I recently discovered that a number of my friends are avowed climate sceptics. Not an earth-shattering revelation but it made me think. They’re not card-carrying placard-waving zealots, just, well, sceptical. They don’t claim to grasp the science – but then how many of us really do? It wouldn’t make much difference anyway. Scientists and experts of all kinds change the orthodoxy from time to time – once upon a time, smoking was good for you. I think it’s down to the fact they don’t want to feel like they’re being told what to think.
In our professional studies as communicators, this crops up a lot. Neuroscience tells us people don’t really make decisions or form opinions by weighing up the evidence and arriving at a conclusion. They follow their instincts, largely emotional, and then they post-rationalise a sensible supporting argument later.
All this led me to a subject I often get back to – why do we believe what we believe? And if it’s all so irrational, where does that leave climate science?
According to a documentary I stumbled upon over Christmas, apart from the oil lobby, the biggest impediment to climate science in the US was the evangelical Christian church. Which struck me as ironic – the group that reportedly dismisses Darwin and evolution leads the debate on science. But that’s to miss the point too. It is actually about faith – who do you believe? Or perhaps who do you believe in? Which isn’t so different to my friends back in London.
And it occurred to me that I do believe the climate science, without having the confidence of having done the experiments myself. Why? Could it be because we need something overwhelming to believe in? I don’t have God so maybe that’s why I have climate change? Makes you think.
I can’t deny it. I have become one of the thousands of fans of the award-winning TV drama, MADMEN. It’s hard not to fall for this show. First, the story is interesting; the characters break the pattern of the typical archetypes. Second, the music and the perfect sets and scenarios really transport you to the 60’s (which some of us dig). Third (the main reason), it’s a TV show about the advertising world, and it opens to the public domain all those little secrets about the world I work in that used to be realities only known by those of us in the industry. And finally, I was getting a bit fed up with lawyer and doctor TV shows.
(To confess all, I guess there’s one more reason: I really like how Mr. Don Draper, manages his relationships with his clients. Maybe not the love affairs he had with a couple of them. But in the real day to day client-agency relationship – whew, he’s a master).
Ok, ok, ok, but what does all this have to do with sustainability? Well, I was reading a very interesting article in the latest edition of Rolling Stone Magazine (you can read it here) in which they list the most “evil” enemies of the environment. The mag’s pariah list includes “drill baby drill” politicians and oil tycoons. To be honest, I admired the way, with absolutely no equivocation, Rolling Stone called these people out by name.
The article recalled something I had just read in an interview with James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Dean Speth said, “This greening of consumption is only the first step because it’s still consumption. And it’s still very high levels of consumption. You have to be very careful. People insist on more energy efficient refrigerators and then they have two refrigerators. Or they insist on more fuel efficient automobiles and then drive a lot more”. He adds: “Consumers can make decisions that could dramatically change the economy. They need however good information, and they don’t have it now”
According to Mr. Speth, consumption is one of the biggest enemies of a sustainable economy (and I do agree with him). So shouldn’t we, advertising people, be on that Rolling Stone list too?
Just as an example (one of millions that exist around the world), check out this campaign from a fancy Mexican department store, El Palacio de Hierro (think NK in Scandinavia or Brown Thomas in Ireland):
Rough translation: “Everything in excess. Nothing measured”
It’s easy to talk (and talk smack) about others in a blog – but shouldn’t we look deeper into our own actions and responsibilities before pointing fingers?
There’s a popular saying in Mexico: “Tanta culpa tiene el que mata a la vaca, como el que le detiene la pata”. I’ll try to translate (of course it won’t rhyme): He who holds the cows leg is as guilty as he who kills the cow.I think in advertising, we have not only been the ones holding the leg; we’ve even showed our clients new ways to do away with the cow.
I am still amazed by the number of young people who want to work in advertising. Sometimes I think they are still attracted by the supposed “glamour” of the industry. (…I think the glamour in advertising was at its peak in the 60’s and died in the 90’s – I don’t see much glamour at all anymore). But at the same time, I’ve also noticed a change in the intentions of young people working in advertising; (as cliché as it may sound) they want to make this world a truly better place (not a Wall Street version of it).
As admen (and women), we have made consumption “sexy”. Now it’s time to make conscious consumption sexy, too. We probably could get some inspiration from design. Think of the luxury dichotomy: some consider luxury a lobby in a hotel in Las Vegas (with all its golden chandeliers); others consider luxury a cozy Swedish home.
Could we call our new marketing raison d’etre “Minimalist Communication”?
Advertising people: Enemies or allies of sustainability? We really have to seriously re-think the use of our “power”. I believe OgilvyEarth is a step in the right direction. Thankfully, we’re not the only shop pursuing new goals.
In the wake of COP15 (and what a wake it is… many of those who were heavily invested in unrealized outcomes are just now emerging from the malaise), we have been both taking stock of our OgilvyEarth position and considering how to guide the next phase of Hopenhagen.
On the OgilvyEarth front, we believe COP15 underscored the premise we have held to all along: that it is subnational entities – namely business – that will drive sustainable development and create the solutions the world needs now. (At least, all those apart from “love, sweet love” …)
Indeed, in the absence of the much-anticipated multinational framework, smart businesses will continue to seize the opportunity to act responsibly and innovate audaciously ahead of government mandate, further cementing their far-ahead-of-the-curve leadership.
As for Hopenhagen, much imagination is catalyzing its future state.
But in this post-COP15 world, as we evaluate and evolve both the OgilvyEarth and Hopenhagen raisons d’etre, we would do well to consider what Lincoln might tell us if he saw us percolating in passion’s aftermath:
“Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence…”
I’m not saying Lincoln’s wisdom is definitive here – given its application to a far different context than the one intended – and that our passion must abate. But the need to amass and disseminate the rational arguments that support what we believe is ever more important now as we prepare to face the challenges ahead.
OgilvyEarth has a point of view about business, sustainability, and the leadership and innovation inspired by their convergence. And like any worthwhile point of view, this one responds to a broader context as surely as it shapes it.
While our sustainability-business convictions weren't necessarily rocked by anything said in President Obama's State of the Union Address, it's worth taking a gander at how the contours of the American political landscape changed (or didn't) last night.
And because one angle does not a holistic perspective make, have a look at the GOP response from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
Last week, Nike issued its annual CSR Report. And in characteristic Bill Bowerman fashion, it delivered big news without bravado. Splash #1 was the announcement that the company reduced its GHG emissions to 2007 levels while continuing to grow its operations. (A 15 percent drop in CO2 spew from Nike-owned and operated facilities despite a 41 percent growth in square footage in the facilities – to be exact.) Splash #2 was the decision to cease all carbon offset activities in favor of more concerted efforts in organic reduction. Why? Living up to the name of its new line, Nike offered some very well considered rationale:
- "Materiality: Embedded energy in materials and manufacturing are the largest part of our footprint so we are focusing resources on them.
- "Investment Strategy: Rather than purchase renewable energy certificates to achieve climate neutrality, which have become increasingly controversial, we believe it is more meaningful to invest in energy efficiency and in distributed energy projects that reduce our reliance on grid energy and help stabilize energy costs for the long term.
- "Clarity: Climate neutrality is not a scientifically agreed upon term or standard.
- "Access to renewable energy: The lack of a market price for carbon has limited NIKE, Inc.'s ability to access and deploy clean energy across our operations. Our approach to addressing this is through advocacy with coalitions including BICEP. Specifically, we support a cap-and-trade system with 100-percent auction of allowance and a suite of other elements such as science-based targets, renewable portfolio standards and investment in clean energy jobs. Together, we believe that these changes will enable a transition to a low-carbon economy."
Despite new EPA strictures in the U.S., spotty carbon regulation in Europe, and lingering confidence in the eventuality of U.S. emissions cap legislation, corporate carbon disclosure and reduction stratagems continue to be largely self- directed, with companies like Nike trail-blazing.
Today’s corporate leaders are demonstrating an enlightened evolution from “identify problem” to “offset problem” to “solve problem.” And while no doubt some critics will decry Nike’s decision to drop the offset policy, it frees capital and commitment to pursue longer-term solutions that will have a bigger, more enduring effect on emissions over time.
Nike’s leadership is also highly collaborative, which not only amplifies the impact of internal efforts but also outward esteem. In general, we’re seeing a movement toward increasingly cooperative leadership in the corporate sustainability space as forward-looking firms acknowledge that the coming clean energy economy can lift all boats. Nike joined Timberland, Starbucks, Levi Strauss and Sun Microsystems to forge the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) coalition, which advocates for tighter federal emissions standards and a command transition to a clean energy economy. And just last week, leaders in the telecom industry launched Green Touch with the “aim to reduce energy consumption in worldwide ICT networks by a factor of 1000” by studying supply chain impacts and transitioning to clean energy systems.
Contemplating the power of these symphonic corporate efforts is a heartening reminder of the immense capacity for self-motivated good work that’s born and rewarded in free markets.
Bacon everywhere. Zombie mania. Airline biofuel. Silent dance parties. The Wal-Mart Effect. What do all these things have in common? They’ve been cited as phenomena to watch in 2010.
It’s that time of year again, when the annual explosion of New Year trends forecasts (and belated end of year reviews) hits us with full force. With so much to reflect on, yet more to anticipate, and none of it pointing to a clear path ahead, how do we even begin to evolve our newly outdated worldviews?
A quick look at some of the (largely) green-focused standouts from the trends report literature gives us a feel for the huge array of forges and fallouts of the sustainability landscape at the turn of the decade:
What does it all mean for how we conduct our businesses and plan our sustainability marketing for the coming year? We can’t do “the answer” justice in a blog entry, but we can promise forthcoming 2010 insights which can put this proliferation of trends in context and offer some strategies for how to act in light of new cultural, regulatory, and extra-governmental exigencies.
Until then, let this serve as an acting “insight”: the principles of good business remain, as they ever were, at the nexus of value and values, and they transcend the trends of year-to-year. In the race to define and predict the New World Order, there’s a tendency to overlook the humble truths that defy change. Yet often it’s in those small patches of imperishable reality where we find what is most important and most relevant to the course ahead. Lincoln called such changeless truths an ‘ancient faith.’ And business has one, too: Trust and profit follow leaders who solve problems, and longevity requires a long-term view.
Those are truths you can take to the bank no matter what decade you’re living in. And regardless of the Fed’s decrees, you can bet it will always be a high interest account.
On the 5th of January, H&M made headlines, denounced by a New York student for apparently destroying and throwing away unsold clothing rather than distributing it to those in need. This single dissenting voice inspired a chorus of reproof almost instantly. How? Social Media. Soon after the student decried H&M on Twitter, a host of outraged twitterers commented, pushing the topic to number two on the list of “current topics” and spurring a reaction from the company.
In the social media-ized world, one voice can make a difference. Fast.
The upshot for budding young activists and philanthropists is that support of environmental and social causes no longer requires the sacrifice of precious resources (i.e. time and money). It’s as easy as....
Another case in point: Drew Olanoff, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in May 2009, decided to use Twitter to raise money for cancer research. His proposition was simple: “blame anything you want on my cancer, and $1 will be donated to the Livestrong Foundation.” After the effort took off, Drew decided to up the fundraising ante by auctioning off his Twitter name, @Drew.
Any takers? How about American TV presenter Drew Carey, who responded to his name twin’s fundraiser by making a generous promise to donate one dollar to Livestrong for every tweet sent to blamedrewscancer.com.
It’s an amazing story, and a remarkable reflection of the growing tendency to use social media to create mass awareness of a given cause. Citizen philanthropy now leverages an individual’s social networks to rally supporters, and Donation by Action has become the hottest new business model for charities and NGOs. Simply by offering a reward for helping to promote awareness and leveraging the power of the social media ripple effect (aka the power of compounding networks), people can galvanize rapid-fire support for a pet cause like never before.
Meanwhile, under increasing pressure from citizen-consumers, companies, too, are launching donation-by-action initiatives as an alternative to lump sum corporate donations and sponsorships, which are now a less attractive means of associating a brand with a particular cause. Instead, by giving consumers a way to engage in a brand-supported cause, companies can create a genuine sense of partnership with consumers and help them to feel that they are making a tangible difference.
Pepsi’s move to reallocate funds from the traditional Superbowl adverts to the Pepsi Refresh project, which gives millions of dollars in grants to fund people’s great ideas, or Orange’s RockCorps, which rewarded 5,000 young volunteers with a private concert in exchange for donating four hours of time to a partner organization, are exciting examples of the new philanthropic model. (RockCorps now rewards volunteerism with a free downloadable album.) And more recently, Coca-Cola and Skyrock (a new social network targeting youth in France) created KoHop, a platform which enables young people to engage in collaborative projects. All of these projects share a common mission: offer a simple, social, proactive, and inherently optimistic approach to sustainability and philanthropy.
The model works because of the power of social media to incite and channel momentum. So, instead of protesting at international negotiations where you will have little or no discernable effect on the outcome, trying tweeting instead. Beyond just forums for talk, new social media platforms have become powerful community organizers, giving people the means to amplify opinions, spur change and build a sustainable future all without leaving their desks.
Now, imagine what the more than 6 million citizens of Hopenhagen can now achieve…
As the speculation continues about the ramifications of COP15, the prospects of COP16 and the likelihood of a Waxman-Markey (or Kerry-Boxer?) coup in the US Congress, the marvelous din of democratic disagreement is reaching an increasingly feverish pitch. If the ENGOs thought they were the only ones who recognized the urgency of figuring out the question du décennie – "uh, what now?" – they’re getting their due wake-up call. The folks hawking the other side of the climate change story are equally eager to move the world on their terms; they don’t think global warming will sink us – but they do think the “solutions” might, and they too are afeard.
This lesser brain has always been intrigued (and confounded) that brilliant minds with the same end goals (perpetual peace, prosperity, freedom, general welfare) can reach such fundamentally different conclusions about how to achieve them. From whence do these divergences develop? Who’s right? How do we reconcile?
While I have yet to make headway on these epistemological conundrums (let me know if you figure them out), I have come across pithy crystallizations of two prevailing schools of thought about climate change, how the US should contend with it, and what the results of those efforts could be (particularly for businesses). The Tom Friedman interview with Amanda Little of Grist and Pete Du Pont’s opinion piece for the WSJ offer two takes on the COP talks and the takeaways.
Concur, dissent, deplore – no matter, at least we can all agree on the glory of the free press.
Did you nail sustainability marketing in the last decade? Or did the complexities of the sustainability landscape leave you cold? Either way, keep yesteryear’s lessons in your back pocket, but relish the fact that we’ve got new terrain to explore.
Sustainability, the free market and their intersection were three of the most dynamic themes in the 2000s. Even painting with the broadest brushstrokes, we would have to write a magnum opus to do right by all the developments of the last decade and their implications for this New Year and beyond. But we’ll save that undertaking for our spare time and leave you with the bulletpoints. (Some of the trends and takeaways may be market agnostic, but all were limned with the U.S. landscape in mind.)
1. Niche Needs New Niche
We just bore witness to another round of tortuous climate change debates in the scientific and political communities. What fun. But beyond the ranks of the bureaucratic-academic disputants, consensus regarding the looming “what now?” question does exist. In the land of action-over-angst – otherwise known as the business community – it’s full steam ahead toward sustainable solutions. Why? It all comes back to two wonderful little words: profit motive. If nothing else, cooling the planet is still a hot business trend.
When Wal-Mart goes green and demands similar efforts from 20,000+ vendors, you know eco-consciousness has truly hit mainstream. While big business is finding new ways to capitalize on the eco-consciousness of an increasing number of consumers – throwing R&D and marketing dollars at all things green – smaller companies and brands with an ‘innate’ sustainability paradigm are struggling to maintain an edge. As prices on sustainable goods and services fall with the influx of producers and providers, niche brands will have to find new ways to differentiate themselves and justify premiums.
2. More Better
Introducing the More Better Mandate – not a grammatical sin but a business imperative. I thank Joel Makower for summing it up so clearly on his Two Steps Forward blog: “The bar keeps rising [for businesses]: What seemed cutting-edge 10 years ago — carbon neutral products and companies, zero-waste factories, green chemistry, life-cycle analysis, green buildings — is now mainstream, or at least warrants a so-what? response when trumpeted by companies. Things that used to make headlines — or, at least, good promotional copy — are now business as usual.”
Which means it’s time for brands to start thinking of sustainable credentials as customer-expected instead of value-added. The logical next step: figure out what’s the next value-add. Time Magazine reported that 40% of Americans purchased a product in 2009 because of the social or political values of the company that produced it. And we expect this number to grow. So, while you may have launched a mostly-green product in 2009 as a one-off nod to sustainability within an otherwise “normal” portfolio of goods, this year you probably need to make that product – and its entire supply chain – 100% green. But don’t stop there. Back up the effort with a commitment to make the rest of your portfolio greener, too… not to mention the chairman of the board’s POV and the CEO’s voting record.
More better. You heard it (used intentionally) here first.
3. Suspect Science in the Age of Reason
This last decade (along with a few preceding) perpetuated the great triumph of science over the so-called humanities in America and beyond. Science became the unquestioned bastion of truth: empiricism over instinct, data over divination, ions over art. It also became something else: politicized. As “data” became an ever more important political commodity, the academic insulation surrounding scientific inquiry was worn dangerously thin. Science became a partisan mercenary, used and abused on both sides of the proverbial aisle. We saw the clima(c)tic fallout of this phenomenon at the end of ’09, when scandal turned climate change consensus into climate change chaos.
But climate-gate gives rise to much a bigger question: where will people invest their trust when scientists are dethroned?
We don’t trust business. We don’t trust politicians. We don’t trust the media. We don’t trust ‘purveyors of culture’ – whoever they are. And now we can’t trust scientists? It’s a recipe for cynicism – and not just for New Yorkers. Historically rational but rosy-eyed Main Street is changing its tune from happy-go-lucky to “that seems like horse pucky.” And this signals a major attitudinal shift. (A Rasmussen poll found that 59% of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.)
Bottom-line: Your consumers have trust issues. Make your business and brands their therapists and give them a reason to keep the faith.
4. Apocalypse When?
One of the greatest triumphs of the Hopenhagen campaign (we’re still not done tooting our horn on that one) was the power of its clean, simple message of optimism. Forget the doom and gloom, forget the apocalyptical messages, enter hope on solid ground. Despite the success of our fresh take, most of our ENGO cousins seemed determined to continue with business as usual, threatening global doom really soon if global accord didn’t transpire right now.
But here’s the thing: most people simply don’t buy into the urgency. (According to Rasmussen, 71% of Americans say the bigger priority for U.S. national leaders should be stimulating the economy to create jobs. Only 15% say they should focus instead on stopping global warming to save the environment.) To the majority of American eyes, there’s no clear and present danger, but there is a small army of boys-crying-wolf – and they may be the more tangible enemy. The task for the decade ahead is not to convince everyone that harm will come if urgent multinational solutions to global warming aren’t forthcoming; and it’s not to position your business as the climate change messiah; it’s to continue to develop the personalized sustainability value proposition, which should focus on well-being benefits and functionality.
5. Getting Persinal
We’ve seen that consumers aren’t convinced climatic apocalypse is imminent in the absence of drastic measures, but we also have evidence that they’re continuing to adopt increasingly “green” habits. (According to an April 2009 survey commissioned by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, a non-profit group formed by the rechargeable battery industry to promote battery recycling, which polled 1,000 Americans age 18 and older: seventy-four [74%] percent of Americans said they were likely to purchase a compact fluorescent light bulb within the next 6 months; sixty-five [65%] percent said they were likely to unplug dormant appliances; and fifty-seven [57%] percent said they were at least “somewhat likely” to pay a premium for earth-friendly products.)
And as green habits on are the rise, the number of folks who report feeling guilty when they don’t recycle their soda cans or do cart home seven plastic bags from the grocery store is on the wane. According to RBRC surveys, 22% of Americans felt “green guilt” in 2008, down to 12% in 2009. While some see this as a sign of increasing apathy and the reprioritization of frugality, we believe that less green guilt results from the fact that more and more consumers are acting in accordance with evolving consumer eco-conventions, and they’re proud of it.
In 2010 and beyond, Americans will be looking to reconcile consumerism with conservation in innovative ways. But the macro-issue of climate change will be far less of an impetus than the emotional-rational rewards of ‘doing the better thing’ on a personal scale. Goods and services that help consumers continue to avoid green guilt and partake in healthier lifestyles will have inherent magnetism. And discovering and articulating the value of these products and brands will be the savvy sustainability marketer’s gold – er, green – ring.
“Climate Change will leave 5 Million Indian children malnourished,” screamed one Indian newspaper headline a week back while top global leaders were undecided what to do at COP15. A study on agricultural impact due to climate change projects that prices of essential foods would go up by 100% by 2020.
Does someone care? Looking at the theatre of absurd that was played at COP15, I am left wondering if this was an economic summit trying to thrash out a deal for global trade rather than a summit about our very survival.
Why is it so complex? Governments taking care of their internal audiences is ok, but taking this interest to aimless levels where no solution comes out is something that is difficult to understand. Enough is being said about the summit, the pros & cons, the deal makers and deal breakers. What is important from the street perspectives is the huge missed opportunity.
Hope was dependent on intentions, on transparency, on shared vision, on cues from civil society and pursuit of the interest of the people. Hope crashed when negotiators across nations forgot what they had come to Copenhagen to achieve. While it is absolutely true that consensus on such a large scale will always be difficult and that agreeing to a shared action plan will take time, it’s also true that processes are only important to the extent that they’re stepping stones. Too much cacophony without substance brought the COP15 negotiations to an untenable pitch.
Though media reports tell of an acrimonious and anarchic Copenhagen Summit, in hindsight it appears that there has been a method to the madness. From an optimist’s perspective, nations have moved some inches towards a future deal. Let the dust from the clash of differing viewpoints settle, and then the common ground would reveal itself & get its place in the sun. China, India and other BASIC countries made their non binding intentions clear, while the developed world declared their own set of goals. These disparate commitments, for all their flaws, made one thing sure: we will all look at the subject of climate change differently. It would have been good if tangible numbers and firm action plans based on common convictions had emerged from COP15 – but in their absence, we’ll take what we can get.
A lot is being said about the Copenhagen Accord, how it was born at the last minute, how it’s surrounded by indefatigable drama; but what the pundits are neglecting is the plight of Hope, how it was shining and glimmering before 6th December 2009 and now finds itself looking for a resurgence of support.
COP15 inspired our hope, but it didn’t necessarily deliver. Good thing we have another shot. Let’s finish what we started next year at COP16 – and let’s build an even stronger coalition of Hope to do it... so we don't end up like this:
December 16th. 10 days of COP15. Experts say that obtaining an agreement in the “What we should do as a global community to tackle global warming” category would be an excellent result from the Copenhagen Conference.
I don’t have too many doubts that this is achievable. World leaders couldn’t ask for a better backdrop to historic international accord; Copenhagen is not just an extremely beautiful city (I’ve been there just once, but with that single visit I was tremendously impressed by it), it’s the perfect idea & solution greenhouse, thanks to ample inspiration from the Danish people and their “sustainable mentality.” But as we have read in the last days, it hasn’t all been rainbows and mermaids. Conversations and negotiations have been getting downright stormy. Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official, said today, “The next 24 hours are absolutely crucial.”
“No one said bringing all the world's countries together to hash out a deal -- or really, the foundations of a deal -- would be easy... but, does it have to be this hard?” writes Alex Pasternack in Treehugger.com.
This last reflection made me think, and I arrived to the conclusion that nope, I don’t think it is THAT hard. We have, as a global community, agreed on many things in the past in the quest for some greater good. And one (excellent) example of this is the Olympics.
So I thought that learning from our success in other areas of international cooperation could perhaps help us to achieve success on sustainability terrain.
OLYMPICS LEARNING #1: WORKING AS ONE
Good sportsmanship, fair play, respect for fellow athletes and working peacefully together in competition toward common goals are what the Olympics promote. Concepts that go beyond races, religions, and nationalities.
At the Olympics you could see in the same stadium Jesse Owens and Hitler, or even the US and the USSR in the middle of the Cold War. No matter how extreme the national antagonism, each nation’s representatives were fighting for the same objective: human achievement through sports.
If we could make that happen against (what I think) were much more complicated political backdrops and clashes of visions, I’m sure we can come together today regarding sustainability.
OLYMPICS LEARNING #2: DEVELOPING MORE THAN JUST A NEW ECONOMY
Ok, let’s say that we obtain the “what to do about climate change” answers in Copenhagen. Well, what comes after that “what”?
As it has been said, COP16 will be held in Mexico, and here we will have to close the lopp with the “hows,” i.e. what the “‘whats” (hopefully) agreed in Copenhagen have opened the door to. So my question is: Is Mexico prepared to face that responsibility? Can we as Mexicans inspire solutions just as Danish people have done? Being a Mexican and living in one of the most polluted cities in the world, I can’t deny that I have some doubts, but I can truly say that my heart is always in a glass-half-full mode. And I also can’t deny that it would be an honor to see Mexico (as a developing country representative) play a major role in solving one of the major challenges that civilization has faced.
So what to do? How to inspire the world? Well, I continue to find instruction in the Olympics case. Just as countries prepare to receive people around the world when organizing the Olympics, like developing all sorts of infrastructure (new stadiums, villas, roads, hotels, public transportation, etc, etc, etc.), couldn’t we do the same for COP16? Can we hurry and pressure ourselves to create more green jobs? Plan new wind farms? Develop a new sustainability regulation framework? Implement a plan for developing a public transportation system fueled by alternative energies? Inspiring global solutions with local solutions. Setting the example. So when the eyes of the world are in Mexico City, people around the world can say, “Jeez, I wish we had that!” – just as we expressed with the “Water Cube” or the “Bird’s Nest” in Beijing 2008.
When it comes to inspiring the world, the Mexican government has made some early strides. (Check out the Mexican Economic Plan for Climate Change). Mexican president Felipe Calderón is going to take part in the last discussions in Copenhagen, and to set the stage for his participation, he announced the government’s commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 30% in 2020 and 50% by 2050. And he has also declared that Mexico will be the first developing country to propose and back the creation of a Global Green Fund. Yes, all these plans are great news, but is it enough to help inspire the global community? We have 365 days to do much more.
Yes, hosting COP16 is a great responsibility. But at the same time, it’s a great opportunity to not only be part of a global solution, but also to develop our sustainable infrastructure and national prowess.
OLYMPICS LEARNING #3: HOPE AND INSPIRATION
Celebrate Humanity captures the spirit of the Olympics. Celebrating humanity as hope for a better world, for everybody joining together as one, for enjoying ourselves with no fears or doubts, for focusing in what makes us the same instead in what makes us different.
Certainly, hope has been spread not only in the streets of Hopenhagen, but through cities around the world. But how can we keep it alive? Lets keep Hope as the motto of every COP, not just COP15.
OLYMPICS LEARNING #4: ONE DIFFERENCE
The Olympic Creed reads as follows: "The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well." So here’s the difference: against climate change, we have to triumph. It’s not enough just to struggle or fight well. He have to conquer.
Countries prepare for years to host the games, billions of people follow closely what happen in the games, and when the games end, the feeling of world oneness echoes for a while. Is it a naïve dream to hope that we could one day see the same happening when a global sustainability event happens, like COP16?
As I said, let hope prevail, but let work and actions spread that hope.
Global warming, animals and plants at a risk of extinction, water shortages, rising sea levels and the future of millions of people that are expected to be affected by a range of climate-related issues.
“I have 25 billion dollars to save tropical forests on my left… 5.4 billion euro for short-term climate fund from the EU on my right…”
“…Going once, going twice…”
Think this is exaggeration? If you’ve been listening to the current media noise around Cop15 these past four days, this isn’t far off the mark. What should ideally be a meeting of nations to discuss concrete actions to curb global warming has turned into a cattle auction. This may all be part of the “normal” negotiation process but, as this extract from Kenyan TV would suggest, it does little to bring people together.
This is in stark contrast to a recent poll conducted in France, highlighting what the French identified as a solution to the climate crisis: they called for a global collaborative effort involving governments, businesses and individuals, and contend that it’s only together that we will be able to effectively meet the challenges of climate change.
Whilst we are indeed physically “together” in Copenhagen, the focus on money which has so far been demonstrated is shadowing the more inspiring, motivating subjects that would be less divisive. Things like the green economy, new job perspectives, future growth – the promising prospective that “sealing the deal” will offer. As governments muddle over the future of our planet and haggle over what’s a “fair amount”, we cannot help ourselves wondering where these big sums actually go. Do they directly influence business practices? Are they directly invested in foreign markets? Assist responsible projects? Fund the carbon market? And more importantly, will they help build a new, more sustainable culture?
In other words, where is the Hope?
A number of cases suggest that there are viable economic opportunities for a more responsible development. However, without an inspiring culture change, funding the developing countries on our current economic model is just not viable. And for the moment, this necessary culture change which is at the heart of the COP15 negotiations has yet to be put under the spotlight. There is, however, some cause for cheer amidst the auction-as-usual political spectacle: The massive popular turnout this weekend will be considered one big step towards truly transforming Copenhagen into Hopenhagen. Let’s hope there’s more of that to come.
I found some interesting facts and figures in the largest Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, last
week:
- There are 1200 luxury car rentals present at COP15, only five of which can be
considered environmentally friendly
- 140 private jets are expected at Copenhagen International Airport during COP15, so
many that there’s not enough room for all of them
- During the 11 day conference, the co2 emissions are expected to be around 41,000 tons
That last number is especially interesting. That is equal to the emissions of a medium
sized Swedish town (with about 135,000 inhabitants and 3,700 companies) for the same
period.
Now, imagine that 98 world leaders and 15,000 delegates can contribute so much CO2 in such a short amount of time. And now imagine what the net result will be if these same world leaders and delegates can’t manage to reach any useful and immediately impactful decisions at COP15...
The irony is as brilliant as it is tragic, but hopefully not unavoidable.
Let us not hide from the fact: negotiations in the runup to COP 15 have been a complete fiasco. The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum, which includes the US, China, Japan and Russia, deleted the commitment from the final version of the official communiqué issued after a two-day meeting in Singapore in mid-November. The commitment had been made by G8 leaders at L’Aquila in Italy in July and the decision to remove was seen as a retrograde step. Few world leaders seem to have the resolve to take firm action on climate change. President Obama has already confirmed that there would be no legally binding deal at the UN summit in Copenhagen. He won’t be there at the summit at the same time as Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao either.
Then late last week, in fact just five days before talks started in Copenhagen, China, India, Brazil and South Africa rejected core targets proposed by the Conference’s Danish hosts in a draft text for a climate deal. Among the spurned goals: halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. Instead, these four major players have drawn clear red lines limiting what they themselves would accept and reasserted demands that richer nations do more.
Even as this posturing continues on the world stage, China announced last week that it planned to curb 2020 emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40-45 percent from 2005 levels. It had already set a target of generating 15 percent of its power through renewable sources, including solar power by 2020. Renewables are now expected to account for 10 percent of China's energy by 2010, according to officials. That means it will have to add 1.8 megawatts of solar generation per year from 2011 to 2020.
Possible?
Certainly, if we look at the fundamentals of OgilvyEarth’s belief system – that sustainability is good business practice. The country's two wealthiest businesspeople, one an electric-car maker, the other a paper-recycling giant, reflect the rapid emergence of green industries in China's fast-recovering economy. Wang Chuanfu, owner of battery and electric-car maker BYD, leapt 102 places to top the Hurun Rich List after his fortune increased more than five-fold over a year ago, to $5.1 billion. Second on the list is Zhang Yin, who founded the paper-recycling company Nine Dragons Paper. She ranked No. 1 in 2006 and No. 2 in 2007, but had fallen to 15th last year amid the economic downturn. There are 17 Chinese businesspeople in The Sunday Times’ Green Rich List 2009 – almost all engaged in the mass production of green technologies, predominantly solar power, but also other renewables. While the leaders negotiate, these folks are going right ahead building their businesses.
What about regular people? How will they be affected, and what is their willingness to embrace a low-carbon lifestyle? In a study done by China Daily last week, 72.3% of the respondents said that they would be willing to put up with some inconveniences to live a low-carbon lifestyle in order to curb global warming. One of those inconveniences could well be paying carbon tax. The state press cites a recent study by Renmin University which suggests that China will need to invest up to 30 billion dollars a year to meet its goal of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Which means, Chinese households may end up paying 440 yuan (64 dollars) a year more in fees and taxes to help the nation fulfill its goal of slowing growth in emissions.
For a nation which has prospered hugely in the last two decades, and is looking for continued growth, it might be a small price to pay for the future of our planet.
COP15 has started and despite the optimistic mood conveyed by some media outlets, there are still a lot of pessimistic players and hidden cards. There are still countries waiting for others to play, to present their strategy and to give their official opinions and perspectives before they show their hand. But saving the Earth is not a game.
It’s time we all get rid of our poker faces. It’s time we all play to perform our best. Only the sum of our individual best efforts will lead us to a reasonable agreement (and at this point, no one is expecting miracles). It’s time we push ourselves to our limits. Each country knows what its “limit” is and what it’s based on: power of influence, growth potential, natural resources, carbon footprint. But why not push the envelope? Why not agree on more aggressive targets and strive harder to reach them? Too much is at stake to settle on lowest common denominators.
The time is now to match our power with responsibility. This is true not only for big countries like the U.S. but also for the emerging powers. The developing countries who attended Kyoto are not the same countries at Copenhagen (some experts even question the “developing country” concept when it comes to climate change). Should the responsibilities of some countries be greater? Probably. Should the burden of financing green development be re-evaluated and re-distributed? Definitely. Technology transfer increased? Absolutely.
Meanwhile, the conference has started and a lot of these premises are still under discussion. But it's time to move on to the work of actually reaching agreement. We're long overdue. (Sometimes I can’t believe it’s been ten years since Kyoto. Ten years!) We need action.
On the official COP15 blog, Senator Christine Milne, Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens, writes that during global crisis, the crisis rhetoric from world leaders must be matched by effective, immediate and cooperative crisis action – and climate change rhetoric must be no different; we now need to back it up with real change.
So what are world leaders waiting for? Real lack of water? A global sauna? While most of us are still comfortable in our homes, some countries, like Maldivas, have already had to consider buying land from neighbors or negotiating emigration rights to ensure a safe haven when sea levels rise high enough to displace citizens.
There’s really no time for political games. All our best cards should be laid on the table. When that happens, we'll see who wins: all of us.The planet. Humankind.
Let’s take advantage of the next ten days to ensure that Hope trumps Cope. Only then will a better future be in the cards.
It has been a worrying week if you were following the news in the UK. A good deal of air time and column inches have been devoted to the leaked 'climate science' emails from the University of East Anglia. Some have claimed the questionable practises and issues raised over their data and software casts doubt on the general consensus that climate change is influenced by man.
This news was promptly followed by reports that the authorities in Saudi Arabia were never convinced man had contributed to climate change anyway and this proved they were right. Never mind the fact that there are several other long term data sets and decades of observation all pointing in the same direction.
It's difficult not to reach for the book of conspiracy theories at this point. Can this - the leaking of emails, seemingly deliberately to fuel a climate-skeptic news story - really be a ploy to undermine agreement at COP15? Is it just a game to some people? Or is it more sinister?
It’s been feeling at times like we’re acting out a scenario in a James Bond film. The villain, in his underground headquarters, is going to pursue what he wants at any cost, even if that means allowing a catastrophe that imperils all of mankind. He strokes his cat, menacingly.
Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?"
Sinister villain: "No Mr Bond, I expect you to die. Mwah ha ha. Mwah ha ha.”
I’m just hoping that we citizens of Planet Earth can be as successful as Mr. Bond when it comes to getting out of mortal scrapes.
This morning, we heard from a friend of ours in the Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen, and she shared some great news:
“Just wanted to drop a line and say hello from Copenhagen where the weather is gloomy but the mood hopeful. The Hopenhagen posters are ubiquitous and the name "Hopenhagen" is being used in a lot of the speeches given by dignitaries and ministers (Mayor of Copenhagen, Dr. Pachauri, etc).
As I come across these hopeful reminders, I can't help but think how amazing it is that a seedling of a thought can blossom into an idea much bigger than itself.
I am not sure how Ogilvy Earth is defining ‘success’ but if mood is any indication, I think the Hopenhagen campaign is well on its way.”
It’s great to hear that despite an ill-timed email debacle and the usual political equivocating, everything (except the sky) is looking bright in Copenhagen today. I only hope the United Nations delegates have been paying attention to the optimism and are planning to partake.
About a year ago, Hopenhagen set out to change the way the world thinks about climate change crisis. The goal was to get away from apocalyptical messages and to start giving global citizens a reason to believe there’s a smarter way forward – one that protects the planet and rebuilds economies all at once. It was never about scaring people into environmental responsibility; it was about asking people to envision a prosperous, sustainable future where natural resources, biodiversity, and smart business were not at odds. We trusted in the fact that such a vision would have magnetism, and that people once united behind it would start a’migrating towards it.
I now fear the UN, which boldly accepted this strategy at the outset, may have backtracked. The video they chose to play for the COP15 opening ceremony, which was created by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, lacks a sufficient dose of hope to make up for the shock and awe tactics that were more consistently deployed. Check it out.
Did the United Nations lose faith in our approach? Was it decided that urgency - not inspiration - would again be the right message to send at the kick-off of the conference? And desipte backtracking thus, is there still an expectation of different results? Whatever the case, my hope – that the UN’s paradigm can evolve as much as the global citizenry it represents – has been suspended until further notice.
But is all hope lost? Never! (I’m yelling that like Churchill would.) The UN delegates still have nine conference days to save themselves from themselves. And regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, I still plan on leading my leaders. There’s good work to be done, and we’ll do it.
Something’s amiss in the realm of climate science. And this time it's not the level of GHGs. It’s the science itself.
When a condemning email correspondence was brought to light last week, demonstrating an utter want of scientific integrity on the part of the scientists whose work helps form the basis of the IPCC (and thereby United Nations) point of view on global warming, suddenly the “climate change deniers” were looking rather sympathetic. Marginalized in the name of necessity and “consensus,” the voices of second opinion were drowned by calculation, and with them the legitimacy of some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
All in all, the so-called “settled” climate change science has become very unsettling, and one has to wonder if COP15 will go up in flames as a result.
It’s safe to say the original goals of COP15 were cooked weeks ago when the U.S. Senate dawdled on carbon cap and trade legislation and several governments declared their unwillingness to reach climate accord without strong U.S. leadership. Perhaps in that sense, we were all headed to Copenhagen with nothing to lose anyway; perhaps a blow to the climate science could be no more damaging than these serious roadblocks to international accord… or could it?
I have little discernment when it comes to the natural sciences, but I do know to be skeptical of “settled” science. While proper research methodology may be settled, outcomes will rarely be (and it is the constant disprove-retheorize dialectic that allows us to pursue elusive empirical truth).
As the great bastion of reason, science must transcend democratic tendency toward majority rules and be preserved apart from the prevailing winds of public opinion. Politicians can use scientific evidence (and do) to buttress positions in the political realm, but science itself is apolitical. Clearly today this separation of science and state is blurry at best. And while the dangerous liaison between scientific enquiry and politics is not new, neither has its persistence rendered it innocuous.
Unsurprisingly, the hyper-politicization of climate science will have serious consequences. We must now question some purveyors of a partisan climate change theory, but must we also question its apostles? Have climate concerned citizens and sustainability-bent businesses lost their legitimacy? Does it follow that the push for carbon neutrality and clean energy is now moot?
I gladly return to the land of the unequivocals in saying, “Absolutely not.” The predicted trajectory of global warming and the reasons behind it are apparently far from irrefutable, but when it comes to the health of the planet (with all its ramifications for human life and prosperity), shouldn’t we be solving for a worst case scenario in the hope of a best case outcome? If we have the tools and technology to mitigate the negative externalities of human activity, howsoever they may affect the climate; if we know the health of our economies and the longevity of our species may ultimately depend on achieving a benign influence on our environmental context; if we acknowledge that the health of our businesses and the loyalty of our consumers may be strengthened by concerted pursuit of such a goal, then why would we allow the proper disputations of the scientific realm (or the improper stifling thereof) to throw us from an intuitive course towards self-preservation and prosperity?
We can debate the opportunity cost of cleaning up our act now versus later. But in such cases of timeframe, I find it advisable to consult a beloved penny candy: it’s about now and later – starting immediately to change the way we operate while still anticipating the need for continued efforts. And who is best equipped with this bifocal lens and the power and agility to steer a world population based on the resulting vision? Business.
Business will lead.
Here at OgilvyEarth, we find that truly sustainable (read: enduring) businesses demonstrate foresight. They’re prescient enough to see “it” coming, and wise enough to prepare for “it” now. Acting in advance of necessity primes these forward-thinking entities for twofold gain: they reap the reputational rewards of demonstrated leadership and avoid late-adopter costs. But it’s about more than good business. It’s about good. Period. (It's symbiosis with a profit margin.)
The best part? The evolution toward Good Business can be completely self-directed. Smart businesses don’t need the scientific community, the United Nations or governments to explain that negative externalities are, well, negative; nor do they need the help of any of those bodies to reap true market rewards of becoming more sustainable. I should add that similarly, neither business, nor the United Nations, nor governments need scientific consensus to understand that gobbling nonrenewable resources and spurting GHGs will have grim consequences.
To find a way to limit those current costs-of-industry is the priceless and unaltered goal of COP15.
So, we found some nasty emails… let’s not assume all is lost. Let’s let science do what science does best: question, explore, self-assess and redress. Let’s let business do what business does best: create solutions big and small. And, let’s let COP15 do what the United Nations does best: set the stage for a choral rendition of these efforts.
These “bests” line the road to Hopenhagen – a world-in-the-making where triumphant solutions for our sake, not consensus for its own sake, is the ultimate goal.
Sadly, those hoping for a climate change treaty coming out of Copenhagen next month are going to be disappointed. World leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit last week agreed that a binding global treaty to reduce carbon emissions was no longer likely. The final bubble of hope burst following the last preliminary meeting before COP15 when even the United Nations seemed to give up:
"I don't think we can get a legally binding agreement by Copenhagen," reported Yvo de Boer, of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Most point to the U.S. as the problem. Bryan Walsh reports for Time that “with the U.S. unwilling to stake out a position, developing nations say talks are pointless. In Barcelona, 50 African nations walked out of negotiations, protesting the fact that rich nations refuse to cut their emissions at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.”
While the U.S. House of Representative passed a bill that would cap U.S. emissions, the U.S. Senate is still considering carbon cap-and-trade legislation. And let’s be honest, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in the near future…certainly not before COP15. This ties the hands of the President and the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Climate Change Conference.
Or does it?
President Obama has yet to announce whether or not he will attend. But imagine the statement he sends to the world (and to Congress) if he does. The President by his mere presence will demonstrate that the U.S. is serious about climate change.
In a recent interview with Reuters, President Obama said, “I’ve repeatedly explained that America is not a speedboat; we’re a big ocean liner. And you can’t reverse course overnight.”
What better way to show that we are reversing course than by having the President lead the delegation to Copenhagen? Many good things can still come out of the UN Climate Change Conference in December. We have already seen unprecedented political and business support for meaningful change. Citizen movements around the world – through Hopenhagen and other campaigns – are mobilizing the public. It may mean redefining what success is, but there is no denying we are making progress. President Obama can help push that progress further by attending COP15 and showing the world that the U.S. is at the helm.
David Ogilvy said, "Big ideas are usually simple ideas." We love living by his mantras and offering up proof of their truth as homage.
And there's no better example of this particular tenet of Ogilvy philosophy than the "Hopenhagen" genesis story. (Coming up with the Hopenhagen idea didn't even take seven days. Although pulling off an international grassroots movement has been several months in the making...)
Read what our Worldwide Creative Director, Tham Khai Meng, has to say about the Hopenhagen story:
In explaining the genesis of the name "The Beatles," John Lennon famously wrote, "A Man appeared on a flaming pie and said unto them 'From this day on, you are Beatles with an A.'"
With its roots in such a story, the name of the band came to reinforce some essential characteristics of the thing it was naming: free imagination, inspired irreverence, and a dose of whimsical humility. Name and band were fused - and the John, Paul, George, Ringo foursome by any other name would not have been so sweet.
More than mere descriptors, some names have their own intrinsic power. They can become synonymous with whole concepts, cultures, and philosophies. And if they happen to possess a little self-affirming lore, they will be all the more legendary.
To use the example du jour: The "Beatles with an 'A'" story sets the stage for creation, and as for cuing broader ideas, "The Beatles" is now tantamount to rock'n'roll.
Hopenhagen, I think, has right to aspire to the same kind of power.
While no one came to us on the back of a burning pastry, we, too, have our genesis tale. It all began when the United Nations asked the International Advertising Agency to help raise global awareness of COP15. Shortly thereafter, about eight global agencies set to work on the project, and at Ogilvy, I created our own little UN among ten of our offices to farm for ideas. After the first seeds were planted, I got on the phone with Andy Dibb and Will Awdry, my colleagues from London, to discuss our progress.
The three of us started tossing around the idea of optimism, and we agreed that there was a special need for it during tough times. Here at Ogilvy, I'm always working to build a culture of pervasive creativity, so I asked the lads, "What if we started building a culture of pervasive optimism? And then what if we asked the people of the world to act in ways that would justify it? What would happen if we reframed our crises as opportunities - and started to make the most of them?" Our muse arrived on this train of thought. "Here we are waiting for the magic bullet to come out of Copenhagen - and yet the place has the antagonist in its name! 'Coping' is the antithesis of hoping... Don't cope, hope!"
And friends, from that day on, we were Copenhagen with an "H." We may have traded a flaming pie for a rhyme, but we think the outcome is just as savory.
As a good name should, ours reinforces the mission: Hopenhagen brands a movement that brings together people who share the optimistic belief that "we can save ourselves from ourselves" and "when people lead, leaders follow." Ultimately, the movement is propelled by the conviction that global prosperity and planet-saving go hand in hand.
While Copenhagen is in Denmark, Hopenhagen is everywhere. But as "The Beatles" example reminds us, the real evidence of a name's greatness is that pie-in-the-sky, synonymity with a huge global phenomenon - like rock'n'roll. So, what do we hope Hopenhagen comes to stand for? We're thinking carbo'n'eutral might do...
"All hope is choral." The phrase is our current obsession, the concept our daily pursuit. And we're quite pleased to report that the Hopenhagen chorus is singing multi-part harmony with the help of some amazing friends.
Recently, Syracuse University's student advertising agency, The NewHouse, launched the Hopenhagen movement on campus. Read about their contribution to the choral effort and take in some sage advice about how to get your campus involved:
To our fellow college students,
As the leaders of tomorrow, we must find ways to influence the leaders of today. The United Nations Climate Change Conference will determine the fate of our planet, the future landscape of our lives. We as a generation cannot afford to take a passive stance. We must proactively demand the right decisions from our leaders, demonstrate how small acts can accumulate to produce monumental changes, and ensure we are ahead of the race when the baton is passed. We must lead today’s leaders so our future will witness more hopeful days.
We at The NewHouse, a student-run advertising agency from Syracuse University, put our mark on Hopenhagen by bringing the global campaign to a local level. Our agency aimed to educate the college student on COP15 and inspire the SU community to pledge a message of hope on the online petition. To launch our efforts on campus, on Nov. 11 we took note of a flash mob event in Copenhagen and mimicked the demonstration in our own Quad. Social media vehicles garnered over 1,000 impressions of our buzz-generating message, and the event, coined “11/11. 12:07”, gathered students, faculty, and local media to watch as volunteers sunbathed on a brisk New York day. The point of this flash mob was to demonstrate the growing impact of global warming—a point we successfully conveyed to the Syracuse University community.
Following this event, The NewHouse continues reaching out with the objective of increasing awareness of Hopenhagen and COP15 among the student body. Our efforts include Hopenhagen media on every television screen across campus, presentations in courses focused on sustainability and green initiatives, Facebook and Twitter messages, discussions with over 200 student organizations, petition hubs around campus, and mass emails sent by campus leaders including Chancellor Cantor, ESF President Murphy, Green Campus Initiative, and SU Sustainability.
In evaluating the state of our planet, we are at a breaking point. However, it is up to this generation and this world to decide what is next—either we continue on the same downward spiral or we step in a new direction, a direction fostered by hope for a better planet. This is the time for change.
To the leaders of tomorrow: The NewHouse challenges each of you to demonstrate your own message of hope on your respective campuses. Unify your student body under the mission of Hopenhagen, and inspire a hope that can create a community that leads our leaders into making the right decisions. Hopenhagen means change— and that change will be driven by all of us.
– The NewHouse is a student-run advertising agency from Syracuse University in New York. The NewHouse management team includes President Joe Misiewicz, Director of Strategy Emily Hicks, Creative Director Kate Overholt and New Business Director Helen Liang. Ed Russell, assistant professor of advertising, is the faculty advisor to The NewHouse.
A heavy smog hangs over Wuhan. Not once in the four days I have just spent in the capital of Hubei province, equidistant from Shanghai and Beijing but in the west, did it ever lift.
Through the haze, I could see the First Bridge on the Yangtze – this was where Chairman Mao swam across and decided the river just had to be conquered by engineering just as he had with muscle.
So while the building and manufacturing boom continues fifty years later and kicks up a helluva lot of smoke and dust into the air, Wuhan isn't set for an Olympics or an Expo just yet. Therefore, there are no big moves to clean up the air. What I did see, on the other hand, were a clutch of smaller initiatives, which might just add up over a period of time.
At bus stops across the city, the local government was handing out free bikes for local residents to use:
You had to apply for a card, which initially allowed up to four hours of use, after which you had to return the bike to one of the stands. The smart card of course recognized your bike usage patterns, and if you became a regular, you could simply upgrade to a higher level – which allowed you to keep the bike for longer periods like a few weeks. As simple as that. And effective too, as I saw lots of riders weaving in and out of the traffic on these bikes. Many of the riders were old people, quite ready to go back to a habit they’d had some two decades ago, and getting some exercise in the bargain. Now would someone hand them face masks until the air got cleaner, please?
The hotel I stayed in – middle of the road Holiday Inn Riverside – had an interesting offer: share a hotel taxi from and on the way to the airport. Having taken a (regular) taxi on the way in, I realized it’s an economically sound offer. You pay about the same. Great idea. It’s the implementation where they fell short. I got to know about it in the hotel elevator. Too late!
They should have let me know when my secretary booked the hotel. They should have told her it costs the same as taking a cab. This would be the easy part – two lines printed at the bottom of the hotel reservation. This one would have clinched it: if they figured out which flight I was arriving in, and if there were any other passengers on that flight staying in the same hotel and let us all know we could use this offer. That shouldn’t be too difficult since all the travel agents are using Amadeus or Galileo these days. Since I’m a satisfied member of the IC Hotels loyalty program, Priority Club, I’m going to write to them with this suggestion. I hope they’ll listen.
In the lovely Jiangtan Park on the banks of the Yangtze, the German trade commission had organized an exhibition. All the pavilions were made of recycled materials. But this was surreal – the Deustche Bank pavilion’s highlight was its sponsorship of solar powered flight.
Why? How did that matter to the residents of Wuhan? Would that give Deustche Bank any competitive advantage? Beats me.
Now if they had in some way linked up with what I saw across the street –
streetlights that were powered by both solar panels (even though the sun hardly shone through) and windmills, that might have made some sense.
In the evening, as the cool breeze blowing down the river sent the windmills spinning, the streets of Wuhan lit up and were magically transformed.
Driving to work, I caught the most powerful talkback radio commentator in Australia ranting about how disgusted he is that children are being taught about climate change at school. His main point: the Government is running a propaganda campaign to reinforce its drive for emissions trading legislation. My reaction: proper climate education should be supported as a great driver of positive change. But it’s his view that’s hitting the popular airwaves – not mine. And amidst his tirade, he went so far as to claim that any use of the term ‘green’ automatically cues distrust.
Our views couldn’t be more opposite. And I was left wondering how his propaganda ever came to be so popular.
Politicians and leaders of the various nonprofit green groups are the current sources of public messaging around issues of climate change and emissions regulations. A few celebrities are putting their weight behind responsible education and action, but not enough. It’s mostly PETA and other such cause-driven agenda-setters that own “our side” of the conversation. Few business leaders are standing up and talking about it in any significant numbers either. Can we assume, then, that environmental issues are dropping in importance due to lack of intelligent conversation – and the overshadowing financial crisis? Climate change used to be the number one public concern in Australia, but a recent poll had it back at 7th.
We need to get it back to the center of the public’s radar screen. We need more mainstream talking heads to support discourse on the issue to keep the drive for change alive. We should encourage our business leaders to speak up about the need for structural change. We should educate the media on the need to tell positive stories about the companies that are doing the right thing. After all, reputational gains are the biggest impetus for C-level executives to move their companies into the sustainability and climate advocacy space.
Ultimately, we need Hopenhagen, the only climate movement to celebrate the role of governments, citizen-consumers and corporations – and to enthusiastically engage with them all – to be more than a one-off event like Earth Hour. It must serve as a constant engine of positive action and enlightened change.
Let’s get these powerful talking heads back on track. It’s time to show them the way to Hopenhagen.
Almost one month and ten days from now, world leaders will make their way to Copenhagen for a two-week-long meeting. Their mission: to hammer out an agreement on ways to save Planet Earth from global warming. There is mounting pressure to get specific commitments from countries to curb emission levels and reverse climate change. As India’s premier daily, The Times of India, noted—"On the face of it, this meeting is meant to save our children’s future." It should have been viewed by countries – rich and poor – as a noble endeavor. Instead it’s being approached with trepidation and skepticism.
The roots of these unlikely sentiments are not found in the science. It has been nearly twenty years since international leaders accepted that earth’s temperature is on the rise and that human industrial activity is to blame.
Climate change demands political attention. Projections by leading researchers show climate change will affect every aspect of our modern life. Our polar ice caps are melting, and ‘extreme weather events’ like unseasonal rains, floods, droughts, hurricanes are threatening the world. In India, where flood and drought already affect more than 400 million people, the results could be catastrophic. Close to 68 per cent of the country's land is vulnerable to drought. A third of India’s great plains are vulnerable to floods, which account for 50 per cent of our natural disasters, and the cost of floods and droughts is as high as Rs.15600 crores (USD 32,500,00,000) over five years according to Indian Planning Commission’s 11th five year plan. The money is enough to provide food to a third of India’s 300 million poor for a year.
The numbers simply can't be ignored. So if no one is doubting the science or the need to address it, what's the trepidation and skepticism all about? To use an American phrase: it's all about the Benjamins.
Indian policy makers have said for years that rich nations created global warming by burning fossil fuel to fire industrialization. Even now, although India is the world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, its per capita emissions are just over 1/20th that of the developed nations. And what does the U.S. think? Climate change is a shared crisis, and solutions - their burdens as well as their opportunities - must be shared, too.
But it seems most of the world's governments are losing sight of the fact that negotiations should not be about governments at all. They should be about people. In a world where actions of people in one locale affect lives of people in the others, we cannot get in the mode of having separate courts. We can't play a tennis match on this issue. It has to be a Kerala (South Indian state known for its tourism, high human development indicators and backwater where boat race is annually held) boat race where each member pushes and rows at feverish pace in unison to claim victory. This may sound romantic and idealistic, but it seems that in our present global emergency, the ideal and the necessary have collided.
The question remains, “How far are the people of the world willing to go to arrest climate change?” I have a feeling they are ready for the long haul, provided there are contexts, transparency and regulations.
No matter how tough they are, people accept regulations if imposed in a democratic way.
India has a double challenge though: along with global negotiations, it has to go to bat for responsible regulation internally, too. And that’s a tricky two-tier trial. Rich India and poor India both have to be brought along.
The climate change issue is now being debated in the streets, the slums and the industrial belts of India. Recently, a coalition of NGOs working for climate justice and equitable development organized a public hearing in Mumbai on the “Impact of climate change in urban areas.” The Mumbai hearing is one of six public hearings about climate change being held in India in the run up to the Copenhagen Conference, and the consensus came through loud and clear: the poor are victims and not perpetrators of climate change. “It is the moneyed people who have big cars and live in big houses who are the culprit. How can our wooden shanties add up to climate change?” asked a fisherman.
Slumdog Millionaire glorified the slums of Mumbai and called for the voices of the poor to be heard. Some, at least, are beginning to listen.
Similar sentiments were echoed recently at the high level conference on technology development and transfer in Delhi. “The ball is in the court of developed nations on issues of what ambitious emission reduction commitments they are ready to take and how much financing they are ready to provide to developing nations,” said Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Culpability and responsibility are likely to be contentious topics at COP15. Can climate change be reversed equitably? We’ll let world leaders fight with the pricetags of climate resurrection. One thing is clear: popular opinion about the necessary next steps is homogenizing.
Outside of the mire-obsessed political class, no one is losing the forest for the trees. We’re not arguing whether rich countries or poor countries are to blame, nor about who pays and who receives. Instead, we’re all aligned on a simple premise: the status quo is not sustainable, but the better world we envision is.
The specifics that will drive our sustainable future have to be decided by the negotiators at Copenhagen. I hope they see that the people on the streets are asking for bold and beneficent change. And they won’t take “no” for an answer.
We’ve all been there. You’re in the foyer, sipping coffee politely, waiting for the workshop to start and the nice person you’re chatting with suddenly realizes you work in advertising. You are now the enemy. The evils of the capitalist economy, over-consumption, obesity, the rape of the third world, the greenhouse effect – it’s all your fault.
Admittedly this happens less often than it used to. We have observed a coming together of business-people and environmentalists which has led to a much more constructive dialogue. As we sometimes say, the conversation has progressed from polar bears to profits.
But it did happen to me recently. And, as I floundered for a credible response, I wish I had memorized the presentation Rory Sutherland gave at the TED global conference in Oxford last month.
Rory, the President of the UK Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, makes the daring assertion that a change in perceived value can be just as satisfying as what we consider "real" value. His conclusion has interesting consequences for how we look at life and sustainability.
If we want people to be happy with less stuff, maybe a new emphasis on creating intangible value is the way forward. From extolling the virtue of placebos (cheap to make, effective and with no side effects) to the radical creativity of Attaturk (instead of banning the hajib, he made them obligatory for prostitutes – possibly apocryphal, but what a fabulously creative piece of thinking) it’s well worth the investment of fifteen minutes.
As Rory says, when you begin to place a value on things you previously discounted for being intangible, you realise you are much wealthier than you previously imagined.
It seems deliciously inconsistent that America at large can be chastised by its European counterparts for climate delinquency - not doing enough to correct our behaviour, not paying enough so that others can avoid our sins - even while our President can be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at least in part for his climate bodhi. The Nobel committee sees no disconnect: “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”
If we are, then we deserve a lot more credit. Regardless, a humble correction to the plaudits seems in order: “Obama has professed hope that the USA will now play a more constructive role…”
Indeed, it appears to some folks that the President just won a Nobel Peace Prize for strong rhetoric still unsubstantiated and big visions still unrealized, and it begs the question is that really all it takes?
If so, then our Hopenhagen campaign might as well pack it up; if intentions are definitive, we’ve already won.
But we know better. Hope is the starting point, not the culmination. Believing that change is necessary is only the first step towards making change necessary.
The U.S. long ago rejected the dream of the philosopher-king. We simply don't have the philosophical groundwork to support a nation of contemplators and silver-tongues. In a country built by innovators for innovators, by achievers for achievers, we've come to expect (and reward) leaders who do.
Perhaps I'm invoking anachronistic exceptionalism here. Or, perhaps the expectation that he who holds the highest office in the land will be a doer is, in fact, fundamental to our progress, both national and global. Whether it's an enlightened metric or just an anti-intellectual one, action is the standard against which we should be judged. Americans deserve no more and no less.
At our recent Global Advisory Board Meeting, we had an intriguing discussion about what constitutes greenwash. Is it just a “know it when you see it” sort of thing, or are there a set of standards and principles that ads can clearly uphold or transgress?
The easy answer for all of us, who make our livings dissecting ads in the green space and passing value judgments thereon, was an emphatic, “We know it when we see it.” And we’re happy to report that we’re seeing less of its most invidious forms. We’ve even begun to nurse hope that the age of greenwash is being pushed to extinction by the burgeoning age of green enlightenment, when companies embrace the rational argument for sustainability as a sales-driver and overhead-saver and take prodigious care to communicate honestly, humbly, and specifically about their work.
This is not naïve or idle hope (so says the hopeful); enlightenment has drawn nigh for many clients and industries thanks in part to greater expertise in the areas of sustainability management and communications – but that does not efface the evidence that enlightenment’s counterpoise remains entrenched. There are still folks who just don’t get it, and there are still campaigns that make us cringe.
I offer Exhibit A, the ultimate greenwash: an anti-carbon legislation campaign entitled “CO2 is Green.” Founded and funded by a former oil magnate, the campaign’s offline centerpiece is a TV spot running in Montana and New Mexico – copy asserts, “There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the earth's ecosystems and would support more plant and animal life. Please take action. Contact your senator and congressman today and remind them CO2 is not pollution and more CO2 results in a greener earth. Go to CO2isgreen.com, because we all need CO2.”
Counterpoise indeed. (A few other choice descriptors come to mind.)
But “CO2 is Green” is an extreme case of greenwashing and an easy villain that hardly dignifies concerted backlash. That’s why the Greenpeaces of the world are after a school of bigger, more respectable fish. They’re hunting a subtler greenwash, the kind against which we must, as stewards of responsible brands, be on especial guard.
I present Exhibit B: Nike and Timberland, two upstanding brands with holistic sustainability platforms and smart marketing, who suddenly found themselves awash in negative press when Greenpeace called them out for what amounted to backdoor “support” of the “illegal slaughter of the Amazon” (i.e. unsustainable leather-sourcing). These lauded creators of Considered and Earthkeepers were caught by surprise, and it took a swift and conciliatory response to save their sustainability cred.
It also gave the rest of us a free lesson: even the smartest brands will be scrutinized, so beware the subtle greenwash. If one supply chain practice is incongruous with the brand’s overall position or one word in the copy a euphemism for the truth, prepare to be held to public account. No fact will go unchecked. No abstraction undissected.
So what’s the upshot for sustainability-focused comms strategists? In a space where this deep interrogation of the whole brand story is assured, we have to help our clients not only communicate effectively and honestly, but anticipate reactions and solicit third-party brand examination before strategies are set in stone and campaigns rolled out the door.
And while we might “know greenwash when we see it,” that simply isn’t good enough for clients who are eager for preemptive rather than retroactive greenwash guidance. Happily, instinctive detection and rational codification need not be mutually exclusive. Rigorous and consistent standards can and should be applied.
(An audit of current greenwashing guidelines turns up everything from the FTC’s outmoded Environmental Marketing Guidelines to Futerra’s “10 Signs of Greenwash,” but none of it is sufficiently prescriptive and precise. Telling our clients, "Touch Luck"? Hardly. We’re working on a new and improved greenwash guidebook for the new year.)
In a milieu where Timberland can be tarnished for a chink in the supply chain and “CO2 is Green” can still hit the airwaves, brands need our greenwash compass more than ever. But before enlightened sustainability marketing will truly prevail, we need to convert best practices into even clearer codes. It’s not about stifling green-inspired creativity, it’s about safeguarding brand credibility. Cuz people, it’s a jungle out there.
Ever heard of the companies who made the horse whips, the coaches and the carriages in the 19th century? Probably not. If ever there were any big corporations manufacturing horse whips, coaches and carriages, they are long forgotten. Gentlemen such as Otto Daimler, Carl Benz, Henry Ford and Louis Chevrolet effaced the memory of their predecessors when they first invented and later perfected the manufacturing process of the car.
Ironically – but predictably – a hundred years from now these names may well be forgotten too, as agile companies rapidly embrace and perfect today’s emerging technologies. It may be Tesla that dominates future car talk. (What’s a Ford?) As we’ve already seen, companies with large investments in yesterday’s cutting-edge models and majority profits from current mainstream technology face problems switching rapidly to new and emerging technology.
By contrast, companies like Tesla and Norway’s Think – blissfully unencumbered by old technologies – have pioneered the manufacture of the first true electric cars. Without vested interests in the internal combustion engine, they are capable of reimagining from the ground up how a car should work. Pure creativity was the first sparkplug in their shop, and they haven’t looked back. Meanwhile, the older manufacturers, struggling to keep up, focus instead on hybrid technology (still reliant on a combustion engine!) and improving the efficiency of existing technology. But even the fastest horse couldn’t catch up to the car. The same inherent inequality is reasserting itself today between "true electric" and hybrid.
Not to say that there aren't many brilliant engineers in the established companies who come up with radical concepts for new cars. The problem is mass implementation of their revelatory ideas. Product line conversion is especially difficult amidst current economic realities. But isn’t recession the great galvanizer of such sweeping change? Not for the GM’s of the world, where the real roadblock seems to be resistance to systemic change that’s as entrenched as the systems themselves.
We have seen exciting ideas infiltrate on a small scale, though, sometimes using the established players (and all of the capital they bring to bear) as a springboard. One of the most interesting concepts for future car technology is a new electric car from Sweden’s Uppsala-based Electroengine. Using an existing Saab 9-3 and truly outside-the-box thinking, Electroengine has made vast improvements on battery technology and charging and engine placement (now on the wheel axles). The company claims it will be able to sell cars to consumers in a year's time – cars that will cost between €35.000 and €50.000 – with an operating distance of 200 miles – that can be charged in about an hour – and will be based, most importantly, on a real, full-sized car. These are not micro cars or futuristic concepts. These are proper cars. The company is even working on developing a kit to convert old cars to this technology! Turn the horse into the car. Now that’s cutting-edge.
Electroengine says that working with Saab is great because "the company is small enough for this to work," but that obviously leads to the question of which brand will be on the cars in the future. In this partnership, Saab only provides the "dumb" technology in the form of the car body, the chassis and the interior. Electroengine owns the technology that truly makes the car what it is.
For existing manufacturers, this becomes a real challenge. The brighest and most brilliant engineers may well want to form their own companies rather than try to fight internal battles against finance departments and COOs. So in the future, maybe the cars we drive will bear the names of these up-and-coming engineers rather than those of the men who drove the carriage and coach companies out of business almost a century ago.
Disassociation with tradition, detachment from convention, ahistoricism, uncompromised agility – these essential trappings of fragile, potent youth are the raw tenets of success in the new century, the untainted lifeblood of innovation and industry. And they’ve always been.
So, Goliaths, count yourselves among the nimblest or find yourselves forgotten. There is no hybrid horse-and-car.
There are, according to a recent study, two types of environmental thought leaders: The first group is comprised of societal transformers. With these guys, the conversation tends towards the kind of society we need to create in order to safeguard our future. They are likely to cite our consumption-driven economy as the fundamental problem we need to overcome. Until we can get away from a world in which we all strive to have more stuff, progress can only ever be marginal. They have a point.
When I fall into this reflective mode, it’s generally a recipe for despair. But I’m happy to report that lately that despair has given way to inspiration, thanks to a couple of people whose stories I would like to share.
The first is my colleague, Haruna McWilliam who told me about 'mottainai?’. It's a Japanese word, which was made famous in the UN by Kenyan environmentalist, Wangari Maathai. It's the notion of being 'modest' about the way you live your life, not having too much – what you might call the antithesis of the 'bling culture'.
Then, there’s Geoffrey Miller, who writes and speaks on evolutionary psychology and consumerism (Spent: Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism, Heinemann). According to Miller, buying things is not about owning stuff or even fueling experience; it’s almost always about showing off. And the showing off is fundamentally Darwinian – it’s about making ourselves attractive to potential mates. So that Hummer in the driveway is really our Peacock tail. So far, this is all ringing true to me.
One implication of this ‘underlying cause’ theory might be that such consumerism isn’t inevitable for rational human beings. It isn’t as some would say human nature. It’s another example of how our biologically-driven behaviour has lagged behind rapid changes in society and needs to catch up. For example, if we can use social media to demonstrate our innate attractiveness, we’ll have less need for stuff to make ourselves look cool. Or maybe being green could be cool – isn’t that the Prius story in California? Well, maybe. The opposite view seems equally reasonable though: maybe this possession obsessionis human nature – i.e. behaviour dictated by evolutionary biology – and we’re stuck with it.
These high-level analyses of our mass culture trends are characteristic of ‘societal transformers,’ but the other group in the mix, the technocrats, have their feet more firmly planted on the ground. These guys are free from ideology on the whole but big on pragmatism. One of my clients, who works in the extraction business, is a good example. He describes dispassionately how, if we all moved to using the most efficient existing technology in petrol and diesel engines, we could halve carbon emissions from transport. That’s just using stuff already on sale and not even at the expensive end of the market. And if we generated electricity from natural gas instead of coal, that would reduce emissions from power generation by half, too. Again, that’s using good old fashioned existing technology. What’s needed is a political and economic framework to bring these actions about – either through creating incentives (maybe through carbon trading or discriminatory pricing), editing choice, or by using regulation (in extreme cases, even compulsion). That almost sounds like the beginnings of a plan.
The technocrats tend to be business people – doers rather than thinkers, the kind of people who spend much of their professional lives knocking down barriers and climbing over bureaucracies in order to get stuff done in multinational corporations. Pragmatic yet inspiring – albeit in a completely different way than the big thinkers.
Like all segmentations, it’s a generalization – it’s probably true to say there are two complementary approaches to addressing environmental issues, rather than two groups of people, but you get the drift.
However we choose to describe them, let’s hope there are plenty of these technocratic types knocking down the barriers at Copenhagen in December.
At this particular juncture in world history, this groundswell of collective pessimism strikes us as singularly unhelpful. If the past twelve months have reminded us of anything, it is both the power and the fragility of consumer confidence.
What the UN is trying to pull off here is one of the most nuanced, politically charged and economically complex global agreements the world has ever seen, and the stakes could be no higher.
But here's the thing: if we all decide now it isn't going to work out, then we can be pretty much certain.....it won't work out.
But what if we do the opposite? What if, instead of doubt, fear and angst, we project hope - 'we' meaning all of us, the communications community, the media and above all, the People. What if, instead of saying 'it doesn't look good', we say 'I hope, I believe we can'? And what if we use all the communication tools now available to us to telegraph this message, amplify it at every opportunity; could we change the terms of the debate (not to mention, change the world)?
As our advisor Bill Becker writes on the Huffington Post this week, we are about to find out.
Bill Becker, and those who think the way he does, give us Hope. Read Bill's article here.
Climate Week, Advertising Week, the Climate Summit, the UN General Assembly, The Clinton Global Initiative, the official launch of Hopenhagen and Ogilvy Earth’s first Global Advisory Board meeting…no wonder there was total gridlock on the streets of New York this week.
Here’s a quick run down of the events from our perspective On Monday, the Secretary General opened Climate Week and thanked the Hopenhagen team for their support. OgilvyEarth’s Kelly Stephenson spoke at an AdWeek panel on the carbon impacts of the media supply chain. Read more.
On Tuesday, our advisors Bill Becker of the US-based Presidential Climate Action Project and Jeunesse Park of South Africa’s Food and Trees for Africa arrived with us and gave the agency food for thought with dispatches from the sustainability movement on two very different continents.
Wednesday morning saw OgilvyEarth participating in two AdWeek events. In The Road to Hopenhagen, planner Freya Williams and Worldwide Creative Director Tham Khai Meng shared the Hopenhagen strategy and creative work, with Khai imploring everyone to join the most important movement of our times. In The Business of Hope, OgilvyEarth’s Seth Farbman led Bill Becker, Jeunesse Park, Andrew Winston, author of Green Recovery, Ben Goldhirsch of GOOD and Abigail Rodgers of Coca Cola in a wide-ranging discussion on the role of corporations in the transition to a sustainable economy. Read more.
Wednesday evening saw us connect with Bill, Jeunesse, prominent Chinese environmental journalist and activist Ma Jun and from Australia, Ian Higgins, former leader of NGOs such as WWF. more soon on the productive dialogue which emerged from that meeting. And on Thursday we met with our friends at Global Observatory to discuss plans for Hopenhagen (have you signed up yet?). And that's not the half of it.
A busy week. But there are now only 71 days to Copenhagen. Climate Week may have come to an end but really, we are just getting started.
It promises to be the biggest show on Earth. If you thought the Beijing Olympics were China’s coming out party, you were just watching the trailer. It is one thing to keep Beijing’s skies clear for two weeks. Managing the ecological impact of a six month event is an entirely different challenge. And if Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was supremely alarmist, everything about the Shanghai Expo could fill the world with hope. Hope about sustainability.
Let’s start with the pavilions.
A 302-kilowatt solar system has already been installed on the China Pavilion’s 68-meter platform and its 60-meter sightseeing platform. The solar panels on the Theme Pavilion cover 26,000 square meters of roof space. All designs use Chinese technology.
The six "Sun Valley" structures along the Expo Boulevard link the four major venues and resemble the open ends of shimmering trumpets. Made from steel, film and a special kind of plastic – these funnel sunlight into underground levels to save energy.
Norway’s pavilion, “Powered by Nature," illustrates how the energy and power of nature can affect people, as well as explores the relationship between cities and suburban areas. Visitors will be invited to experience city life, creativity and recreation in a natural environment. The Pavilion is not being constructed from scratch but is being assembled using prefabricated laminated wood building kits and bamboo shipped in from Norway.
Japan, which hosted the 2005 World Expo in Aichi, will have a semi-circular "breathing" pavilion next year. One of the largest at the Shanghai Expo, it will make efficient use of natural resources with solar energy batteries and a double-layer membrane that can filter sunshine to highlight how technology can improve lives.
The Swiss Pavilion gets a thumbs-up from treehugger.com. Its outer curtain walls are made of biodegradable soybean and dye-sensitized solar cells which generate electricity. The fibre of the curtain walls – which present the image of a forest, will decompose a mere two weeks after being disposed in the soil.
It is estimated the gross capacity of solar power for the Expo garden will hit 4.7 billion kilowatts.
Then there’s transportation. Even as Shanghai’s underground metro expansion is in hyperdrive – the United Nations Environment Program (read their report here: http://www.unep.org/pdf/PressReleases/SHANGHAI_REPORT_FullReport.pdf) has lauded the city’s 400 km mass transit network - around 1,000 vehicles using clean energy will be put into use before May to help achieve the goal of "zero emissions."
SAIC Motor Corp will produce these vehicles powered by clean energy from next month to serve visitors at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. About 500 vehicles will be used inside the Expo site and for linkage lines, including zero-emission super-capacitor buses, fuel-cell vehicles and electric buses, Another 500 low-emission vehicles, including hybrid buses, will be used in the area surrounding the Expo site. The super-capacitor buses and electric buses will serve as free shuttle buses for Expo visitors. Buses will be able to change batteries when needed at stations around the Expo site. Once the Expo is over, these buses will be used in the city’s public transportation network. (Thanks to Ogilvy PR’s Michael Darragh for this tip).
But these are big moves with potentially big impact. What makes it all very interesting is the small moves, often consumer led, which are gathering momentum. Touchevents, a small company, recently launched a competition asking Shanghainese to create sculptures and collages out of their trash. They invited participants to use materials from their homes, offices, schools and neighbourhoods to create eco-art – thus raising consciousness about recycling. These creations will soon be exhibited in public locations, and everyone can vote on the best designs on their website www.touchmedia.cn. A total of Rmb 50,000 will be given out as prizes, and the best four designs will be displayed on Touchmedia taxi screens throughout October. Go ahead, download the competition entry video here: http://www.touchmedia.cn/download/ecoarttvc.rar
Keep watching this space as we track how these moves open up opportunities for our brands!
I never stopped to question the dogmatic notion that a whole is the sum of its parts. But when I unexpectedly ran across an old Time Magazine article about William Ernest Hocking, a 20th Century philosopher who wrote that “meaning descends from the whole to the parts,” my dogma did a double-take. While Hocking applies this revelation to a theist world-vision, I find it compelling from a geopolitical perspective, especially applicable to (what else?) COP15. If the whole informs the parts, predating and prefiguring, it would seem that generally a Good Whole must dictate Good Parts. Now exchange ‘whole’ for ‘vision’ and ‘parts’ for ‘actions’ and a similar relationship should apply: Good Vision should dictate Good Actions.
Those who live the well-considered life enjoy an experiential understanding of this phenomenon: by setting the right goals, they create a clear road of right actions.
But what’s it all got to do with OgilvyEarth? For starters, it’s an integral piece of the philosophy behind the Hopenhagen Campaign. Hopenhagen provides the overarching good vision for the outcome of COP15 – in other words, it creates the ‘whole’ whose meaning will descend to the broad audience of individuals, or ‘parts.’ The individuals then become architects of its fruition through good action. It’s kind of Norman Vincent Peale meets climate change. And it’s a powerful thing.
But the philosophy of the campaign and the philosophy of hope itself, so integral to its progress, are distinct, even while they’re mutually perpetuating. Since so much of Hopenhagen has to do with that most charming of four-letter words, it’s worth a deeper look…
THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOPE
It’s fair to say that big Ideas (you know, the kind where nouns get capitalized) begin in the realm of philosophy and then chart a course (I’ll let reader decide if it’s a level road or long descent) to social sciences, then podiums, then classrooms, then politics, then best-sellers, then banner ads.
So how has Hope made its way?
The high-level Inquiries began with guys like Gabriel Marcel, who, in a World War-era milieu saw cause to conclude that we live in a broken world. (Take heart, our fear/despair is not new!) With this brokenness serving as a sort of call to intellectual action, Marcel determined that hope, as the reverse of existential despair, was a part of the antidote. Not just that, he believed Hope moved people from their dark solitude towards a brighter communion with their fellow men: “No doubt the solitary consciousness can achieve resignation… For hope, which is just the opposite of resignation, something more is required. There can be no hope that does not constitute itself through a we and for a we. I would be tempted to say that all hope is at the bottom choral.” (Tragic Wisdom and Beyond, 1973).
At it’s core, the spirit of Hopenhagen feels like an outgrowth of this philosophy; it's nothing if not choral. But the power of the campaign's language is derived from post-philosophical developments. Thanks to politics, the word hope has itself turned into a social galvanizer.
Reagan ran an entire presidential campaign on the basis of practicalized hope, and he perhaps altered American rhetorical standards and popular expectations as a result. Most recently, Obama moved hope from politics to bestsellers, proving it could be a sales-driver in both bottom-line and electoral terms. (Thank you, Audacity.) Not surprisingly, somewhere along the way the concept lost some of the definitional rigor fought out by the philosophers (it’s now considered roughly interchangeable with “optimism”), but it has no doubt gained emotional currency.
Hope, however changed, is a particularly compelling force in the moment at hand, when the climate/economy dual-crisis serves as a tyrannizing context for all of us. Bombarded by these independent and universal challenges – a double dose of oppression – most of us crave relief, and our mental respite comes from hoping. In the absence of clear fight or flight options, our instinct is to hope.
It just so happens that identifying and publicly legitimizing instinct is one of the marketer’s prized skills. So when OgilvyEarth joined the fight against climate change, we knew what message to send.
(And we aren’t alone. Check out “Positive Thinking for a Cooler World” in the New Scientist, which addresses this theme, or The Geography of Hope, which capitalizes on it.)
More than that, we saw that the human response to prolonged crisis – that is, to nurture abstract belief that solutions are possible – and the advent of mass climate change awareness seem to present a rare and wonderful opportunity for individual instinct and common good to align.
How? We instinctively maintain hope that solutions are possible, and now we know that the solutions we seek (i.e. sustainable technologies) can benefit everyone. To return to Hocking's point, this is our whole - our great vision; and it will come to fruition only through great actions. It's no idle philosophy of hope. This is the charter of Hopenhagen.
It’s seems like you can toss “eco” in front of about just about any word to score a few quick green points. When you read you begin with A-B-C, and when you evolve your brand – or do just about anything else these days – you begin with e-c-o. I offer an illustrative ditty (and if the alpen spirit of Maria joins you through these next few lines, blame it on the green drapery she made the Von Trapp kids wear; the outfits screamed eco-chic well ahead of their time):
Eco-energy (harnessing the sun)
Eco-friendly (a name I call myself)
Eco-politics (a smarter way to run)
Eco-conscious (when you’re nobler by a thread)
Eco-marketing (a campaign to make sales go)
Eco-jargon (overused as jam on bread)
Eco-fatigue (brings us back to outworn ‘eco’!)
We all know that marketing is a game of persuasion. And when it comes to super-trendy missions like becoming a sustainablebrand (…or slightly less trendy – teaching rebellious children to sing), that persuasion has to work in two-part harmony: not only does the language need to be fresh and compelling – the driving concept behind it has to be right on pitch (i.e. bulletproof). Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Tell that to Exxon.
Walking the talk in sustainability land is no easy romp through the Alps. In a world of hyper-tuned in consumers armed with lots of info and little patience, the difference between a brand-consumer love affair and a crashed romance rests on how well the marketer can perform the very intricate steps in a very tricky communications/strategy dance. (“Better beware, be canny and careful. Baby you’re on the brink.”)
Ogilvy’s own Miles Young, Ogilvy Group CEO and OgilvyEarth champion, sheds some light on the subject in a recent article in Contagious Magazine called "Beating Eco-Fatigue." Read what Miles and other admosphere luminaries have to say about top brands that have donned – for good or green-gilled ill – an eco-agenda.
Responsibility. It would be strange to leave this topic out of all the entries on this blog. It’s not a new concept, sure, but at the end of the day we support Responsible Marketing, so we better have a point of view.
“Responsibility” has been on my radar in the last few days, and it seems to me that the search or demand for it is often related to size: we expect responsible acts from the big ones, the strong ones. We look for and demand responsibility from the US, China or the EU. We expect and demand responsibility from Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola. Microsoft or Unilever.
It reminds me of a phrase I heard some years ago: “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Yep, Spiderman said it (ok, he probably wasn’t the first to say it, but he was definitely the most influential!). Recalling Spidey’s immortal words made me reflect anew on the concept of “power.” We normally associate power with resources, assets, capital – the visible trappings of affluence. But there’s something wrong with this correlation, and I think we’re beginning to see a shift in perspective.
Why? Because power is about influence, and influence is not won only through money or size. Nowadays, we are seeing that this ability to influence is more strongly tied to values: honesty, transparency, consistency, among many others. When it comes to brands, people are looking beyond the label. As consumers, we are paying more attention to brand values – not only what they preach, but what comes to life in every action (even in their production line).
Understanding that power also comes through values (and bringing back to Spiderman’s wisdom) we can conclude, with great values, comes great responsibility.
Look at Sigg Water Bottles. Sigg isn’t a huge company, but people demand and expect greater responsibility from it because such laudable values define and drive its mission.
For several years now, Sigg has earned consumer (we could say “fan”) respect not only for great products, but also because for its commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility – i.e. its values. If you were leading a green life, you probably had a Sigg bottle. And that alignment of values created huge consumer loyalty.
But, ah, how quickly the tides can turn. This loved and followed brand crossed the (extremely) thin “love/hate” line in a matter of days.
What detonated a sudden “love-to-hate” reaction from people wasn’t the fact that Sigg was found to be producing bottles with some tiny levels of BPA (Biosphenol A), but that the company’s response to the problem was neither strong nor swift enough. Some people thought that Sigg’s reaction didn’t demonstrate enough transparency, boldness and commitment. The brand failed to live up to fans’ high expectations. Now even Patagonia, another widely respected brand in the world of sustainability, is likely to put an end to co-marketing efforts with Sigg.
So, why is this happening? We could think of plenty of companies that would be more “appealing” targets for attack. Why does it seem that the “good guys” are paying too dearly for the high standards wrought by their own goodness?
If you build expectations, you have to be able to build up to them – to exceed them with aplomb. But as the Sigg case demonstrates, when the expectations are based on strong values, they become even more important, even closer to the heart and even less flexible. When those values are betrayed, the reaction from the loyalists is stronger than any “outsider” condemnation could be. That said, plenty of case history suggests that brands with fanatics can actually heal much faster and easier than brands with milquetoast loyals, even after such a fall from grace. But I think that as strong brand values translate more directly into power, recovery will get a bit harder. Great product history can admit some flaws (and can be forgiven), but values can’t. A chink in the "value chain" is irreperable.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t encourage our brands to pursue and fight for strong core values, such as transparency – I would argue for the total opposite. But we have to be aware of the expectations these values elicit and the self-made standards they set.
Marketing wisdom says that it takes 100 years to build trust and just 1 second to lose it.
Agreed. But I still think Spidey said it best: “with great power, comes great responsibility,” and in these times, when deep and explicitly-stated values are at stake, that responsibility becomes yet greater.
The city of the old steel empires once laid claim to little more. Tragic as any reminder of extinguished greatness must be, Pittsburgh was for many years the refuse that post-industrial America tried to sweep under her doormat. Philadelphia’s ugly stepsister, not even a cheesesteak to its name, the so-called Smoky City even smelt bad.
But, as Tocqueville told us (and I believe it still holds true), “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” And repair faults, Pittsburgh did. A whole lot of them.
What happens when you combine one of America’s dingiest, down-and-out cities with clean innovation and post-steel telos? You get transformation worthy of a flash graphic. Seriously, just look what a dose of green business can do.
A decade ago, Pittsburgh was dying. Most of us had written her off. Now, with clean(er) water and air, a spate of green construction, cutting-edge commuter strategies, and three new wind farms, Pittsburgh is a vibrant role model with a second lease on life.
Cities are incredibly resilient and incredibly adaptable. They can change much faster than states or the federal government (the burliest bureaucratic bohemoth of all) thanks to streamlined leadership structures; they are often the closest we get to direct democracy in America. As Tocqueville saw it, "In the townships as everywhere else, the people are the source of power; but nowhere do they exercise their power more immediately." (I'm stretching his definition of 'township' to include Pittsburgh et al, and I beg T's pardon.)
That’s one of the reasons OgilvyEarth Expert Panel member and Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, Bill Becker, thinks so much of them – they’re the seat of people power, and they can adapt fast.
Becker considers cities one of the two main forces that will drive the green revolution (and all the prospering that comes with it), with business being the other. He writes in a recent blog, “Whatever agreements emerge from Congress this summer and from Copenhagen next December, the fate of the planet will remain largely in the hands of our corporations and cities.” But if you told me a decade ago that Pittsburgh would be a strong piece of supporting evidence, not even Tocqueville’s backup would have assuaged deep fear over our shared destiny. Today, though, cheesesteaks and cracked bells or no, Pittsburgh is a tremendous source of hope.
In fact, I’m going to type that in at Hopenhagen.org. (Have you written your message of hope yet?)
Most policy statements around addressing climate change include some kind of analysis – either explicitly or implicitly – of “who does what”. There’s an implicit understanding that there are some measures to be taken by government, some by businesses and some by individuals.
So far, so patently obvious. But, on closer inspection, this might be a bigger deal than it first appears.
Firstly, some studies have shown that a significant obstacle to people changing their behaviour is their sense of “fairness” – I’ll do my bit, but only if others do theirs too. (An example is ‘Warm Words’ a report by the Institute for Public Policy research.)
Secondly, for many years now, we have been observing a steadily increasing disillusionment with traditional authority figures in society – notably, government and business. If we don’t trust the authorities to do their bit, it could be a brake on the rest of us making our own contribution.
So where do the ‘ordinary people’ see the locus of responsibility when it comes to tackling climate change?
In the UK, the research is pretty clear. People believe it’s government and businesses – not individuals – who hold the key.
Check out the Central Office of Information’s report for DEFRA (the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). More than half of respondents believe government and business have a “large influence” on limiting climate change, while nearly half believe individuals have only a “little influence”.
Wondering whether this was a uniquely British point of view, I dug out a couple of global studies for comparison.
According to HSBC’s Global Climate Confidence Monitor (conducted around the same time as DEFRA's UK research), consumers everywhere except China – a story in itself – agree that businesses and (especially) governments could and should be doing more, while NGOs are already thought to be punching above their weight.
As for individuals, the feeling in the EU, Canada and Australia seems to be that we’re already doing our bit. In Asia, the BRIC economies and the US, there’s a stronger sense that we need to do more.
As far as the UK is concerned, however, I’m tempted to draw a slightly alarming conclusion. Around half of carbon emissions come from activities in our everyday lives – from our homes, cars and consumption. If in Europe, we, as individuals, expect others to bear the burden of addressing climate change, it looks worryingly like we’re simply evading our responsibilities.
But let’s end on an upbeat: this presents a great opportunity for businesses. We crave their leadership, and if they can deliver the innovations that make it easy for us to decrease our everyday footprint, everyone wins.
The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency, reports that about 40 percent of China’s $586 billion stimulus package has been allocated to green business and infrastructure, including environmental protection, transportation and power grids.
In terms of pure monetary value the roughly $221.3 billion green stimulus package is quite simply the largest in the world. In comparison, the U.S. Congress approved roughly $112 billion worth of green initiatives as part of its $787 billion stimulus bill.
So the race is on. Who will bag the greatest share of this pie? Which company will transform itself from a bit player with an interesting technology to tomorrow’s renewable energy ExxonMobil?
This being China, it is inevitable that those companies which promise to make the government and the officials look good will get a head start over others which look at this as a pure business opportunity. Green is not just an economic imperative. It is today a political imperative, even if there is no ‘Green Party’ in China. (Will green politics translate into green jobs? Quite possibly. Out of the nearly two million people around the world are employed in renewable energy industries, half are in China.)
Many of the players vying for green stimulus money are new to the scene. By themselves they may have limited bargaining power. Collectively, they can try to become a force. The result – a slew of ‘collaborative initiatives’: Cleaner Greener China, China Greentech Initiative, JUCCE (Joint US-China Cooperation on Clean Energy) and so on. Each is trying to figure out how to make an impact. JUCCE aims to significantly reduce China’s carbon footprint by helping distribute 10 million energy efficient light bulbs to the country’s citizens and training the mayors of hundreds of cities to reduce their environmental impact. The China Greentech Initiative is a collective of nearly 70 organizations that have come together to uncover, create and promote greentech market opportunities; its first ‘output’ is the China Greentech Report, an actionable market roadmap for commercializing green technologies in China.
What’s interesting to me is that the individual companies – brands – do not seem to be getting noticed in this scramble, even as these initiatives themselves are recognized by the government and by the media. This would be equivalent to the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) being a bigger brand than Wal-Mart, or the Japanese Electronics Industry Development Association being a bigger brand than Sony!
In her presentation at a recent Net Impact Event in Shanghai, ARUP’s Kate Dunham said that there were three constraints that limited China’s potential for adopting sustainability: 1) Regulatory Standards – standards she says have roots to the 1950s; 2) Business Culture – many corporations have failed to recognize their responsibilities to the environment and remain impervious to the call to duty; and 3) Lifestyle Choices – the actions of consumers have done little to motivate regulators or business leaders to change.
In the conversations I have had with sustainability leaders in China, from corporations and nonprofits alike, it is becoming abundantly clear that market opportunities will be created by raising regulatory standards, finding or creating successful cases where responsible business practice has resulted in profit, and convincing both regulators and business leaders that consumers are indeed willing to change and embrace sustainable behaviors.
For those in China whose métier is marketing & communications, the challenge will be to find ways to leverage our government relations and public opinion expertise to serve the needs of emergent green businesses. Cases and experiences to share, anyone?
One fateful Friday back in October 2008, the talk show tycoon gave her endorsement – the marketer’s Holy Grail – to the gadget du jour, Amazon’s “revolutionary” Kindle. She dubbed the e-book device an environmentally-friendly investment that would eventually pay for itself and save trees in the process.
The Kindle may be old news – Oprah’s endorsement, too – but New York City’s Metro Transit Authority subways just won’t let it go, so neither will I. When I spotted the popular “Go Green, Buy a Kindle” ad above the feathery pages of my book on this morning’s commute, ire returned afresh. Why? This wee gizmo is trying to kill the paperback.
But whatever fury I nursed was soon tempered by a strong competing influence: my rational ‘green sensibility.’
“Go Green, Buy a Kindle,” says the spectral ad. Here’s where Oprah and I part company: I can’t bring myself to fall in line. I love two things more than nearly anything else on dear, climate change-besought earth: the old-growth forests that I grew up exploring in Oregon and paperback books. Paradoxical affections? Quite likely. Oprah would think so at least.
But if there’s one thing we preach here at OgilvyEarth, it’s that sustainability – or “going green,” as Kindle has it – doesn’t mean sacrifice. In the wise words of OgilvyEarth Expert Panel member Andrew Winston (co-author of Green to Gold and author of The Green Recovery), sustainability “is not some burden to bear – it’s the way out, it’s the solution.” For our economy in general, and for so many industries and companies in particular, sustainability means creating revenue, shaving off inefficiency, and increasing shareholder value. No sacrifice there.
We know, too, that in the world of produce and packaged goods, sustainability means higher quality. It can mean ethical, fresh, responsible, healthy, organic, and fair. No sacrifice there, either.
But, ah, books. Are you a different story?
Besides the 410,000 Kindles that were activated during the first three quarters of the gadget’s existence, it’s estimated that Amazon shipped out almost 500,000 more devices by mid-November 2008 before actually selling-out in the holiday season. (Whopper sales, these figures outstrip those of the iPod in its first year.) Meanwhile, brick-and-mortar booksellers cringed. So did I.
If I cheer the Kindle, am I consenting to the demise of the book? (Same goes for cheering about easy-access online news – doesn’t it signal the demise of my gorgeous salmon-colored doormat, the inimitable FT?)
I cannot in good conscience cheer for Kindle, green as he may be. This is my line in the sand. I will buy used books. I will buy books made from recycled paper. But I will not sacrifice the feeling of those soft leaves between fingers and the smell of that good book musk. I will not sacrifice my dog-ears and liner notes. I want something as ragged and tempest-tossed as I am telling stories in my hands. Plastic just won’t hack it.
But by patronizing paperbacks despite a potentially greener option, am I selling-out like the Kindle before Christmas? Is it a slippery slope that will one day lead me to the driver’s seat of a Hummer? Am I allowed to be a little inconsistent with my sustainability philosophy without all this self-reproach? I don’t rightly know. What I do know is that the instant sustainability does mean sacrifice – rare as that may be – folks are ready to jump ship (myself included). Instead of instantly buying into the green option, I guess I’m still on the lookout for the best option that brings me the most personal benefit. Let’s hope there’s a happy coincidence of quality and sustainability in the world of the paperback, just as there is in the world of bottom lines and grocery aisles.
So, here’s my temporary sustainability solution (made much easier by the fact that I don’t read post-1990 lit): buy used paperbacks – and never, ever throw them away. For you sustainably-inclined, book-beholden, new-edition obsessed, though, I can only wish you the best of luck (…and the same to printing companies).
No, sustainability does not have to mean sacrifice, but living a sustainable life does require clear prioritization of values and adaptability to alternatives beyond the ordinary. That said, to make progress in aggregate, there will no doubt be products and practices that fall by the wayside. I just hope my paperback doesn’t have to be one of them.
In the first 10 years of the boom that followed India’s economic liberalisation, consumption levels exploded. The average Indian family’s nominal income doubled – so, too, did India’s carbon emissions.
As the population increases and people get richer, emissions levels are sure to soar.Whether green consumerism or political activism is the answer, the winds of change seem to be blowing in India. A recent blog post reported that the newly formed Indian Youth Climate Movement (http://www.iycn.in/node/1) has seen its membership rocket from three to 200,000 in its first nine months of operation. In December 2008, Mumbai was set to host an Indian Live Earth event, featuring Bollywood and rock royalty Aishwarya Rai, Amitabah Bachan, Bon Jovi, and Roger Walters, only to have it cancelled at the last minute because of the terrorist attacks. India Fashion Week in March 2008 saw an explosion of eco fashion from established designers. Eco-media followed with NDTV’s Toyota Greenathon, which was able to raise funds of Rs. 2 crore & 45 lakhs in a single day for the poorest in the major regions of the country. Preity Zinta was the ambassador of the campaign, and many other celebrities participated on a regional level.
Meanwhile, trendspotter and Fashion Professor, Kaustav Sengupta, predicts that ‘eco-cool’ will be of growing importance to young consumers. Popular lifestyle magazine, Verve, reports that “eco-fashion (is) the hottest topic in fashiondom,” and even wedding organisers are reporting demand for eco-friendly events.
But admittedly these are small pockets of change in an enormous and enormously complex society – a society which rejected the previous government administration because its over-optimistic tagline, “India’s shining,” failed to resonate with “real life” as experienced by the majority.
So, the question on our minds: how can we scale up? How do we reach Indians en masse?
As Indian consumer guru Rama Bijapurkar explains, Indians have been having that “sustainability conversation” for centuries. She dismisses the notion that it is necessary to stimulate markets for sustainable goods, stating that Indians already have a deep-rooted culture of thrift and reuse. What is missing is the communication link between current green buzz and its contexts in day-to-day life. This is a huge opportunity for communications professionals working for change.
An average rural consumer needs wood to keep her stove burning and to warm her house in winters. Climate change will affect her more acutely than most, with intense summer heat, rains and winter cold directly impacting her survival; but she doesn’t know how her meager day-to-day consumption escalates this patterns of climatic violence.
Sustainability is at the root of her existence nonetheless. It’s just that now the story is being told to her by someone else, in an alien language, in an artificial setting. And this is just as true for many urban-dwellers as it is for those in rural India.
The Green Foundation in India recently conducted a series of micro-experiments which clearly show that environmental regeneration is possible if native wisdom and local decision-making are respected. Towards Green Villages sets out a grassroots strategy to help people improve their environment and their economy by using - not discarding - local knowledge.
A successful strategy will have three key components. First, the decline in overall biomass production must be reversed. Second, economic growth and rural development programmes must focus on how to increase biomass in an equitable and sustainable manner. Third, there must be democratic decentralization and wide redistribution of power to village communities.
While this undercurrent of grassroots development continues to ebb and flow, urban consumers continue to see only a deluge of advertisements in green. And they begin to doubt that brands’ green talk is backed up with green action. But the emergent sustainability-consciousness in India is creating a mandate for real change - not just green lip-service. This is an opportunity for brands to give consumers the chance to take part in the renaissance of our sustainable roots.
Sustainability can’t be temporary, and it can’t be limited by geography or social sphere. It was in the bedrock of how we all lived before the industrial age, and if we’ve learned anything since, it’s that the fundamental rules haven’t changed.
Nike and Best Buy think so. Think about how businesses develop new technologies—the most substantive R&D happens in tucked away labs at the best companies around the world, but these innovations happen in isolation and are rarely shared. And why should they be? Intellectual property is after all the lifeblood for growth at almost any business. Having a competitor get their hands on your secret cola formula could mean the end of an empire. This model stunts the rate of global acceleration, because there are no shared resources and progress across companies often occurs along parallel paths.
The development of sustainable technologies that have the power to change the world is happening now. Businesses everywhere are allocating a larger share of investment dollars toward green innovation—GE is looking for ways to make washing machines run on less energy and Coke is getting ever closer to developing a bottle made from 100% bio PET.
Making this information public could exponentially speed up the overall rate of green progress and help loosen the strangle hold that business as usual has on our planet. But how do you provide access to your sustainable formulas without compromising your competitive advantage? Enter GreenXchange-- a coalition of open-source sustainable IP sharing, thought up by Nike, Best Buy and the non-profit Creative Commons and announced at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos.
Think of GreenXChange as a hot pot of sustainable IP, where members can give, take and share as they like. GreenXChange works because it is not a free-for-all, they have implemented a system of sharing. Companies can open their patents to anyone in the network, or require a licensing fee for use of the patent. Within these guard rails companies can choose to share their IP with anyone, only academic institutions or non-competitors.
John Wilbanks, VP of science at Creative Commons offers two examples—Nike has a patent for a water-based adhesive, which by eliminating the need for oil lowers their pollution footprint. This technology is not core to Nike’s business. Nike could freely share this patent, opening the green technology to any company that uses rubber in its product lines. Nike’s second patent is for an in-shoe airbag system and is a core competitive advantage. In the right hands this technology could have some sustainability uses, for example, it could line truck tires making them last twice as long as existing tires. Applied this way, the technology helps the planet by lowering the amount of rubber in landfills and does not impact Nike’s leadership position in the sneaker category.
The potential benefits of a patent sharing system like GreenXchange are sumptuous—Access to IP which a business would not normally have, that accelerates growth by filling advancement-hindering R&D gaps. And because the nature of the sharing is sustainable and large scale, it helps move worldwide business par toward a greener operating model. The value in an idea like GreenXchange is not in sacrificing profits for the good of the earth, but rather breaking out of an established system to a new, smarter model. Here companies must reach beyond their comfort zone and work backwards from a common goal, utilizing collaboration to facilitate incremental value through sustainable growth for themselves and the global economic community. It seems that when businesses examine their growth strategies through both profit and environmental lenses everyone wins.
GreenXchange is still in beta and not officially launched. The group is seeking start-up funding. Read more about GreenXchange on GreenBiz.
In the elevator, at the water-cooler, and on the street, the phone, and the lunch line, we constantly hear: “How are you?” In fact, that’s probably the question that we hear most during a typical day. And the answer that we give the most (depending of course on our level of intimacy – and honesty) is probably, “Fine, thanks.”
As humans, we care about others, whether we want to or not. It’s in our nature: we are “programmed” to be social. We ask people how they’re doing, how their family is doing, how their life’s going in general, (and depending how “advanced” in years they are, even how’s their health). Yep, there’s no doubt about it, we care about how other people are doing.
Moreover, we feel happier if that other person is happy, and we internally measure that person’s “life progress” based on their level of bliss. Suffice it to say, we build, strengthen, and even end relationships based on this perception of other’s happiness and it’s indication of their progress in life. Ok, so that’s point number one.
The other point I would like to add is that societies are built from thousands of those personal relationships. And cities are formed around those societies, and countries are formed around lots of cities, and continents are made up of... you get the idea….
So, if we follow the basic logic here – that countries are formed by cities, cities by societies, societies by personal relationships, and relationships by perceptions of one another’s happiness and well-being – then could we conclude that the rise and growth of countries should be measured by the level of happiness of its population? Well, it doesn’t quite work that way. Instead we have been taught that a country’s growth should be measured in GDP. But this measurement feels entirely disconnected from the emotional reality that lies at the core of all human societies – the reality that those societies are aggregations of relationships which are ultimately based on shared well-being and happiness (or, since this is a bit utopian, at least the aspiration thereto).
There’s a group of economics experts (The New Economics Foundation) that are proposing to reorient our measures of country growth to take into account that elemental, emotional underpinning. Instead of GDP, they’ve suggested HPI (Happy Planet Index). This measure is based on 3 basic (but extremely important) elements: 1) the level of happiness of a country’s population, 2) life expectancy, and 3) the country’s ecological footprint.
According to this organization (and based on a set of psychological studies), only 10% of our happiness is explained by material goods. After a certain point, no matter how much you consume, you won’t be any happier. (It’s like eating: it won’t matter how much you keep eating, there will be a moment when that next bite of delicious carrot cake won’t make you any happier!).
Our current way of measuring a country’s growth takes into consideration only material goods, and those material goods constitute only 10% of our personal happiness (and as we said before, countries are formed by cities, cities by societies, and societies by a sum of interpersonal relationships based at least at some level on the perception of, or shared aspiration to, happiness). So, the GDP measurement leaves much to be desired…
Another interesting (and really important) thing that GDP doesn’t consider is natural resource depletion. It assumes resource perpetuity. That’s why this organization asserts that while the 20th century was defined by constant pursuit of economic growth and material goods, the 21st century must be defined by pursuit of improved quality of life in ways that won’t cost us the Earth.
At the end of the day, growth-measurement arguments aside: did we come to this world to make money or to be happy? Do we go to work only to make money? Or do we go to work with a nobler purpose – to make ourselves and other people (and our environment) happy?
I really don’t want to get on the elevator in the morning and have someone ask me, “So, how much money do you have?” I really prefer being asked, “How are you?”
(And, I really like seeing Mexico – and Latin America – in a high position in rankings such as this. But that’s just an added bonus…)
So, we can grant that the structure imposed on business by cap-and-trade is valuable (or not), but it remains to be explored how best to talk about it to an audience less energy-obsessed than we are here at OgilvyEarth. Clearly poetic abstraction is not the right tactic in all circumstances (maybe it’s not right in any…). And it’s evident that the value of a cap-and-trade system is still up for debate – in much more concrete terms than I ventured to address in Part I.
Why the argument? (I mean, everybody can agree non-renewable energy sources are dwindling, right?) We’re in a mash-up because democracies are notoriously good at forcing debate even when half of the folks already know the right answer, and because congressmen are notoriously good at scuttling sensible ideas that their voters can’t get behind. So, where does this leave us in the cap and trade conversation?
It leaves cap and trade in a mortal battle with Ms. Palin’s catchy “cap and tax.”
If we return to Frost and his deference to poetic structure (c’mon, what’s the good of a motif if it fails to recur?), we pick up the piece of his principle that relates to language specifically: that language is built on structures, which are fungible and retractable and ultimately all-important. Those structures are only good at helping us give order and meaning to tough concepts if they are familiar and easily digestible. In the case of ‘cap and trade,’ the relevant language structure is the simple combination of two words that are innocuous, prima facie. The more familiar we become with the pairing of those words, the more we intuitively accept the combination, and the more we tacitly internalize the logic of the match – and even the logic of the concept they represent.
(That same idea can go far in providing at least partial explanation of Shakespeare’s commitment to blank verse, or Mozart’s consistency with sonata form; for an audience – I would venture to argue any audience – pattern-familiarity quickly becomes tantamount to pattern-logic, logic to beauty, and finally beauty to the right way of doing things.)
Thus, the more the American public hears ‘cap’ paired with ‘trade’ in positive context, the more receptive they will be to its permanence. (Am I stretching my argument too far?) Any adman (like any modern Churchill) knows that strategic repetition is one of man’s greatest tools of inoculation and catalysis.
But, just when we’re ready to sit on our laurels and enjoy our monopoly over energy legislation language, the ‘cap and trade’ language-structure suddenly has some competition – competition named ‘cap and tax.’ Without a monopoly on the name of the concept (let alone the context in which it is bandied), there can no longer be a monopoly on audience-conditioning.
What do you get when the nascently-familiar structure is violated? You get chaos. You get confusion. You get a two-party system in a raging debate carried on in two different languages. And you get a constituency completely up for grabs.
The only touchpoint the voting, ruling public of a democracy ever has with the 1200-page bills that sail through the tempests of congress is the pithy name attached to it in headlines. So, to reach the President’s pen, it’s gotta have the right epithet. (Sound superficial? Welcome to the modern American democracy.) Read my lips: “trade” and not “tax” better be the dominant, familiar pairing in the minds of the people if this cap has any hope of survival, because if you lose the battle of language, you’ve lost all.
Just ask Ken Starr. (And oh, if the “estate tax” could talk…)
For Robert Frost, free-form poetry was like “playing tennis without net” – a deuce of a pointless exercise. In his flawlessly metered world, it was the rules and the structures that made the effort and outcomes worthwhile. Into their absence fled chaos of the worst kind – the meaningless kind.
But Frost’s aphorism taps into something much bigger than the link between netless tennis and avant-garde poems (no surprise there). Not only does it reinforce the idea that language is built on structures, which are fungible and retractable and ultimately all-important, he gives an artist’s credence to the insight that this structure grants liberty.
It’s a time-worn paradox – a sort of law of foils: freedom is meaningless without borders.
For countries, poetry, human interaction – ok. But what about business? It’s all a matter of who is building the structure. For countries, poetry and free-range humans, structure is imposed by some higher authority, be it a constitution, a rhythm or codified, proscriptive law. But historically, business has recoiled from external diktats and dictators such as these, preferring instead to build any necessary structure from the inside. To a free-market capitalist, the only proper external authority over business is its own set of existential needs. All other impositions, call them regulations, become irrational fetters to efficiency.
Business and poetry perhaps have this highest value – efficiency – in common. Indeed, the romantic in me argues that both business and poetry are arts of complete simplicity and economy. Both yield outputs far greater than the sum of parts. Both find less power in language than in vision and the rhythms of productive motion.
But, here is where business can take a lesson from poetry and the Frostian Principle: both poetic aims and business aims are best executed under the liberating influence of external structure. (Yes, let Rand roll in her grave.)
No matter if you’re Frost, Greenspan, or Immelt you recognize that all economies, all governments, all businesses (and all lyrical poets) share one essential restraint: the limitation of resources (be them iambs or energy). But that elemental thwart is also the primary mechanism of evolution. Without it – without the ceiling set by external forces beyond our control – no adaptation, no innovation, no enlightened new approach would ever be necessary.
We can also agree that in the economic world at least, resources which at one time seemed limitless are now hitting their bounds. The salient question: are these natural limits enough to make businesses act based on foresight – or are artificial limits now necessary? Who is better at perceiving and responding to natural limits – business or government? And will businesses effectively innovate in the face of natural resource limitations even in the absence of legislated impetus? For folks in the new GreenBeltway, the answer is no.
Enter cap-and-trade. Under a cap-and-trade plan, the government would set artificial limits on one of our elemental resources: energy. The amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that industries can emit would be capped, and companies would have to buy and sell emissions rights. Here is the 21st Century, economic iteration of Frost’s net. But will businesses be better for it?
Proponents of cap-and-trade see this emergent carbon market as a huge opportunity. By artificially lowering the ceiling wrought by resource limitation, the cap-and-trade plan would demand immediate innovation from big energy users and generate federal revenue in the process. The hope, of course, is that businesses will be encouraged (and eventually coerced as the cap is lowered) to find ways not to artificially prop up the ceiling, but to build a new house altogether. Freedom within limits. Tennis with a net.
We hear a lot of brands asking for “guardrails” when it comes to navigating buzzy concepts like “sustainability,” “corporate responsibility” and “transparency.” They want to know what they should and shouldn't do in order to prevent a walloping by the BIPs (Brand Integrity Police). They want to know if they can be honest without being too honest. They want to know if they can open one closet but leave others shut. Bottom line: they want to know what the integrity litmus test is for their brand.
In a world of incessant digit-wagging, we would like to take this opportunity to point a very congratulatory finger in the direction of a company that just won the Superlative Award for “Most Likely to Land in the Brand Encyclopedia Under the Word Honest.”
Taking some cues from this brand’s fearless leader, we offer up a simple three-question test of brand integrity. (And we’ll give you a hint: there are right answers.)
Question 1: Is your core brand philosophy built on the promise of integrity? Have you told the world you won’t stop until your customers know everything about you, about where your product comes from, about how your product is made? Did you willingly put your brand under a microscope, air your dirty laundry, and let everyone peep through your windows?
Question 2: When an independent, third party entity shed a very bright, very penetrating, very raw light on the category your brand is in, did you cringe, accept or applaud? Did you get out there and promote it? Did you say, “thank you for looking so discerningly at my category!” and tell the world to listen up to the critique? Did you ask the world to change as a result? And did you mean it?
Question 3: Did you fear the results?
Here’s the final score: if you have an integrity story, if you cheer about glaring spotlights thrown on your category, and if you still sleep easy every night (ok, you’ve got a lot on your mind, so at least some nights) – than you have a truly honest brand.
And speaking of, it’s time to reveal the one that’s getting all the subtextual kudos here. It’s none other than your favorite purveyor of gourmet burritos – Chipotle.
Chipotle’s founder and co-CEO Steve Ells told us, “’Food With Integrity’ isn’t just a marketing slogan.” And I admit, I may have wondered about the balance of adman perspicacity and heart-felt veracity in that power-packed little tagline – right up until I saw Steve’s comments about Food, Inc., a devastatingly in-depth documentary about America’s food industry: “I hope that all our customers see this film. The more they know about where their food comes from, the more they will appreciate what we do.” Are you crazy? That’s bold, Steve. Now I’m a believer.
And since I’m proselytizing, I’m also a believer in a Steve-esque scrapping of guardrails. True openness, of the kind that today’s consumers demand, cannot be achieved behind bulwarks. When you mean what you say and you act in accordance, no guardrails are necessary; they might even prevent the kind of daring that creates truly stand-out leaders and beloved brands.
So, when you’re taking your first blind corner on the parlous road to utter integrity and the cliff’s edge is nigh, just ask yourself: WWCD? What would Chipotle do? (Probably start with the salsa.)
Oh dear, it’s all kicking off in the UK. EDF Energy’s latest initiative is to make last Friday “Green Britain Day” - a day created by EDF to promote its green credentials using TV advertising, and drawing attention to the French company’s sponsorship of the London 2012 Olympics, for which it is one of the ‘sustainability partners.’
This has set the cat right among the pigeons. The complaints quickly started pouring in. Not least because it appears the British wind energy company Ecotricity used the green union flag first in 2007. The lawyers are involved and it’s starting to get ugly.
Some people objected to the fact that EDF aren’t British. Others argued that other energy suppliers provide more energy from renewables.
Competitors British Gas and Npower (owned by German firm RWE) both retaliated with their own advertising, claiming they provide cleaner energy than EDF.
The advertising authorities are investigating 84 complaints about the EDF ads, but have said they are not pursuing a further 23 complaints that they were unpatriotic. (There’s another debate about how sensible it is for the UK to have sold most of its utilities to foreign companies, but this isn’t the time or the place).
Now, at one level, this is just good old knockabout competition, and doesn’t really bother the man in the street. But at another level, whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular case, it’s a spat we could well do without. It’s worrying because it serves to devalue the currency of green communications. It sets up a cycle of distrust and encourages accusations of greenwash.
Interestingly, the advertising culture in Britain has always steered away from making direct comparisons and naming competitors. A major exception occurred in the 1990s when the two leading detergent brands, Persil and Ariel conducted a very public argument over Persil’s new ‘Power’ formulation. After some weeks of mud slinging, consumers’ trust in the major brands was damaged. The biggest winners were the tertiary brands and own label.
We have already seen that trust in communications around sustainability can be brittle – the number of complaints about greenwash to regulators has been climbing steadily for example. This kind of squabbling is the last thing we need.
When people say that China is the playground for tomorrow’s architects, they are spot on. The Beijing Olympics, Shanghai Expo and Guangzhou Asian Games were the perfect platforms for a set of stunning buildings and stadia.
Here’s the next wave: eco-buildings which defy the imagination.
The Anning River runs through Miyi County in Sichuan province. A stunning tower, whose design you see above, is actually a structure for filtering and transforming the polluted Anning River into a lush landscape of wetlands, lakes, leisure and agricultural areas. The structure’s most striking feature is its delicate latticework skin, which infuses the tower with daylight and evokes the shimmering surface of the river below. The whole project, masterminded by Studio Shift of Culver City, California, will be a state-of-the-art community space that will offer a wide range of educational, entertainment and community programs aimed at promoting the region’s heritage and natural amenities.
The spot marks the transition between the newly developed areas in the North of Miyi County with the agricultural districts of the South. A one kilometer long promenade will connect the cultural hub, devoted to regional arts on one end, with the Miyi Tower at the other. Along the promenade, there will be an abundance of public spaces that feature photovoltaic fields and wind turbines. The promenade will then disperse into rising paths that would converge to form a bridge over the river, affording views of reclaimed wetlands. Ambitiously redefining the term multi-use, the tower will, according to Studio Shift, feature “an auditorium, exhibition spaces and restaurants featuring local cuisine on the interior while open-air floors are used as event spaces, gardens and an observation deck. The pairs of lower and upper enclosed spaces are joined by structures which act as light monitors. These light monitors, of which there is a third at the highest level, are aligned to take advantage of different lighting conditions throughout the day.”
But that’s still in the pipeline, which means maybe just two to three years away from completion in China.
At the other end of the pipeline is the stunning Linked Hybrid building, which opened a few months ago in Beijing. (Of course, if you read Wallpaper*, you’ve seen it already.)
It is one of the largest geo-thermal projects in the world: 660 Geo-thermal wells, going 100 meters deep, provide Linked Hybrid with cooling in summer and heating in winter. With its eight colorful towers, skybridges linking one with the other, this mixed use complex is as luxurious as it is eco-friendly. Architect Steven Holl teamed up with Chinese developers Modern Green Development on this ambitious venture. He describes the project thus: “The ground level offers a number of open passages for all people (residents and visitors) to walk through. These passages ensure a micro-urbanisms of small scale. Shops activate the urban space surrounding the large reflecting pond. On the intermediate level of the lower buildings, public roofs gardens offer tranquil green spaces, and at the top of the eight residential towers private roof gardens are connected to the penthouses. All public functions on the ground level – including a restaurant, hotel, Montessori school, kindergarten, and cinema – have connections with the green spaces surrounding and penetrating the project. The elevator displaces like a ‘jump cut’ to another series of passages on a higher levels. From the 12th to the 18th floor a multi-functional series of skybridges with a swimming pool, a fitness room, a café, a gallery, auditorium and a mini salon connects the eight residential towers and the hotel tower, and offers spectacular views over the unfolding city. Programmatically this loop aspires to be semi-lattice-like rather than simplistically linear. We hope the public sky-loop and the base-loop will constantly generate random relationships. They will function as social condensers resulting in a special experience of city life to both residents and visitors.”
Also a magnet for green corporations? Very likely.
It doesn’t have a jingle or a sexy name. There’s no pithy tagline, no YouTube channel, no Facebook page. But it may just rock your world. It’s H.R. 2454 – and it’s big change in the making.
On Friday, H.R. 2454 – the Waxman-Markey Bill, or more grandiloquently, the American Clean Energy and Security Act – passed through the U.S. House of Representatives by the skin of its teeth. The bill calls for national energy efficiency and building codesand a federal cap-and-trade system.
If all goes according to plan (and the Bill surmounted the daunting hurdle of Senate endorsement), the U.S. would achieve a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and slice 83 percent of its carbon emissions by 2050 (based on 2005 levels).
(For an entertaining lesson about how a bill becomes a law, watch this!)
With companies buying pollution credits from the government, the cap-and-trade system would also give a much needed bump to federal revenues (already being earmarked and divvied by Representatives as the price of their “yay” votes). And for all those lingering, “Read my lips: No new taxes” devotees out there, you can take solace in the fact that this carbon capping will be “free”-market based. (Ok, so it’s a far cry from laissez faire – but it’s the Whispering ‘00s, not the Roaring ‘20s after all.)
So, triumph on Capitol Hill? U.S. energy problems solved? Not exactly. Battle in the Senate brewing? Definitely. But, it’s a stronger stance than we’ve seen on the subject of climate change for over eight years in Congress. (Titans of Industry take note.) It’s not perfect, but what wrought by the democratic process ever is?
By now, it is pretty obvious that the car as we know it will have to change radically to fit in a sustainable society. This change in perspective, while legislation-driven in some parts of the world such as California, is actually to a great extent driven by the industry itself. Manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda have had hybrid cars running for more than ten years now, and others follow fast. The European car makers’ voluntary agreement with the EC to get average emission levels down to 140g CO2 per Km by 2008 – while not met – was still a huge step in the right direction.
"Next Generation" commercial, produced by Ogilvy Stockholm to raise awareness about Ford's ethanol range.
However, different brands have chosen different paths. While Toyota and Honda were very early to launch hybrid cars, many other manufacturers have invested heavily in other technologies. Ford and Saab, to name but two brands, were quite early in their launch of ethanol fueled cars. Volkswagen, Fiat, Opel, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have had renewable methane cars on the roads for ten years. Audi, PSA, BMW and other manufacturers have chosen instead to optimize current technology, creating very fuel efficient petrol and diesel engines.
The global discussion, largely influenced by the US, has focused heavily on hybrid technology, but is hybrid technology really the saviour of the car? Issues such as where the electricity to fuel the car comes from and battery capacity means that it will probably be at least ten to fifteen years before plug-in hybrids are a frequent sight on our roads.
In the light of this, Sweden is a very interesting market to follow. Like California, the Swedish government has been quick to act on the environmental issues associated with the car, providing both legislation and tax reductions to help “green” cars gain momentum. But unlike other parts of the world, we have not decided on any one technology. Because of this, we now have a large number of ethanol, renewable methane and hybrid cars in use. To get some perspective on just how long Sweden has been active, it is worth noting that Swedish petrol company OKQ8, a client of Ogilvy, launched ethanol as early as in 1995, and then renewable methane in 1998.
What is especially interesting is how new fuel types radically repaint the competitive landscape. In the age of petrol, the car manufacturers and petrol companies were the only ones to address the car as a concept, but as new energy types appear, entirely new competitors enter the game. In Sweden, energy giants E.ON and Fortum are both entering the market as fuel suppliers, but from different angles. E.ON, headquartered in Germany and with large investments in gas and renewable methane and strong ties to the German car manufacturers, is strongly pushing for renewable methane as the fuel of the future. Fortum, on the other hand, are working closely with Stockholm City and McDonald’s to develop a network of charging stations for plug-in hybrids. They are even going so far as to convert existing Toyota Priuses to work as plug-in hybrids.
This initiative from Fortum certainly challenges the existing petrol companies. What will drive their growth in an age where petrol and diesel is replaced by new sources of energy for the car? British petrol company BP has certainly understood the challenge, completely rewriting their strategy and even changing their brand to “Beyond Petroleum.” But what do you do when your main source of business comes not from the energy itself but rather from the retail outlets where you sell it? Who will stop at a petrol station when the car is charged at home over night? It is not strange then that existing petrol companies seek new partnerships to explore and expand other types of fuel - it's simply a matter of survival.
One thing is for sure: the car is here to thanks to the fact that the fuel can change. The question that is still very much open is what that fuel will be and will supply it. Petrol companies, traditional energy companies, retailers and now even fast food outlets – all are vying for a share of the future car owner’s wallet. The only sure winner in all of this? The environment.
The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about sustainability and brands is probably the word “Green.” The word has not only been used to encompass all that relates to increased consciousness of the effect of our actions on our planet and society; it has also been the predominant hue used to visually convey more responsible interaction with the world. Just like red has been the color for warning, green has been the color for sustainability.
You just have to go to your favorite store, supermarket, convenience store, and you see that the majority of brands that want to show their sustainable credentials have brand names that relate to something in nature or have something in their label that is green in color.
While this is not necessarily misguided, it does strengthen the perception of a “green niche,” which might alienate more consumers than it attracts.
About a year and a half ago, I came across the concept of “Blue Marketing” in a report from one of the big ad agencies. The “Blue Marketing” proposal is an interesting one: blue is the color of the sky (ok, perhaps not scientifically-speaking, but we won’t go into those details just now…), and blue is the color of the oceans (at least the one we perceive), which provide the dominant color for our planet. Thus, “Blue Marketing” suggests conscientious focus on our blue planet.
When I became more personally invested in the topic of sustainable marketing, I gave the idea of “Blue Marketing” a closer look, and while still intriguing, I found that it clearly fell short of a complete encapsulation of all that sustainability marketing should stand for. This shortcoming stems from four root inadequacies. First, using one color from nature to describe a whole movement and new way of thinking subverts the complexity and depth of end goals; the color itself begins to attract more attention than the mindset it should represent. Second, it risks oversimplyfing nature itself – hardly a mono-hued concept. Third, it’s not easy to explain: what does “Green,” “Blue,” “Yellow,” “Purple” Marketing really mean? Fourth, in the end it’s no better to be bluewashed than greenwashed; it doesn’t matter which color you water down with nebulous sustainability marketing practices – in the end, you may as well be bleached.
If we’re looking for pithy monikers, we should probably hunt for a term that more effectively connotes the real meaning of sustainable marketing. And there are two big elements to capture: first, reduction of impact (i.e. “leave no trace”); and second, sincere, honest, and consistent transparency.
So, throwing color-specific marketing out and bringing the main elements of sustainable marketing in, we’re left with “transparent,” “clean,” “clear” marketing terms that get closer to the heart of the matter (and a facial wash commercial). This may sound silly, but a slight change of approach will make a big difference (it’s like swapping “person” in for the colder title, “consumer,” in a marketing conversation). The whole population may not be attracted to particular colors, but everyone can appreciate transparency and consistency.
Welcome to the age of “Clear Marketing” – it’s sustainability outside the color wheel and the envelope. And it’s a whole new world of possibility for your brand, not to mention your brand name and logo!
It has been difficult not to be reminded of global warming lately in France (if you can look beyond the November-like weather we have been having for the past few days…). Nine million people tuned in to watch Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s film “Home” last Friday on what was otherwise a very calm World Environment Day.
And those who did turn out to vote for the European elections on Sunday favored those who made the environment a key part of their campaign message. With 16,2% of the national votes, the green list “Europe-Ecologie” caught up with the socialist party and came in third (sometimes second) after governmental party UMP (28% of votes). What I found interesting is that there were as many as three different “green” lists presenting themselves at this election (and the UMP made the environment a visible part of its campaign as well).
So, what made “Europe-Ecologie” different? This list brings together an unlikely group of people, including former judge Eva Joly and hard-core militant José Bové, and led by ‘60s student leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit. But beyond the personalities, what won last Sunday is the rather novel idea that the environment matters enough to become a first-priority issue, and that countries around Europe can carry a movement by banding together around a common cause. Most importantly, what seems to me to be “winning” is eco-pragmatism. Ecology has now become a subject best led by professional eco-pragmatists – by those people who effectively mix militant passion with expediency, who know how to navigate politics and push policies, who understand how to leverage marketing and communications, and, in the end, convince people that voting for them would translate not just into saying something but into doing something for the environment.
Here’s one of their campaign posters, which says “You don’t imagine the power of ecology! Let’s build the future”:
.
This election day, people voted to make sustainability happen, and that’s a radiant reflection of their own personal evolution. Increasingly, we see people crossing the bridge from intent to action, attitude to behavior. It’s a far cry from what environmental politics have traditionally stood for in France. (Significantly, none of the other old-line “eco lists” emerged at all.)
All this bodes well for Cop15 in December, if we can manage to sustain the feeling that the “Home” movie so clearly conveys: we are all in this together, and together we can make things happen. We can change for the better. “It is too late to be pessimistic” says Yann Arthus-Bertrand. And he’s right.
There is also a key lesson for marketers and brands in all of this: we have ascended from an age of niche militant brands into an age where every brand has the power, and the mandate, to do something – especially mainstream brands that are part of millions of everyday lives. It’s time to be pragmatic about sustainability. If it can help win votes come election time, it can also help win share of wallet.
One of the major issues preventing a quicker call to sustainability action in various sectors of the business world is the belief held by some business commentators and marketing journalists that there is no market for sustainable products. (It may feel like a shockingly backwards POV in 2009, but it’s evidently still out there.)
But companies tempted to adopt that perception should consider the following scenario and assess how their own customers might respond to new alternatives in market.
Scenario:
If your competitor places a new product/service into the marketplace that is equivalent to yours in quality and price but now has a carbon reduction claim or new biodegradable packaging, what do you think customers would do? What impact would it have on your business?
Get your leadership team together with a facilitator and debate this question; it’s sure to shed light on some key challenges for your organisation.
Companies need to be challenged to consider how sustainability creds can add value to their products – and their competitor’s. Given that the issue of sustainability is alive and well despite temporary economic gloom, and given that first-adopters are often leaders in sales no less than repute, it’s a conversation worth having. Consumers are more than likely to move from the aspiration of supporting green products to buying them in the next few years. And they won’t necessarily buy green just for green’s sake. It all comes down to the same core principle that has governed point-of-purchase decision-making for time immemorial: added value sells.
Despite what some misguided marketers and media folk might say, it’s really not about finding a market for sustainable goods and services (although that market is getting stronger everyday); it’s about finding a market for goods and services imbued with that extra promise of value and still sold at a competitive price. We know there’s a market for that.
All companies should be appraising their products, services and reputation with a view towards maximizing the opportunity to add this new kind of value – sustainable value. Those organisations that ignore the trend will be left behind, and they will have to play catch up at a far greater cost down the track. The time to act is today, not tomorrow.
We have spent a lot of time discussing the economic imperative of sustainability at OgilvyEarth lately, but I think it’s time to start a conversation which draws attention to what is at the heart of our organization – creativity.
When we talk about sustainability, we are not confined to the environment alone. There are other intersecting concerns in society which require creative solutions and the harnessing of creative talent. We know that art is often capable of holding up a mirror to society … it makes us pause and think about our behaviors.
In China, dauntless artists challenge and inspire us to seize a self-reflective moment.
Yue Minjun, one of China’s top artists - his trademark laughing-face self portraits mocking us even as they fetch millions of dollars in auctions – created a massive installation at the Shanghai Biennale earlier this year. The menagerie of running, shiny dinosaurs – all with the trademark laughing faces – seemed nn the surface like a whimsical representation of humanity. But inspect the sheen of each colorful dinosaur, and you find that they are painted with automotive paint. That’s when the significance of the artist’s message strikes home: Yue Minjun is suggesting that our craze for automobiles might well mean that we’re laughing right now, but if we were to continue on that path of reckless consumption, our species is doomed – like the dinosaurs. Utterly captivating.
Artist, curator and social commentator Ai Weiwei infuses his work with equally compelling messages. He is the agent provocateur of contemporary Chinese art, the legacy, perhaps, of a childhood spent in exile in the cold deserts of western China. (His father, the famous poet Ai Qing, was sent there to work in a labour camp for being the wrong kind of intellectual.)
Ai Weiwei is a man of complex paradox: on the one hand, he designed the “Bird’s Nest,” which helped Herzog de Meuron win the competition for Beijing’s Olympic Stadium; on the other, he denounced the nationalistic show put up by Zhang Yimou for the opening ceremony.
Then, on December 15, 2008, Ai Weiwei began an investigation into student casualties in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. The investigation aimed to compile a list of students killed in the earthquake by the date of its first anniversary. By April 14, 2009, the list had accumulated 5385 names – but it proved a bit too much for the authorities. The names of the students were erased by the Chinese government’s censors. Nevertheless, Ai Weiwei had made his point and stirred to life the consciousness of the Chinese people.
This is just the kind of consciousness which we raised at Ogilvy China when we invited Haohui Zhou and Bing Liu, two painters from Guangzhou who specialize in painting objects that seem to blend into their backgrounds, to paint children in such a way as to render them almost invisible. This was done at the behest of Unicef to draw attention to the plight of homeless street children – whom we often ignore when we encounter them on the streets. In just five days, we managed to raise funds totaling approximately USD 30,000 for the welfare of underprivileged children.
Creating breakthrough communications for any brand and any cause requires the best creative minds, visionary artists and courageous thinkers among us. OgilvyEarth requires them, too.
At the beginning of the year many commentators predicted that the recession would diminish interest and motivations for sustainable initiatives. We were all going to refocus on real-world concerns like jobs and GDP.
“Marks & Spencer has given the first clear signal that the economic turndown is having an impact on the 'green' agenda by dramatically slashing spending on the promotion of its 'Plan A' environmental programme.“
Brand Republic web site
“Recession increases the risk of a backlash against tackling climate change.”
‘The ENDS report’ (Environmental Data Services)
What’s more, it’s clear that many of the attitudinal studies and segmentations have overstated ordinary peoples’ commitment to greener lifestyles.
And it also turns out that some of our favourite examples of green or ethical success stories were really attributable to other qualities – like being great products in the first place.
...Well, not so fast. There are at least five good reasons why reports of the demise of green initiatives have been exaggerated.
#1
The problems these initiatives are facing up to haven’t gone away and aren’t going away.
#2
Big, important issues, like alternative energy, have become mainstream – and since the election of President Obama, they’re likely to stay high on the news agenda.
#3
There are NGOs out there who will make it their business to keep sustainability on the front burner. Just in the last week, Greenpeace has taken out full page ads lambasting a range of corporations for their “sins.” That’s what they do. And they’re not about to stop.
#4
Green issues are not at odds with economic priorities – quite the reverse. There’s a huge common ground: the same actions will provide solutions to the challenges of economics and sustainability. The reframing of sustainability as an economic issue will ultimately enable more constructive action on both fronts.
#5
The reappraisal prompted by recession can act as a catalyst for structural change – so it can actively encourage radical thinking and new approaches. Business as usual is not an option.
And despite many people’s reservations (especially in North America) greater government intervention can allow the kind of holistic approach to sustainability that would have been more difficult to achieve through a series of individual actions.
We can all agree that economic strife is no fun. But contrary to early predictions, it’s likely to intensify – not dilute – the focus on sustainability.
Riddle me this: what is sweet and new, borrowed and ‘grew’?
The answer? The Coca-Cola Company's new “PlantBottle,” a 30 percent plant-based, 100 percent recyclable newcomer to the beverage bottle stage. The PlantBottle is made using a byproduct of sugar cane production; it’s waste made worthwhile – and it reduces the bottle’s carbon emissions by 25 percent. So, while the average PET bottle is made with 193.5 grams of abiotic material (primarily oil), the PlantBottle requires significantly less petroleum-based plastic. OPEC won’t have much to smile about when you “open happiness” – but you’ll have every cause to grin.
And, unlike other bio-based plastics, this one is recyclable within the existing recycling stream.
(For a more complete picture of the work The Coca-Cola Company is doing in the sustainability space, visit www.LivePositively.com.)
Coca-Cola partnered with Ogilvy and OgilvyEarth to develop the name and logo design for the PlantBottle, which will be unveiled when the PlantBottle is rolled out across their beverage portfolio globally later this year.
While some of us secretly hope that Coke is on its way to making a beverage container that's 100 percent Willy Wonka-worthy (ChocolateBottle anyone?), we are heartened by the fact that the ultimate goal is a bottle 100 percent sourced from renewable materials. (Sorry, it still won’t be edible.) Sweet prospect indeed.
Cheeseheads have the Packers, Deadheads have Jerry Garcia, investors have Warren Buffett, innocuous celebrity stalkers have Perez Hilton… and sustainability gurus have Rajendra Pachauri.
To call Dr. Pachauri one of the world’s most respected economists would be an offense given the length of his bio. Among many, many other eminent titles, he’s the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has been since 2002. On December 10, 2007, Dr. Pachauri accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC, along with co-recipient Al Gore.
So, when Dr. Pachauri told members of the International Advertising Association during a special seminar last week in New York that “Advertisement can be a powerful agent of change if focused on information about low carbon products – which will be the products of tomorrow,” you can imagine how the OgilvyEarth attendees scooted to the edge of their seats. It was like Warren Buffett giving a stock tip, or Brett Favre converting on a fourth and long (back when he still played for the right team).
Pachauri spoke to an intimate group of advertising folk on the challenges and opportunities facing business and the world. He limned the merits of global technological collaboration, discussed the need for the developed world to help the developing world progress sustainably, called for change in patterns of consumption and sketched the outline of an institutional framework for carbon mitigation and economic adaptation.
And to light a little fire under our seats, Pachauri told us that we have just a six-year window to stabilize climate change. But he also gave us ample cause for hope.
Like OgilvyEarth, he believes there is a viable economic solution to climate change, and that the first step will be the UNFCC’s Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in December. For all the pessimists who predict a repeat performance of the UNFCC global climate summit of '97, Pachauri proffered a sunnier forecast (and one with fewer UV rays): “[COP-15] will be substantially more successful than Kyoto.”
OgilvyEarth concurs. And, like Pachauri, we make our living by walking the talk. We’re currently working with the UN and the IAA to develop a campaign – or rather a movement – that will help drive a positive outcome at the conference. We hope you join. We need you to join. Like the finest in the advertising world, the COP-15 delegates will work best under pressure and deadlines. The pressure is YOU, along with the rest of the weight of the watching world. The deadline is December 2009.
Dr. P will be there. OgilvyEarth will be there. Will you?
The current economic environment is being shaped by three predominant forces: globalisation, the discovery of new markets & a new set of consumers (what CK Prahalad called "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid"), and mounting scientific evidence of the scope and severity of climate change. It is this third force which will make or break the first two. Climate change is discussed and understood in multifarious ways – as "sustainability," "corporate responsibility," "environmental consciousness,” etc. But whatever we call it, if we don't internalise its importance and innovate to address its challenges, we will have missed the point of the conversation.
We find that here in India, there are three primary segments of consumers in the sustainability sphere: Green Consumers, Semi-Green Consumers and Non-Green Consumers, of which the Semi-Green and Green Consumers are ready for environment-friendly products and are willing to pay more for such products if need be.
The ranks of the green consumers are increasing, although a majority of them would fall in the “unsure and influenced” category. They feel good when they buy products with purported green credentials, but they tend not to search deeply into those claims for authenticity. So it’s more of a "be-seen-Green" rather than "commit-to-green" mindset.
These consumers are easing into sustainability consciousness by way of “soft-sustainability” trends – like buying all natural, pure, and, organic products. And surprisingly, it tends to be the country’s middle-income majority rather than the consumer elite who are willing to pay the premium, unlike the case in Western markets and other emerging markets.
Currently, middle- and upper-class citizens represent those most environmentally-concerned segments of the Indian population. The lower classes are still struggling to survive, and for them price and convenience, not eco-friendliness, are the chief considerations. India's nouveau riche are too busy spending their newfound wealth to worry about social responsibility while the ultra-wealthy, for their part, are mostly indifferent.
Brands, meanwhile – from cosmetics to apparel to CPGs – are beginning to capitalize on the growing pool of middle- and upper-class green consumers by re-envisioning their products based in large part on inspiration from the pure and organic image of the rural hinterland.
Indeed, studies suggest that the all natural trend has been driven by consumer concern over the safety of chemicals used in everday products like cosmetics. Ayurveda has experienced something of a renaissance in India, with products being refashioned to reflect new consumer proclivities for all things pure and organic, and many beauty companies, for instance, are now cashing in by releasing Ayurvedic-inspired cosmetics.
While these “green” trends may have their deepest roots in past government legislation, it now seems that consumer aspirations and attitudes can be self-generated and self-perpetuating. They are, however, still nascent in India and remain based on a fairly superficial perception of sustainability.
So, what’s the incentive for brands to turn eco-friendliness into a long-term business imperative when it seems that simple “green” communications will do? It all comes down to leadership.
Here are a few examples of organizations staying ahead of the curve:
·The International Indian Film Academy hosts events that promote a strong international effort to combat global warming.
·India's largest tire company, MRF, has recently launched a new tubeless – eco-friendly rubber tire that reduces rolling resistance and results in lower fuel consumption.
·Bajaj Auto has installed wind power generation units in three factories that not only conserve energy but also save Rs 25 crore in power costs each year. (Rs 25 crore is approximately $5.9 million USD or €3.7 million.)
·The Orchid Ecotel Hotel, Asia's first eco-friendly five-star hotel chain, is conserving natural resources without compromising quality of service.
·Pidilite (India's biggest and most popular adhesive brand company) launches eco-friendly colours for Indian Festival of Colours (Holi), which are lapped up by consumers in urban India.
These Indian brands have taken on the green challenge by aligning themselves with green causes, introducing green products, taking steps to reduce energy consumption and costs, and by embracing green as a business imperative. By leading now, they stand to win today and tomorrow.
I’ve come over all cheerful again this week as I heard the green light had been given to the world’s largest offshore wind farm. And it’s here, in Britain, in the Thames estuary. For years, do-nothing UK authorities have turned in woeful performances on the renewable energy stage (we get less of our power from renewables than virtually anywhere in Europe), and earlier in the year, this whole project was almost dead in the water (excuse pun) after Shell pulled out amid soaring construction costs. But now it appears there's new wind in the sails.
Offshore wind farms are essential if we’re going to meet our carbon-reduction commitments, because they can be built on a bigger scale than their onshore counterparts. Wind power from the Thames Estuary could ultimately power up to 750,000 homes and save 2 million tonnes of CO2 each year. But, because these offshore wind farms have to be built on the sea bed, they demand heroic feats of engineering to keep them standing and to draw their power to the grid - which means they're complex and expensive. (In this case, an international coalition decided to invest £2 billion in the scheme after the UK government announced increased subsidies in this year's budget.)
And the Thames Estuary isn't the only big wind project on the horizon: Europe’s largest onshore wind farm is now coming on-stream at Whitelee in Scotland. Its 140 turbines will power 180,000 homes.
Britain’s renewable energy programme has stalled in recent years, largely due to the ease with which local NIMBY groups have been able to block or delay projects. (This is despite the fact wind farms are hugely popular among the general population – including those living near one.) The Whitelee project had to overcome numerous objections. Combined with uncertainty over long term government commitment, this meant some of the biggest players, including BP and Shell, were effectively forced to look elsewhere – mostly North America – to develop their alternative energy businesses.
But the government is talking a good game at the moment. Could it be the winds of change?
“We’re on the edge of a new low carbon industrial revolution. The shift to low carbon technologies and production will transform how we live and work…We need to take the big decisions about the UK’s energy and transport infrastructure so that they are ready for the shift to renewables…We have committed to a shift to low carbon as a country and an economy.”Lord Mandelson, Secretary of state for Business, February 2009
If the UK authorities really are getting their act together on renewables, it could spell some big opportunities for manufacturers, brands and Britons. The regulatory climate may eventually be shifting in favour of those who can grasp the nettle. The number of UK jobs likely to be created from offshore wind alone is estimated at up to 70,000 (source: IPPR).
There's no doubt about it - it's as rosy a picture as we've seen. Which reminds me, did I forget something? Of course! The obligatory wind farm at sunset... Ahh, that’s better.
We all know the impact that U.S. sustainability policies have around the globe. (The U.S. stance on the Kyoto Treaty brought about its demise; Wal-Mart’s sustainability leadership is single-handedly changing supply chain dynamics and consumer expectations.) As the biggest pollutant and consumer of energy, the U.S. is necessarily the center of attention – and now the “Obama Halo” makes this focus even more intense.
Living in Mexico, the effect of U.S. actions is even more pronounced due to the countries’ close relationship and proximity. As Mexicans, we not only pay attention to what the U.S. government does (sometimes lauding, sometimes denigrating), but also what the American people do and what American brands do.
This reality ignited my first question: do people from the U.S. (meaning citizens and political leaders) give the same attention to the actions that we, Mexican people (meaning political leaders and “average Joes” – or in this case “Juanes”) do regarding sustainability?
That first question led me to a second question: do we really pay attention to what people, for example, in Chile, Costa Rica, South Africa, Colombia, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador or Russia are doing? I think that the answer would be mainly: “Hmmm, nope.”
I think it’s extremely important to analyze the impact of these (and many other) countries’ actions in sustainability, and not simply because of the sheer numbers of people that are affected. (Although, the sheer numbers are significant. A couple of weeks ago, Mexico City – the second largest city in the world behind Tokyo – banned the use of plastic bags in stores and supermarkets, a measure that will save millions of bags every year!)
Neither will we pay attention to countries just because of the famous “BRIC” impact (which derives from their booming economies, population or consumption needs). No, these “peripheral” countries deserve our focus because ideas and solutions can and do come from anywhere.
Ideas should be “orphans by nationality.”
Just today I was surfing a web page that recognizes the most creative people in business. Very few of them came from “developing” countries. And without being judgmental about the accuracy or the methodology of the info in this site (which I’m not), I wondered if there really is a dearth of creative business people in Latin America (and other lesser developed areas).
I have to believe that the answer is “No.” I believe there are lots of creative people in these overlooked nations that are already thinking and applying sustainability ideas not only in business, but in government policies and civil associations. I don’t think it’s by luck or providence that Costa Rica and Colombia, for example, ranked higher in the EPI than countries like the US, France, Canada and the UK.
Sustainability is a global issue, so we should look for ideas globally. We have to start paying attention to the content of ideas rather than the geography from which they hail. When we put a “Made in…” before an idea, it can color our perception – sometimes either exaggerating or diminishing its true value.
We have a golden opportunity to relieve the pressure on the US and the EU and encourage other nations to step up to propose new solutions and lead in the sustainability space.
Copenhagen can be a great opportunity to start a real conversation that gives value to a multiplicity of perspectives and ideas. What if we began these conversations not by saying, “Hi, my name is [X] and I’m from [x country],” but rather by saying, “Hi, my name is [x], and my idea is [something world-changing].”
Regardless of political leanings, the election of President Obama is viewed as a transformational force in global sustainability policy and practice. The Administration’s focus on climate change, the call for so-called green-collar jobs, and a renewed purpose for the country on the world stage have created enormous potential for driving policy in the United States and abroad. There is an undercurrent of excitement and an expectation that change will come.
The fact that the President’s inauguration took place during one of the worst global financial crises in history leaves the world wondering how much is possible. Profits have fallen, companies are restructuring, and survival has become the business priority. Companies around the world are looking at the way they are doing business, finding new ways to provide products and services.
The short-term view: how can I find new ways to cut costs?
The long-term view: how can I change the way I do business to position my company to become or maintain a leadership role in the future?
Companies are forced by the financial crisis to look at their business models. Brands that recognize the Age of Sustainability is upon us are finding the “opportunity” to fundamentally change the way they do business. Not for short-term cost-cutting, but for long-term potential. It isn’t about slashing programs; it is about changing the business model. Using this time to incorporate sustainability into the way a company behaves will better position the organization to take a market leadership role during recovery. Increasingly consumers are demanding corporations improve the way they do business – for the environment and for society. Those who want to build brand loyalty in the future are changing the way they operate.
Leadership becomes compliance once the government gets involved. No one gets credit for compliance. We can assume that President Obama and other world leaders will be driving global policy that benefits the planet. Brands that provide leadership in advance of policy will be building a strong future and differentiation in the marketplace.
The recession is driving dire predictions as to the downfall of sustainable initiatives. With cheap oil available once again and people primarily concerned about the economy and making ends meet, its no wonder that many companies are questioning the immediate future of sustainable offerings: “If there is no (or less) consumer interest and demand, why should we bother?”
Beyond the fact that there are companies in every country successfully implementing sustainability initiatives and selling sustainable products as we speak, this recession is also crystallizing a fundamental shift in how we approach consumption which is not likely to disappear once the economy recovers.
Under pressure from budget restrictions, consumers in France like elsewhere are reconsidering their priorities, and generally redefining value like never before. Those brands that are seen as able to demonstrate a clear and transparent value chain are able to justify “fair prices.” In France, a study (CREDOC, 2008) showed that this is the case for Logan cars (Renault’s no frills range) and Max Havelaar fair trade certified coffees.
In fact, it is symptomatic that we are seeing many of the words used in the sustainability conversation now being used to describe new consumer demands or strategies in a time of crisis - like "simplicity," "transparency," "fair price," “consume better,” "buy quality products that last longer," "re-use." When asked by IPSOS last month what “consuming better” meant for them, 51% of the French said “buy products that respect the environment” and 46% said “buy products which are good for your health.” This shows a new level of understanding and involvement which is likely to mean that there is no going back on sustainability.
Sustainabilty is firmly embedding itself in common culture: it is now about us and how we live our life -about today but also tomorrow. The challenge for any sustainable offering is to be able to credibly fulfill our rising aspirations for more transparency and accountability across the value chain, while better satisfying the primary needs the product should meet. The latest communication campaign from Max Havelaar in France is representative of this trend: far from concentrating on the “good deed” the purchase represents, it is putting it in the perspective of better satisfying a more selfish need, in this case great taste or looking better in a fashionable dress. As the slogan says: “When it’s fair, it’s better for everyone.”
Chocolate ad copy: “It’s not because this cake is made with fair trade chocolate that you have to share it fairly"
Dress ad copy: “Amazing how a dress made with fair trade cotton can end up being not fair at all on girfriends”
Another example is the latest IBM campaign for a "Smarter Planet." Once again, sustainability isn’t just charity for the planet, it’s just plain smart thinking that can positively affect people’s everyday lives.
Brands seeking to make sustainability work for them should consider this: only when it becomes an essential part of what makes the product or brand experience great for us as consumers and more valuable and desirable even when budgets are tight, will it become a powerful weapon for companies looking for more “share of wallet."
Global business is asking if the pursuit of sustainability and the demand for green products is dead. Our clients wonder, "Is sustainability still relevant?" Before they make a massive jump into the sustainability space or continue to emphasize eco-responsibility, they want to know the facts.
It’s true that a few agencies out there are trying to discount the issue (mainly because they have no response and no idea), but if you look into local and international trends without any predetermined bias, you’ll see many examples of companies continuing to improve their sustainability position, whether simply as best practice or as a response to ever-increasing consumer demand. Here are a few examples:
Cascade Green, the first carbon neutral beer in the Australian market, has proved to be a huge success in a sector that sees more than one in ten new products fail. Why has it been such a hit, you may ask? It has launched into the brand-saturated beer market with a product of comparable quality and price to the carbon-oriented options; its only point of difference is a reduced carbon impact claim, but that sustainable platform adds enough value to drive purchase in a highly competitive category.
Globally, the race is still on for who has the most environmentally friendly laptop, with Apple, Dell and Toshiba all laying claim. Why would they be competing for sustainability cred if it is a non-issue?
And is there any correlation between the fact that two of the only financially-viable car makers in the world have developed a platform based on lower carbon-impact cars? Toyota and VW have invested heavily in sustainability while others have not bothered, and they have come out with healthy bottom lines despite financial crisis.
Meanwhile Woolworths, Australia’s largest retailer, has committed with gusto to a reduced footprint, as have Wal-Mart in the USA and other major chains in the UK and Europe. Why would they make this commitment if it wasn’t a good business proposition?
Even if you ignore the science, there is enough evidence in the commercial sector to convince the staunchest critic that sustainability isn’t going away.
Speaking as a Brit – they don’t call us “whingeing poms” for nothing – I have always found that conversations about sustainability bring out the doom-monger in me. Which is perhaps why I was so inspired by "2009: A Pivotal Year." It’s rare to read something so simultaneously well-informed and optimistic. This positivity is an important step in the right direction. We badly needan antidote to the inherent negativity surrounding sustainability discourse.
My rather frivolous caricature of doleful Brits (versus breezy North Americans) is indeed steeped in some truth. In 2007 the British think tank IPPR produced "Warm Words – How the Climate Story is evolving," which analysed the vocabulary across all sorts of media when talking about climate change. It will come as no surprise to hear that the dominant tone they uncovered was pessimistic: “The quasi-religious foretelling of ‘apocalypse’ is still common” (IPPR).
Inevitably this is a route to paralysis and inactivity. As The Guardian put it:“The threat of global warming creates a psychosis of despair because, it seems, nothing can be done.” And if that’s a de-motivator for ordinary folks, it’s doubly so for brand managers looking to address or harness the sustainability agenda. Who wants their brand to be associated with the end of the world?
So let’s hope we’re right and that 2009 will indeed be a pivotal year for sustainable economics – and also for the way we talk about it.
Even as Chrysler declared bankruptcy in the US, China’s auto sales hit a monthly record of 1.11 million vehicles in March 2009, exceeding US sales for the third month in a row and up 5 percent from last year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. The recent Shanghai Auto Expo provided a stunning glimpse of the future – remarkable for two reasons: China is clearly ascendant in the auto game, and the rise comes with a focus on green technology. China is forecast to have an annual production capacity of 500,000 new-energy vehicles by 2011, which means 5 percent of new vehicles will be powered by new energy.
At the Auto Show, both Chinese and foreign carmakers were falling over each other to showcase their green technologies, and it’s likely that the future direction of the auto industry will be decided by the carmakers’ green credentials more than anything else.
Warren Buffet agrees, and he’s betting on the hybrid BYD:
Here’s a rundown of some of the most noteworthy new-age models from the show:
GM flew in its groundbreaking Chevrolet Volt electric car, which is set to enter the market next year. And Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp (SAIC) displayed a hybrid version of its Roewe sedan, also expected to hit showrooms next year (below). Both General Motors and SAIC announced plans to build fuel cell vehicles in 2010.
BYD’s hybrid (below) attracted a lot of attention, and they cut away their display model to show visitors how it works internally. (No, Buffett didn’t make any appearances.)
Skoda brandished a flashy sticker to assert its eco-consciousness – although this visitor seemed more interested in the space in its boot…
Even Zotye Auto – a small, local company with limited name recognition – had an EV on display:
But the bigger manufacturers were by no means lagging the trend. Honda unveiled perhaps the most impressive prop on this utterly progressive stage. The 2010 Insight, which Honda touts as “the right car at the right time,” features Eco Assist™, a comprehensive internal system that can regulate certain vehicle functions to maximize fuel efficiency. It also has a feedback function that uses Ambient Meter, the color-enhanced speedometer background, to provide real-time guidance for environmentally-responsible driving. When you’re driving efficiently, the background color is green. When you’re driving more aggressively, it’s blue. And if you’re somewhere in between, the color is, too.
Eco Guide, another component of Eco Assist™, provides further feedback about current driving techniques, and an Eco Scoring function gives feedback on your cumulative, long-term driving style. As you drive more efficiently over time, the system rewards you with leaf icons.
Not surprisingly, Honda’s overall insight was as forward-thinking as its spotlight vehicle. The company’s theme for the show was “Mobility for the Earth,” a concept that managed to capture the essence of the entire industry trend as a whole.
If the Shanghai Auto Show, with its inspiring array of EVs and hybrids, was any indication of the future, 2010 will be an especially pivotal year for the auto industry.
Manufacturers who have taken a strong leadership role, by getting out ahead of impending regulation and demonstrating commitment to the long-term view, will begin to see the immense rewards of their innovation. And it will be that innovation – amplified by savvy marketing – which saves the auto industry.
At OgilvyEarth, collaboration is our M.O. That’s why we work with some of the brightest minds in the sustainability movement through our OgilvyEarth Lab. Not your grandmother’s environmentalists, these are the ‘new breed’ of sustainability thinkers – people who believe, as we do, that if the corporation is the dominant institution of the 21st century, it also has the greatest power to effect the massive change we both need and welcome.
Throughout the year, OgilvyEarth consults with our Lab members to solicit their best thinking, to keep us – and you – at the forefront of the evolving sustainability movement. We will share their ideas through a series of whitepapers.
You can find the first one – entitled ‘A Pivotal Year and the Dawn of the Age of Sustainability’ – here. Think of it as a topog map for sustainability pioneers. We hope it gives depth to the contours of the nascent global landscape – one forged by tectonic shifts in world politics and seismic changes in public thought. It may even start you down the dotted line of your best path forward.
We’re looking forward to hearing your thoughts, reactions and feedback. Together we’ll write the adventure log – one step at a time.
“When the winds of change blow, there are those who build walls, and those who build windmills.” –Ancient proverb
Today marks the official launch of OgilvyEarth, the Ogilvy Group’s global sustainability practice area. Everything is changing, but nothing is changing.
What we do today, is to connect together the dozens of existing sustainability groups under a single banner, a single point-of-view and a shared approach. So nothing has changed: we continue to help the worlds greatest companies capture the opportunity in the new sustainable economy. Companies like BP, Tetra Pak, Coca-Cola, Unilever, DuPont, IBM and Qantas. And everything has changed: never before has an agency network connected people from all different companies and disciplines together, under a shared mission like this. The result? People who are passionate about moving the world (and the companies that serve it) forward. People with the communications skills to start a movement and make it actually happen.
But OgilvyEarth is just another sign that times have changed, forever. In the shadow of a global economic crisis, has emerged a new dawn: the Age of Sustainability. It’s an Age where people do more, with less. Where resource availability and shared prosperity are not in conflict. Where optimism meets pragmatism for all.
You can read our white paper to understand our point of view and begin to ponder the implications of the new Age of Sustainability for your company, for yourself. This blog will be a “wikipaper” of sorts, where ideas are refined, the sustainability movement defined and the conventions are challenged. This will not be the place to go for polar bear updates or tips on how better to compost your mung beans. This is the place where the very fundamentals of the new world order, the new Age of Sustainability will unfold. Where brands that lead will be celebrated and those who don’t will be gently prodded.
So welcome to OgilvyEarth. Comment as you wish. Share as you see fit. Come back often.
Ever since the so-called financial meltdown, here's the question I am most often asked: "Does the economic uncertainty sound the death knell for the green movement?"
A fair question. But one that comes from the perspective that "green" is a luxury, an extra benefit, a charitable donation to the planet. And the belief that consumers will no longer be willing to "pay forward" for a better future.
But let's look at the facts: True green products do at least one of two things (and ideally both). They reduce the impact on resources in the way they are made; they reduce the impact on resources in the way they are used. They do more with less. Just what we all must do when times get a bit tougher. The demand for efficient and effective products increases when disposable income decreases.
So what should we expect? Increased investment in eco-industries like renewable materials, alternative energy, sustainable manufacturing, and technology that reduces our dependency on the old ways of doing things. More and better green products to meet a growing market need.
Come to think of it, maybe it is the end of the "green trend." Maybe. And hopefully. After all, a trend is short-lived, often without substance, applied and removed too easily, like fashion. It's this trend that leads to green washing, dubious sustainability claims, lower consumer trust and less real investment in product development.
Perhaps the greater consumer focus on cost-value will be just what we all need. Perhaps it will provide a better framing for the importance of sustainability beyond "saving the planet." Perhaps it will trigger innovation. Perhaps "green" will become boring, just part of doing business well.
Yep. That works for me. Now we just have to make it work for the consumer.
Now, we flatter ourselves that our interest would not ordinarily align with that of the prying UK Daily Mail, but this once, we’ll admit that it does. Michelle Obama did something unthinkable at the G-20 Summit this week: she side-hugged the Queen of England. It was a flagrant violation of long-standing royal protocol, but it was also decidedly well-received – the Obama Effect in a nutshell.
Before the Age of Obama, the occasional, ineffectual chautauquas of the G-20 leaders were the world’s chance to hit the snooze button. It was just a bunch of gray-haired men (and Angela Merkel) quibbling over their rigid agendas and, oh yeah, the future of the world – and nothing much happened. No public engagement. No faith in leadership. No outcomes necessary.
This time, however, things were palpably different. Our pride was invested in our leader’s success, so we paid attention. And Obama knew our eyes were on him, so he made sure he shined. Brokering deals, delivering glittering orations, advancing world dreams and looking downright dapper was all in a good day’s work.
But lest heads should swell, it is our duty, as front row marchers in the sustainability movement, to point out that much more might have been said about the role renewable resources must play in our reformed economy. Although “sustainability” was certainly an undertone in conversations, specifics – as ever – were lacking. You won’t find us crying in our beer, though. A truly sustainable world economy has certain predicates, like open communication, resource-sharing,and global goodwill, and an important few of them were checked off yesterday.
We’ll leave it to the cynics to spin all the hope out of this summit. Let them say nothing changed. Or capitalism is dead. Or one trillion dollars isn’t enough. We say the London Summit was one giant leap for mankind. We leapt over multipolar jockeying and zero-sum games straight into the realm of “we’re all in this together” and “anything’s possible.” It’s almost better than the moon.
Goofy “class photos” and the President’s thumbs ups aside, nothing symbolized this progress better than the First Lady’s arm around the Queen. She captured the world with a gesture that at once represented the progressive expansion of possibility, a compassionate nod to equality, and change we can believe in.
So Saturday evening is Earth Hour. At 8:30 PM, nearly a billion people from around the globe are expected to switch off their lights for one hour. This simple act will be counted as a "vote" for the earth and a message of support for the upcoming COP15 summit in Copenhagen.
If you haven't yet joined the movement, there is still time. Our client, WWF, is the organization behind Earth Hour. Our Tokyo Executive Group Creative Director Mark Collis is the mastermind behind the campaign.
And if you think turning off a light switch is just a meaningless symbolic gesture, remember that most worthy movements start this way. But Earth Hour is not about protesting, it is about affirming the power of the individual: one person's actions do have the ability to impact many.
As I like to quote Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
So flip the switch and take a look out the window to see the collective impact of the individual. Or else, do whatever comes naturally when the lights are off....
Here's a good one to share: A new "PSA" directed by acclaimed filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen (of Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou and No Country for Old Men fame). It's the latest in a series of clever :30 commercials produced by ThisIsReality.org to debunk the myth of clean coal technology. It was produced in partnership with Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.
Now, part of the Obama Administration's investment in green energy includes "clean coal." If you wondered what Al says about it, look no further than Current TV:
It's the million dollar question: will consumers continue to buy eco-friendly products as they cut costs?
Our answer: why not help them do both?
For various (mostly valid) reasons, eco-friendly products have till now tended to cost more than their counterparts, leading to a perception that green is expensive or even a luxury. Let's call it the Whole Foods effect.
But at its heart, sustainability is really all about efficiency - about doing more with less. Which is exactly where consumers find themselves today.
Research has shown that, all else being equal, consumers will pick the eco-friendly option. So it follows that, in market where your competitors are competing on price alone, an added sustainability benefit could just be the tiebreaker.
We think the opportunity of the year is to reframe sustainability as the smart choice - not just for the planet but also for your pocketbook.
.
.jpg)
