro’ is listed the fact that it’s ‘highly recyclable and free of many harmful toxins’.

This used to be something of a weak flank for the Cupertino crew. Despite its much-admired ‘clean’ approach to design, campaigners used to highlight the fact that Apple didn’t apply the same standards of cleanliness in its approach to the environment, and was in fact lagging behind its dowdier rivals in eliminating toxic chemicals like cadmium and lead in its products, the use of brominated flame retardands (BFR) and PVC, and in not allowing consumers to replace or recycle batteries in their iPods.

Historically, the IT and technology industry has come out top when we ask consumers around the world to rate the sustainability of different industries – without much justification, one might think - and indeed, IT companies are notable by their absence when we ask experts to identify corporate sustainability leaders.

But as the issue of e-waste has risen up the agenda, Apple and its rivals have felt the need to up their game. Steve Jobs announced ‘a greener Apple’ in 2007, it now performs respectably in Greenpeace’s annual ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’, and the company recently emerged (mostly) vindicated from a court case where Dell challenged its claim to have ‘the greenest family of notebooks’.

Ironically, this evidence that the industry is starting to take its responsibilities seriously comes just as we’re seeing signs that the shine is coming off its reputation for responsibility with consumers. How long before the industry’s performance is better than its reputation?

Looking for Green Shoots

It's always struck me that the green movement as a whole made a major strategic error in the way its has gone about the task of persuading the rest of the planet to respect our environment. Massively more time and effort has been spent trying to bring home to us the true horror of the environmental catastrophe that awaits us than on articulating in a clear, persuasive and plausible way what an alternative to our current lifestyle might look like. The effect has been to depress, alienate and disempower many millions of people who might otherwise have become active supporters of change - but aren't clear what it is they should be supporting. If that isn't a failure of leadership, I don't know what is.

But maybe we're turning the corner. Alongside the regular drip-drip of truly alarming news about the global environment, some hopeful coverage has started to appear over the past weeks and months. Perhaps editors have decided that, as Copenhagen approaches, there's only so much bad news about the environment that people can take.

Some political leadership: Barack Obama has been using his 'bully pulpit' to promote a move to renewable energy by means of carbon caps - and escape from recession in the process. His plans may yet get bogged down and watered down in Congress, but at least he's trying.

Some civic leadership: The BBC reports that Suarez, a town in Uruguay has moved to solar power for its street lighting - not just to save energy, but to save money. Others may follow.

And some journalistic leadership: The Guardian is doing its bit with its Manchester Climate Change 'hearings' and report, to which it devoted a whole section of the newspaper last week, which outlined twenty reasons to be hopeful about the environment, including ideas such as concentrated solar power in the desert, cloud-making ships and carbon mortgages.

Our research shows that, while alarm over the environment has been steadily increasing (economic crisis notwithstanding), hope has not been extinguished. There's significant public support for renewables - in our poll of 22 countries last year, we found that the proportions who felt that we should depend 'a great deal' on solar or wind power significantly outweighed those who thought that the answer lay in bio-fuels, cleaner coal or nuclear power. Sustainability experts agree. Americans are remarkably optimistic that they can make the transition to a low-carbon economy without sacrificing prosperity. And Indians, buoyed up by the technology-driven growth of the last ten years, put great faith in high-tech solutions to the climate crisis.

What's clear is that there are a lot of people out there looking for leadership, and reasons to be hopeful. Obama, Suarez and The Guardian are doing their bit - let's hope others follow.

The Sustainability Survey: Experts Read the Runes

We’ve just completed our latest – bigger and better – annual study of experts in sustainability around the globe. Every year, we ask a senior sample of thinkers and doers working within companies, academic departments, NGOs, consultancies and government to read the runes and tell us which way they think the sustainable tide is flowing, and what the major issues are that will preoccupy us in the next twelve months. Over the years, they’ve proved to be remarkably prescient – anticipating the spike in concern on climate change and water as a resource, for instance.

One thing is clear from this year’s study (which we're now working with SustainAbility to deliver) – even if business is starting to embrace a sustainable agenda, it’s not yet leading the charge. The sustainability experts we spoke to rate corporate leaders far behind NGOs in terms of the job they’re doing in advancing the sustainability agenda. In fact, the only group felt to be performing worse than corporate leaders are nationally elected government leaders – the Copenhagen climate summit will demonstrate whether this downbeat assessment is fair. But this hardly bodes well for progress over the next few years, given that those are the two are those that actually have the power to effect change through their own actions, rather than by exerting pressure on others.

This isn’t to say that the picture is entirely gloomy, and what’s notable is that a new generation of corporate leaders in sustainability appears to be emerging. We ask experts to tell us which companies they regard as leaders in sustainability, going beyond what’s required of them by law, pursuing the agenda aggressively and integrating it into their strategy. Companies like Shell, BP and Interface have topped the list for a number of years and continue to do well, but new names are emerging, including Marks & Spencer, Walmart and GE, and companies criticized in the past such as Nike.

They’re a diverse bunch, but what they appear to have in common is a strong, often consumer-facing brand. They’re used to communicating in a compelling way and distilling what they have to say into a theme that really connects with their various audiences – making their sustainability commitments an integral part of their brand, rather than an afterthought.

A New Brand of Sustainability

Jez Frampton, the chief executive of Interbrand, has written a thoughtful piece about the relationship between brands and sustainability. He’s pointing up the potential for brands to contribute to the development of sustainable products and services that answer consumers’ needs and speak to people, while still being responsible.

Undoubtedly, as sustainability continues to entrench itself and pressure from corporate peers, government and consumers increases, the role will increase for innovative, successful and respected brands to reassure and engage consumers – and overcome some of the misgivings many still have about sustainable alternatives – they’re not as good, they’re not worth the money, they don’t live up to their claims, and so on.

Our latest survey of sustainability experts – of which more in the next post – highlights the fact that major brands like Google and Marks and Spencer are increasingly being cited as leaders in sustainability – which can only be good for both the credibility of both the brands concerned and sustainability as a cause.

I’m less optimistic than Frampton, however, that people will be able to ‘see through’ the greenwash put about by less responsible companies as easily as he seems to think – or even to agree on what responsible behaviour looks like.
The two mega-brand examples Frampton cites – GE and McDonalds – have indisputably been enhanced by a concerted effort to associate them in consumers’ minds with a more sustainable approach to business.

But while most would agree that GE’s partnership with Abu Dhabi to create the world’s first carbon-neutral city looks like a significant step in the right direction, it’s less clear that McDonald’s anti-litter campaign will weigh in the balance as heavily with concerned consumers when set against the overall carbon impact of raising all those burger-destined livestock. As major brands continue to embrace sustainable rhetoric, expect to have to do a lot more disentangling of which ones really mean it.

Food Prices - The Silent Financial Crisis?

Interesting to see that Barack Obama has managed to persuade G8 leaders to contribute US$12 billion over the next three years to a food security initiative, according to the New York Times. The Times reports that it'll provide 'emergency anti-hunger aid to poor countries and also help build sustainable, productive agriculture and food delivery systems'.

This seems like a wise move, after the price of staples such as corn, rice and wheat rocketed in mid-2008, causing food riots in developing countries including Egypt and Haiti. Prices have since fallen back, but the latest report from the economists at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) warned that there was a chance of farmers cutting their plantings in response to a drop in demand caused by the global recession, and of a return to the shortages, high prices and associated social unrest of last year.

The food price spike has been something of a silent financial crisis, affecting as it does the global South much more than developed nations. But our data suggests that across the globe, high food prices have in fact had a much more direct effect on people’s lives than the global financial crisis or the credit shortage. Nearly half (47%) of those in the 24 countries we polled for BBC World Service earlier in the year felt that high food prices had affected them ‘a great deal’, compared to 31% who felt that way about the downturn in the global economy, and just 21% who felt they had been affected a great deal by the shortage of financial credit.

Obama deserves plaudits for continuing to engage on this issue despite the fact that it’s no longer making headlines.

A Black Mark for Primark

In our international tracking surveys on corporate social responsibility, we often ask our respondents to name an individual company that is fulfilling its responsibilities to society particularly well – or badly. They usually find it difficult to do so – often, nearly half can't name any standout company. In most countries, it's rare for any individual company to be mentioned by more than 10% of respondents, and revealingly, it's often the leading consumer brands that crop up at the top of both lists – their strengths and flaws are just more visible.

But occasionally, a new name emerges. This has happened in the UK this year, where budget clothes retailer Primark has shot to the top of the list of irresponsible companies in our latest survey. The six per cent who point the finger at Primark may not sound like many, but it's enough to move it ahead of controversial names such as McDonalds, Exxon and Nestle. It's clear that media coverage of some of its questionable business practices, notably the exploitative use of immigrant labour and child workers, has cut through the noise. And it's particularly notable given that Primark is part of a sector that – perhaps surprisingly – isn't seen as one of the more irresponsible industries out there.

Primark has since announced that it has sacked three of its Indian clothing suppliers, who it accuses of perpetrating 'wholesale deception' in their dealings with the retailer. This action might reassure some – Gap, for one, seems to have managed to shake off a reputation for using child labour thanks to a programme of factory monitoring and a high-profile PR campaign. (Whether it deserves to be off the hook is another matter.)

But others may conclude that if they can still buy a Primark t-shirt for less than the cost of the cappuccino they have afterwards, someone, somewhere, is bound to be losing out.

The Perils of Greenwash

Received wisdom has it that one of the major casualties of the economic crisis has been consumers’ enthusiasm for the ethical and green product lines that have made such strides over recent years.

Our latest global tracking data is telling us otherwise, and in fact suggests that ‘ethical consumers’, who look to reward responsible companies and punish irresponsible ones, are more numerous than ever. But what’s also clear is that there is growing disappointment in a number of key markets – Germans are particularly downbeat – about companies’ performance in being responsible, particularly when it comes to environmentally-friendly products. Many consumers are sensing that the increasingly bold claims that are being made for products’ environmental credentials aren’t always justified. In 2008, for instance, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority upheld a record number of complaints about environmental claims. Greenwash is alive and well, it would seem.

An interesting new report by Consumer Focus adds weight to this argument and makes clear what’s at stake – if consumers don’t trust the claims that companies make, they become reluctant to exercise their green purchasing power as they don’t know who to believe. Which doesn’t bode well for the prospects of building a low-carbon and sustainable economy.

Consumer Focus’ recommendations for advertisers (and those who regulate them!) in generating confidence and trust in green claims are that they should be clear and easy to understand; that they should be credible (realistic, accessible and verifiable – they have to mesh not only with what consumers already believe about the brand and the wider market but also with their existing beliefs) and comparable (providing simple, meaningful and like-for-like comparisons).