environmental thinking

So, on the 28th of March I'm supposed to be talking knowledgeably about 'branding and environmental issues', so I've been trying to think about a framework for it. There are tons of examples of great stuff that people are doing to make products more sustainable through recycling, thoughtful design etc but I thought I'd try and think about some other areas too, just to extend the argument a little. And probably to expose my own naivety.

The areas I've come up with are below. If anyone has any good thoughts or examples pertaining to any of these I'd love to hear about them. Though you've already done a ton of sterling work here.

1. Where branding/marketing makes some form of environmentally positive behaviour more desirable (and ideally does more than just preaches about/demonises bad behaviour).

I'm hoping that there are some examples which aren't just from governmental or charity organisations with an explicit mission to promote green behaviour. I'm hoping to find evidence of business using green ideas as part of its aspirational values. (That's a bit jargony but do you see what I mean?)

2. Where the consumption of branding/marketing/communications/media substitutes for the consumption of stuff.

This is the thing I talked about here (and which has interesting echoes here). I'm still not certain how this might work, but I think it'll reward some thought. And I'm working on a scheme/prize idea that might help flesh it out a little. More of that later.

3. Where packaging is dramatically re-evaluated, not just minimised.

This is horribly simplistic, but whenever I think about this I think about biscuit tins. Once upon a time packaging wasn't disposable, it was useful. We didn't think about recycling biscuit tins because we kept them, they were useful. And now they're even more valuable than they were. So I'm wondering if there's a way of thinking about packaging sustainability that makes it more valuable, not more recyclable. Does that make sense?

4. Where attitudes to consumption are changed through the renaissance of craft, making, etc. Especially relating to things like Make's ideas of repairability.

I guess this relates to point 3. Are there brands out there that are actively trying to build brand value in the idea that you can keep this product for a long time, play with it, alter it, repair it and never have to buy another one? And is this crossing-over from niche territories to the mainstream?

So, those are the areas I'm going to try and flesh out with examples, I'll report back as and when I have something.

But I also think there might be something bigger going on, I wonder if we're at a point where (in the West at least) mainstream society is trying to establish a new balance between rampant consumption and everything else. We're seeing an increasing resistance to brands and marketing invading every sphere of life and an increasing ability to tune them out (or regulate them out). I don't think this is something brand-owners should just bleat about (or should merely attempt to lobby against) - we should take it as a sign that there's something out of kilter about our relationship with people and society and that smart, relevant, effective brands will find new, more respectful ways to relate to the world. Sustainability will hopefully be a component of that stance.

So I'll try and flesh that out too. Any thoughts, very welcome.

(The picture at the top is Alan Fletcher's pencil tree, from the Design Museum Exhibition)

Comments

[beeker]

Observer Ethical Awards recognising 'the people who make ethical living accessible and aspirational'

http://www.create.org.uk/create/newsid.asp?CID=3&newsID=275

[Charcoal]

How about:
- Sponsorship of environmental initiatives
- Defined and championed and spread an idea that's good for the environment

[Phil]

The biscuit tin example is instinctively appealing. But it's not the answer. You'll buy more biscuits and maybe you can find a use for a second tin. Possibly a third or fourth. But eventually you'll reach biscuit tin saturation and have to start recycling. I clicked the link to "packaging sustainability" and was taken by the shot of the bin bag full of wrapping paper and packaging from one child's birthday party - it was taller than the child in question. I've seen the same image in my own home many times. I can't help feeling that something stronger than marketing is required to deliver the kind of mass behavioural change that is needed. A combination of legislation and marketing perhaps, of the kind that made not fastening a seatbelt seem so antisocial and old fashioned, or that makes entering a smoke filled pub in England feel so twentieth century when you travel down from Scotland.

[andrew]

Regarding point number three, the re-evaluation of packaging, I would like to see organic packaging developed so that you would buy a consumer good (a new kettle say or an i-pod) and it would come in organic packaging like an orange skin or banana skin WHICH HAS BEEN GROWN AROUND THE PRODUCT (apologies for the capitals which are for emphasis not because I am shouting). You just peel off the organic wrapping and put it in your worm bin. For bigger, more bulky products which are knocked about a bit in the warehouse (a cooker, or microwave) you would need more durable organic packaging like the shell round a walnut.

[Organic frog]

Hi Russell,
its maybe worth having a look at the WWF document called 'Let them eat cake' on responsible branding:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/let_them_eat_cake_abridged.pdf

[Andrew Smart]

I guess this could fall into catagory 1. and 2. AT&T encouraging customers to go paperless.

http://www.youratt.com/destination/tree/index.cfm?DCMP=att_plantatree%3Cbr%3E

You might have seen this. It's a little sketchy but interesting. Not sure where it fits.

http://www.springwise.com/eco_sustainability/hot_nightclub_minus_global_war/

And this danish organic doorstep delivery falls into number 3.

http://www.aarstiderne.com/

Another thing that sprang to mind was this. It doesn't really fit into any of your catagories but it made me smile. Chevy launched the 'Tahoe' with a brave experiment in co-creation. They asked people to make their own film online, giving them footage to choose from and some simple editing tools. The response wasn't quite what they might have anticipated.

http://zdnet.com.com/1606-2-6056633.html

There are of course two other shining examples of brands that have made social and environmental issues an intergral part of their marketing/branding. The first and probably the best example I can think of is Howies. But I would imagine David Hieatt would probably have a few tings to say about them. And then there's Innocent but are pretty well know already.

Hope you can use some of this.

[Andrew Smart]

I guess this could fall into catagory 1. and 2. AT&T encouraging customers to go paperless.

http://www.youratt.com/destination/tree/index.cfm?DCMP=att_plantatree%3Cbr%3E

You might have seen this. It's a little sketchy but interesting. Not sure where it fits.

http://www.springwise.com/eco_sustainability/hot_nightclub_minus_global_war/

And this danish organic doorstep delivery falls into number 3.

http://www.aarstiderne.com/

Another thing that sprang to mind was this. It doesn't really fit into any of your catagories but it made me smile. Chevy launched the 'Tahoe' with a brave experiment in co-creation. They asked people to make their own film online, giving them footage to choose from and some simple editing tools. The response wasn't quite what they might have anticipated.

http://zdnet.com.com/1606-2-6056633.html

There are of course two other shining examples of brands that have made social and environmental issues an intergral part of their marketing/branding. The first and probably the best example I can think of is Howies. But I would imagine David Hieatt would probably have a few tings to say about them. And then there's Innocent but are pretty well know already.

Hope you can use some of this.

[Yousuf]

Hi russell,

I don't know if there's merit in looking at the "brands and environment" subject from the point of view of "value exchange" - which I read about in one of the Posts of the Month nominees.

To elucidate, if we go back at how and why "barter" began, it was partly inspired by the fact that man wasn't satisfied with his relationship with nature and with what his immediate surroundings provided him.

Today, several thousands of years later, we have so drastically altered our initial relationship with our environment that the "value exchange" is now negative.

Fortunately, time and science have brought to light this hard-to-swallow fact and people are now sensing this deep-seated urge to re-establish their ties with nature.

Therefore, they will increasingly look out for brands, signs, ingredients and anything that comes their way in helping them "reconnect" and "contribute" positively to their immediate and (if possible) extended environments. In other words, question themselves, "How much value am I adding to my relationship with my environment?"

As brands, this could not come more as manna and that too, straight from the Gods themselves - customers. Today, with media proliferation and increasing consumer involvement in how a brand performs in the market, brand ingenuity is at stakes higher than ever before. Hence, utilizing elements (or giving them up) that enable people to "add value" to the environment will give customers more reasons to champion certain brands and browbeat others. Now that's one differentiating factor any marketing chief should die for.

Since this area is still not entirely understood by companies across the globe (my perspective may be narrow-minded or influenced by Asian business practices), many "pretend" to be environmentally concerned and the ripple effect makes it harder for genuine brands to stand out and draw appreciation from customers for their efforts.

Considering the fragile nature of this realm (CFOs call it ROI), I feel there are two factors that would determine success when a company tries to show it's environmentally concerned:

1) Brands as mediators - There were no brands before the barter days. The relationship between man and environment was direct. But now brands want to act as links. The challenge will be to understand why people would need a helping hand when originally there was none and secondly, not to be perceived as fake middlemen in the bargain. Bad examples: Enron. Good examples: Shell, Chevron, Body Shop

2) Customers need to feel they are making a difference - Helping customers change their equation with the environment is not simply a matter of fund allocation, cause identification, adding fancy-sounding-ingredients, etc. The most important aspect here is that customers need to feel it is them, not just the brand, who is actively making a difference. Simply using a product won't work like adrenalin. Bad examples: Colgate Herbal. Good examples: Neau (Dutch tap-water brand), Red

Phew! That's all I have to say. Maybe most of it's already been covered by someone, somewhere. But just felt I had to say all this stuff.

Cheers
Yousuf

PS: You should look up www.brandchannel.com for the Neau case-study. It truly is inspiring and innovative. To stir up the mood in looking for it, it's a brand that sells empty bottles of water asking people to fill them up with tap water!

[andrew]

don't know of this is any use. top canadian geek-rock band barenaked ladies have very successfully greened themselves - and their fans - through the 'barenaked planet' concept coinciding with the launch of their new album: carbon offsetting for fans at concerts, sustainable touring, use of Reverb concessions, making cruiseships eco-friendly, and cd packaging that doesn't cost the earth. plus for fans that are willing to go the extra mile, money can't buy experiences (meeting the band) are offered. they're further boosting their own revenue by selling on used guitar strings as bracelets at $100 a pop, which is apparently also environmentally sound. they'll be in britain in march, too.

[John Dodds]

Interesting piece last year on whether customers actually care

http://news.com.com/Study+BP,+Toyota+top+green+energy,+auto+brands/2100-1030_3-6091611.html

and as for capitalists making a noise about going green - how about Goldman Sachs a couple of years ago?

http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTczNTQ

[Koen Leicher]

Hey Russell,

We recently did a presentation on 'branding and environmental issues'. We tackled the problem from this point of entrance: businesses being attacked at the core of their business.

Examples, among others, we used were: BP, beyond petroleum
http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1
and GE, Ecomagination
http://www.ge.com/ecomagination/

Brands or other actors encouraging consumers to behave environmentally friendly are many we found. Apart from the usual suspects like governments there's a nice example of other players claiming this domain: Proper education of Eric Prydz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivLKzRo48Y

Hope this can be of help...

[Lebowski]

I mention this thing in pretty much any conversation with brands about environmental stuff these days: http://www.buildagreenbakery.com/ I think more brands should design their retail spaces like this. Ideally out of recycled items of their own merchandise.

Starwood group hotel chain in the States is planning to create an entirely green hotel chain.
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2006/10/16/daily20.html

And it might be that in those hotels they should use chairs from emeco which are made from 80% recycled aluminium and last for 150 years. Which is pretty sustainable.

http://www.emeco.net/

[Charlie]

An interesting article about UK supermarkets trying harder with packaging http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2204081.ece#2007-02-01T00:00:00-00:00

[dan burgess]

ecoballs are a smart innovation in environmental thinking products http://www.ecoballsdirect.co.uk/
they have totally re-evaluated washing powder packaging. eliminating boxes, plastic and the chemicals and powder itself. shorter colder wash times also cut down on energy use. and the balls last 1000 washes saving loads of cash. certainly rocking my washing machine.

[anne]

Hi Russell,

You might want to check out Herman Miller - http://www.hermanmiller.com/CDA/SSA/Category/0,1564,a10-c382,00.html

Their green initiative commits them to producing 0 waste by the year 2020 and the support for going green originated and is now managed by a team of its employees. They use their environmental commitment as a selling point – both to companies who want to be LEED (is this the right acronym?) compliant and those who want a durable product, thus “consuming” less.

[Simon W]

1) - We've been doing a fair bit on this. You still have to make the benefit personal; concern about the environment is for some still too far away to change behaviour. The Country Life print ads aimed to get people to buy locally produced butter rather than shipping Anchor in from New Zealand by pointing out that it has to be frozen for the 6-week journey. Clearly there is also the Ariel we can light a village campaign. Marks and Spencer have recently developed a new policy and Fresh and Wild in the US (they have a different name there) now get all their energy from renewable sources and are building a very successful business on being green.
2) On this point, what about buying music over the Internet? This is a way where we can consume, and pay for it, without any actual consumption of materials, or limited at least. This extends to other areas such as books, games and films. We need to build on the idea that we can consume without the need for ownership, for example the Car Club, where you pay an annual subscription for a car, which is delivered, to your door when you need it, but ultimately you don't own it. Doesn't take cars of the roads, but means we need to produce less of them. There is also a bike hire scheme, which works in the same way, even better as you pick a bike near you and leave it where you want, and then someone else takes it. On the same idea there's a handbag and accessory company, can't remember the name, but I believe it works in the same way, you pay an annual subscription, and then girls can get top end handbags, dresses and the like when they need them. Again, it is consuming, but at a far more efficient rate in terms of production as the items get used far more. Finally, Skype is impacting business travel. Limited now but there is a campaign to increase it. With a decent webcam and broadband connection you can have numerous 10-minute catch-ups that mean you reduce the need to travel. Not exactly what you're talking about, but these are all ideas where money changes hands, you get something and the company makes money, but with less production and therefore pollution overall. For me, consumption up until now has meant ownership, and we've judged our success by what we own. In the future, and I'm hoping future generations will see this, that ownership is not what's important, but enjoyment of the product. Instant access to any film, music, car, outfit and so on will negate the need to own it. Consider how much production is taken up with items that for the most part just sit in cupboards unused.
3) On your 3rd point, check out Wal-Mart sustainability ethos. They're using their massive power to get suppliers to cut down on packaging and energy use with some success. There are examples on their site.
4) The best example I can think of that matches this idea is not repairing, but e-bay. I recently bought a chair from someone who lived a mile away. He apparently would have dumped it if it wasn't for e-bay, I would have bought a new one. What a carbon saving.

Anyway, very interested in this whole subject, let me know if there is more I can do to get involved.

[Gary Gonya]

My suggestions come from the perspective that green / sustainable / environmentally-friendly approaches are fundamentally design challenges that in turn may become brands with whom we can have a heartfelt relationship with.

One large scale, and difficult to consume, example is Downsview Park in Toronto. An intriguing collaboration between Bruce Mau and Rem Koolhaas that tried to make a park into a "brand". The park was a conscious effort to use the natural environment as a tool for making the city's real estate more valuable while also making the city more livable for all. Its an inspired re-use of a former airfield.

We can all continue to learn from the subversive recycling approach of the Freitag bag designers. They take your tin can example and surpass it – they make the can feel new, hip, portable and individualized.

Interface Carpets have been one of the first companies to develop a successful manufacturing/reuse/branding approach that puts into action the theory of Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough and Michael Braungart's visionary book.

[Tom Ding]

Just an old idea for number three. It didn't pass fifty years ago, but would it be possible today?

www.vestaldesign.com/blog/2006/07/heineken-beer-bricks.html

[Heather]

On point one, a company called Vessel out of Boston builds on Gary's idea that good design lessens our impact and creates products we'll keep longer. They also believe in the philosophy "spend more on less." http://www.vesselstore.com/about.html

Also, ZipCar provides a viable alternative to owning a car for city dwellers. It's a redesign of the typical car rental company.

[Ed]

Relevant to point 1 - Lastminute.com now offer the opportunity to carbon-offset your flights with fees on a sliding scale. It felt like a good fit with the brand and was easy to do.

[The Piton]

As more and more companies are embracing the concept of social and sustainable responsibility, it would be interesting to explore ways that brands can differentiate themselves form other responsible products. Currently we are starting see a glimmer of messages that are claiming they are greener than the competition. That their "product/process X" has a lower impact than your "product/process Y". The claims are debatable, and the claimants are coming across as compete pricks.

I also see an interesting schism in the sustainable movement. On one side is the organic movement, who embrace earth healthy, natural fiber, compost-able, solutions. This is the original camp of environmentalists who see the movement as not only the right thing to do, but who wear their sustainable cause on their sleeve, and as a way of life. The second and newer camp view environmentalism as important, but it must bend to their needs and sense of style. This camp is more likely to embrace synthetic, cradle to cradle solutions, and are more stealthy in their low impact passions.

[what's happening now]

Great to see so much interest around this area. This article we put together for ethical corporation magazine might be useful - all about how consumerism (and by implication advertising) holds the key to tackling climate change. See 13th Nov entry at http://crickcrack.typepad.com/carbonrambling/2006/11/index.html
-itself full of random green musings. Richard & Ollie

[Vinney]

Hey Russell,

The Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Communication Arts covered a Brazilian company by the name of Natura the integrates its environmental sensitivities into all of its business practices, it seems pretty amazing. In the States, Starbucks has been a big proponent of pushing their use of "Fair Trade" coffee beans. An effort to distance themselves from the corporate tyrant image they managed to achieve in the late 90's/early 2000's, no doubt, but seemingly effective.

http://www.commarts.com/

[vennela]

It's a good article I understand the business ideas is more useful to people If you are interesting. Who are the world’s most influential business thinkers alive today. Who are interesting visit the site business ideas

[Juno888]

I agree that idea, business are much useful to the business man coz ti can really make us best thinker of strategy how does business will run protductable.