InfoGraphics: Why buy local?

Click on image to enhance ::.

One Textile Label to Cut the Confusion: L.E.A.F.

Elinor Averyt is the founder of a proposed eco-labeling program, ‘Labeling Ecologically Approved Fabrics™ ’ (L.E.A.F.) which aims to eliminate confusion in the US market around environmental and social labeling for apparel and other textile products. The three month public review process for LEAF is launching this week, during which industry stakeholders and the general public are being invited to participate in a collaborative development process. Ms. Averyt made some time for an exclusive Q&A with Sustainable Life Media.

---

What is the goal of LEAF’s new eco-label?

The overall goal of LEAF is to become the trusted label licensing program that eliminates confusion in the US marketplace concerning environmental and social labeling for apparel and other textile products. LEAF is intended to be a high profile program similar to the USDA program that is in place for food and the LEED environmental rating system in place for green buildings.

How will this be accomplished?

The LEAF program will clearly communicate to US consumers which third-party certifications different apparel products have received, and where along the supply chain the certifications apply. Grouped within specific environmental and social achievement categories, this information will be communicated through a licensed eco-mark and labeling format designed to be easily identified and read by US consumers.

Is this program focusing on all aspects of the textile industry?

The proposed focus of LEAF is on apparel sold in the United States. The program may also include other textile categories over time, e.g. home textiles and fabrics used on accessories (including shoes, bags, backpacks, purses, etc.).

So is L.E.A.F. also working on creating the actual solutions for how to green the apparel and textile industry?

No, not really. This program is not the entity that has created the environmental and social solutions when it comes to the production of apparel. Instead, this program’s purpose is to make sure consumers understand the solutions that already exist. Their informed purchasing habits can enable these solutions to become the norm, but the current labeling landscape is confusing. What we’ve found in this investigative process is that the answers for this industry’s successful transition to a sustainable existence are for the large part already here, and they’ve already been created by several key stakeholder groups. These solutions are being created by innovative designers and brands that have made great strides to work towards greening their products. This industry also consists of an extensive supply chain —all of whose efforts are absolutely necessary in order for the industry to operate and successfully transition to a sustainable existence. In addition, standards-setting organizations and their partnering certification programs have, by their painstaking efforts, created scientifically valid environmental and social benchmarks to aspire to all along the entire supply chain. These programs are literally spelling out the ways to successfully green this industry within its highly complex, industrialized life cycle.

Where then does your group fit in to the process of eco-certification for textiles and apparel?

Our group is here to be a neutral, non-biased entity that helps facilitate clear information exchange between four key stakeholder groups:

• Apparel industry stakeholders
• Standards-setting organizations and programs who have created environmental and social benchmarks for this industry
• Certifying bodies and agencies performing the certifications to/against these standards
• The U.S. end user, last but most definitely not least!

Each one of these groups holds a necessary key for this industry’s continued and accelerated transition to a fully sustainable existence, yet currently there is no streamlined information and communication exchange between these four key stakeholder groups here in the United States. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding third-party certifications of environmental and social claims, both on the industry side in understanding certification options and protocol, as well as on the end user side in deciphering which labels are valid and understanding how important it is that companies undergo independent, ‘arms length’ third-party certification for environmental and/or social responsibility declarations. And of course, it’s not yet easy for consumers to find clothing that has been produced in an environmentally and/or socially sensitive manner. LEAF is working to facilitate streamlined communication and information exchange between industry stakeholders and the standards/certification groups, and then to translate that information to end users in a comprehensive and hopefully soon-to-be ubiquitous label.

What’s the #1 competitive advantage that the LEAF label offers for businesses?

The #1 benefit is that their consumers will be able to identify easily which products have undergone extensive third-party certification. Our program gives assurance to the U.S. end user that their choices have been qualified when they see the LEAF mark. Additionally, one of LEAF’s primary goals is to help support avid consumer awareness through education and awareness campaigns in conjunction with brand holders that assist in informing and rallying the US marketplace to use their powerful consumer dollars in support of the companies that are taking these exciting, and at times painstaking, strides toward more sustainable practices.

Why does a program like this not already exist for this industry here in the United States?

The apparel supply chain is tremendously complex, and there are a myriad of different standards and certifications that exist and are emerging for this industry’s supply chain processes. Deciphering which standards are valid is confusing. Also, in order for a program of this nature to be successful, there needs to be some degree of collaboration between upwards of 15 standards-setting organizations that are headquartered all around the globe. It’s a complex industry.

Why a Public Review Process?

Overall, a public review process provides stakeholders the chance to provide feedback on a program that could potentially have impacts on this industry’s practices in the United States over time.

What happens during this review and where does it happen?

The review happens online at LEAFCertified.org (I’ll link to the site). Interested stakeholders and end users are invited to provide comments anywhere on the main document. Additionally, questionnaires have been created for both industry stakeholders and US end users. We hope both groups will take the time to answer these questions in order to help us understand the needs of these diverse groups, and how to form this program most effectively to serve those needs. During the review, LEAF will collect all comments, and every four weeks during the review we will post the comments, the name of the commenter, and LEAF’s proposed answer or solution to each comment or group of similar comments. We also welcome stakeholders to devise the solutions to the issues they are seeing toward these complex issues, if it is appropriate and/or feasible to do so!

What suggestions do you have for companies who want to consider using the LEAF label in the future?

The first step is to be a part of the review process at www.LEAFCertified.org. You can also contact me at Info@LEAFCertified.org if you would like to be considered as a licensee of the LEAF trademark labeling program in the future.

When can we expect to see the LEAF label in stores?

The review process will be completed in the next 90 days. It will take another 2 to 3 months to re-sculpt the program, incorporating stakeholder feedback from the review, after which we will launch the beta trials. We expect to launch the program to the marketplace in the summer or fall 2010.

Via | Sustainable Life Media

Climate Change “Scientists Are Divided”

No, they’re not. In the early years of the global warming debate, there was great controversy over whether the planet was warming, whether humans were the cause, and whether it would be a significant problem. That debate is long since over. Although the details of future forecasts remain unclear, there’s no serious question about the general shape of what’s to come.

Every national academy of science, long lists of Nobel laureates, and in recent years even the science advisors of President George W. Bush have agreed that we are heating the planet. Indeed, there is a more thorough scientific process here than on almost any other issue: Two decades ago, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and charged its scientists with synthesizing the peer-reviewed science and developing broad-based conclusions. The reports have found since 1995 that warming is dangerous and caused by humans. The panel’s most recent report, in November 2007, found it is “very likely” (defined as more than 90 percent certain, or about as certain as science gets) that heat-trapping emissions from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.”

If anything, many scientists now think that the IPCC has been too conservative—both because member countries must sign off on the conclusions and because there’s a time lag. Its last report synthesized data from the early part of the decade, not the latest scary results, such as what we’re now seeing in the Arctic.

In the summer of 2007, ice in the Arctic Ocean melted. It melts a little every summer, of course, but this time was different—by late September, there was 25 percent less ice than ever measured before. And it wasn’t a one-time accident. By the end of the summer season in 2008, so much ice had melted that both the Northwest and Northeast passages were open. In other words, you could circumnavigate the Arctic on open water. The computer models, which are just a few years old, said this shouldn’t have happened until sometime late in the 21st century. Even skeptics can’t dispute such alarming events.


“We Have Time”
Wrong. Time might be the toughest part of the equation. That melting Arctic ice is unsettling not only because it proves the planet is warming rapidly, but also because it will help speed up the warming. That old white ice reflected 80 percent of incoming solar radiation back to space; the new blue water left behind absorbs 80 percent of that sunshine. The process amps up. And there are many other such feedback loops. Another occurs as northern permafrost thaws. Huge amounts of methane long trapped below the ice begin to escape into the atmosphere; methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Such examples are the biggest reason why many experts are now fast-forwarding their estimates of how quickly we must shift away from fossil fuel. Indian economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize alongside Al Gore on behalf of the IPCC, said recently that we must begin to make fundamental reforms by 2012 or watch the climate system spin out of control; NASA scientist James Hansen, who was the first to blow the whistle on climate change in the late 1980s, has said that we must stop burning coal by 2030. Period.



All of which makes the Copenhagen climate change talks that are set to take place in December 2009 more urgent than they appeared a few years ago. At issue is a seemingly small number: the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Hansen argues that 350 parts per million is the highest level we can maintain “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.” But because we’re already past that mark—the air outside is currently about 387 parts per million and growing by about 2 parts annually—global warming suddenly feels less like a huge problem, and more like an Oh-My-God Emergency.


“Climate Change Will Help as Many Places as It Hurts”
Wishful thinking. For a long time, the winners-and-losers calculus was pretty standard: Though climate change will cause some parts of the planet to flood or shrivel up, other frigid, rainy regions would at least get some warmer days every year. Or so the thinking went. But more recently, models have begun to show that after a certain point almost everyone on the planet will suffer. Crops might be easier to grow in some places for a few decades as the danger of frost recedes, but over time the threat of heat stress and drought will almost certainly be stronger.



A 2003 report commissioned by the Pentagon forecasts the possibility of violent storms across Europe, megadroughts across the Southwest United States and Mexico, and unpredictable monsoons causing food shortages in China. “Envision Pakistan, India, and China—all armed with nuclear weapons—skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land,” the report warned. Or Spain and Portugal “fighting over fishing rights—leading to conflicts at sea.”

Of course, there are a few places we used to think of as possible winners—mostly the far north, where Canada and Russia could theoretically produce more grain with longer growing seasons, or perhaps explore for oil beneath the newly melted Arctic ice cap. But even those places will have to deal with expensive consequences—a real military race across the high Arctic, for instance.

Want more bad news? Here’s how that Pentagon report’s scenario played out: As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies would reemerge. The report refers to the work of Harvard archaeologist Steven LeBlanc, who notes that wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25 percent of a population’s adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life. Set against that bleak backdrop, the potential upside of a few longer growing seasons in Vladivostok doesn’t seem like an even trade.

“It’s China’s Fault”
Not so much. China is an easy target to blame for the climate crisis. In the midst of its industrial revolution, China has overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest carbon dioxide producer. And everyone has read about the one-a-week pace of power plant construction there. But those numbers are misleading, and not just because a lot of that carbon dioxide was emitted to build products for the West to consume. Rather, it’s because China has four times the population of the United States, and per capita is really the only way to think about these emissions. And by that standard, each Chinese person now emits just over a quarter of the carbon dioxide that each American does. Not only that, but carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for more than a century. China has been at it in a big way less than 20 years, so it will be many, many years before the Chinese are as responsible for global warming as Americans.



What’s more, unlike many of their counterparts in the United States, Chinese officials have begun a concerted effort to reduce emissions in the midst of their country’s staggering growth. China now leads the world in the deployment of renewable energy, and there’s barely a car made in the United States that can meet China’s much tougher fuel-economy standards.

For its part, the United States must develop a plan to cut emissions—something that has eluded Americans for the entire two-decade history of the problem. Although the U.S. Senate voted down the last such attempt, Barack Obama has promised that it will be a priority in his administration. He favors some variation of a “cap and trade” plan that would limit the total amount of carbon dioxide the United States could release, thus putting a price on what has until now been free.

Despite the rapid industrialization of countries such as China and India, and the careless neglect of rich ones such as the United States, climate change is neither any one country’s fault, nor any one country’s responsibility. It will require sacrifice from everyone. Just as the Chinese might have to use somewhat more expensive power to protect the global environment, Americans will have to pay some of the difference in price, even if just in technology. Call it a Marshall Plan for the environment. Such a plan makes eminent moral and practical sense and could probably be structured so as to bolster emerging green energy industries in the West. But asking Americans to pay to put up windmills in China will be a hard political sell in a country that already thinks China is prospering at its expense. It could be the biggest test of the country’s political maturity in many years.


“Climate Change Is an Environmental Problem”
Not really. Environmentalists were the first to sound the alarm. But carbon dioxide is not like traditional pollution. There’s no Clean Air Act that can solve it. We must make a fundamental transformation in the most important part of our economies, shifting away from fossil fuels and on to something else. That means, for the United States, it’s at least as much a problem for the Commerce and Treasury departments as it is for the Environmental Protection Agency.



And because every country on Earth will have to coordinate, it’s far and away the biggest foreign-policy issue we face. (You were thinking terrorism? It’s hard to figure out a scenario in which Osama bin Laden destroys Western civilization. It’s easy to figure out how it happens with a rising sea level and a wrecked hydrological cycle.)

Expecting the environmental movement to lead this fight is like asking the USDA to wage the war in Iraq. It’s not equipped for this kind of battle. It may be ready to save Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is a noble undertaking but on a far smaller scale. Unless climate change is quickly de-ghettoized, the chances of making a real difference are small.


“Solving It Will Be Painful”
It depends. What’s your definition of painful? On the one hand, you’re talking about transforming the backbone of the world’s industrial and consumer system. That’s certainly expensive. On the other hand, say you manage to convert a lot of it to solar or wind power—think of the money you’d save on fuel.

And then there’s the growing realization that we don’t have many other possible sources for the economic growth we’ll need to pull ourselves out of our current economic crisis. Luckily, green energy should be bigger than IT and biotech combined.

Almost from the moment scientists began studying the problem of climate change, people have been trying to estimate the costs of solving it. The real answer, though, is that it’s such a huge transformation that no one really knows for sure. The bottom line is, the growth rate in energy use worldwide could be cut in half during the next 15 years and the steps would, net, save more money than they cost. The IPCC included a cost estimate in its latest five-year update on climate change and looked a little further into the future. It found that an attempt to keep carbon levels below about 500 parts per million would shave a little bit off the world’s economic growth—but only a little. As in, the world would have to wait until Thanksgiving 2030 to be as rich as it would have been on January 1 of that year. And in return, it would have a much-transformed energy system.

Unfortunately though, those estimates are probably too optimistic. For one thing, in the years since they were published, the science has grown darker. Deeper and quicker cuts now seem mandatory.



But so far we’ve just been counting the costs of fixing the system. What about the cost of doing nothing? Nicholas Stern, a renowned economist commissioned by the British government to study the question, concluded that the costs of climate change could eventually reach the combined costs of both world wars and the Great Depression. In 2003, Swiss Re, the world’s biggest reinsurance company, and Harvard Medical School explained why global warming would be so expensive. It’s not just the infrastructure, such as sea walls against rising oceans, for example. It’s also that the increased costs of natural disasters begin to compound. The diminishing time between monster storms in places such as the U.S. Gulf Coast could eventually mean that parts of “developed countries would experience developing nation conditions for prolonged periods.” Quite simply, we’ve already done too much damage and waited too long to have any easy options left.

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”
If only. Solving this crisis is no longer an option. Human beings have already raised the temperature of the planet about a degree Fahrenheit. When people first began to focus on global warming (which is, remember, only 20 years ago), the general consensus was that at this point we’d just be standing on the threshold of realizing its consequences—that the big changes would be a degree or two and hence several decades down the road. But scientists seem to have systematically underestimated just how delicate the balance of the planet’s physical systems really is.

The warming is happening faster than we expected, and the results are more widespread and more disturbing. Even that rise of 1 degree has seriously perturbed hydrological cycles: Because warm air holds more water vapor than cold air does, both droughts and floods are increasing dramatically. Just look at the record levels of insurance payouts, for instance. Mosquitoes, able to survive in new places, are spreading more malaria and dengue. Coral reefs are dying, and so are vast stretches of forest.

None of that is going to stop, even if we do everything right from here on out. Given the time lag between when we emit carbon and when the air heats up, we’re already guaranteed at least another degree of warming.

The only question now is whether we’re going to hold off catastrophe. It won’t be easy, because the scientific consensus calls for roughly 5 degrees more warming this century unless we do just about everything right. And if our behavior up until now is any indication, we won’t.


Bill McKibben is scholar in residence at Middlebury College and author of Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future (New York: Times Books, 2007).

via | Foreign Policy

Patagonia's Clothing Recycling Program: Lessons Learned, Challenges Ahead

By GreenerDesign Staff
When Patagonia finalized its Common Threads Garment Recycling Program in fall 2005, is set out to make all its products recyclable by late 2010. With one and half years until it reaches that deadline, Patagonia has compiled a lengthy look at the Common Threads program.

In short, the company has learned a whole lot about what it takes to make clothing and other outdoor gear recyclable, but it's unlikely Patagonia's entire catalog will be recyclable by fall 2010. However, it just might make all its apparel recyclable by then.

The Common Threads program collects only certain Patagonia products or types of clothing; the company takes back only what it knows it can recycle.

It All Started With Underwear

The first product collected and recycled through Common Threads was Patagonia's polyester-spandex Capilene underwear, chosen because underwear is simple, has no buttons or zippers and isn't typically handed down.

Teijin, a Japanese textile company, developed a garment-to-garment recycling process for the underwear, and Patagonia found out that using Capilene underwear as a raw material instead of petroleum uses 76 percent less energy and emits 42 percent less carbon dioxide.

The Common Threads program grew in spring 2007 when other Capilene apparel was included, along with 100 percent cotton T-shirts, Patagonia fleece and Polartec fleece jackets from any clothing brand. A year later Patagonia started labeling clothes that were accepted through Common Threads with instructions on what to do with them at the end of their lives. The collection program also expanded to include some board shorts, polyester jackets and nylon items, and later that year Patagonia unveiled the first recyclable nylon waterproof and breathable shell. Around that time Patagonia also started working with another company, Toray, which developed a recycling program for items made of nylon 6.

Results, Tempered by Challenges

Since the start of Common Threads, Patagonia has recycled more than 13,200 pounds of garments, and collected much more. But that is still nowhere close to the amount of items Patagonia sells or that get tossed in the trash.

The amount of recyclable items in Patagonia's spring collection has gone from 28 percent last year to 38 percent this year. And for it's fall collection, the amount is expected to increase from 45 percent last year to 65 percent this fall. Patagonia is not confident, though, that it will increase both of those to 100 percent by fall 2010. But it has a much better chance to make all of its apparel recyclable, since 80 percent of the clothing in its fall 2009 collection will be recyclable.

Along the way, Patagonia faced a host of challenges. Some of the recyclers it works with use chemical recycling, which dissolves products into chemicals. Another uses mechanical recycling, which physically, not chemically, rips apart fabric and spins it into yarn.

While chemical recycling systems can be easily tainted if too many different materials are combined, mechanical recycling can take a greater variety of inputs, but that also limits the variety of products Patagonia can make with the resulting fiber. Patagonia's products are expected to meet certain performance levels, and any alternation to the amount of certain fabrics in them can affect that.

Patagonia is also reaching the limit of how much material it can handle. The amount of items they collect now is about what they are able to recycle. Increasing the amount of recycled materials would force its recycling systems to expand, which would require capital investment, more employees and more expenses for shipping garments overseas.

And some of the garments it receives are so old or worn out, with missing tags or faded labels, that it takes some serious investigating to find out what material they're made of. But that only means that a piece of clothing has lived a long, useful life. Patagonia sees Common Threads as a last resort for clothing, and will even donate to non-profits usable clothing that customers return through Common Threads.

"If, after a lifetime of use, a garment can be reused or handed-down no more, we provide Common Threads as a final destination, so that worn, used, and abused products can be recycled and made into new garments," Patagonia says in the report on Common Threads.

Remembering Inspiration

When did inspiration - the most natural experience in the world - become such a rare commodity? By John Marshall Roberts

---

As a writer and speaker on the topic of inspiration, I get more than my share of funny looks. "Oh god. Another wannabe guru peddling easy answers to tough questions." seems to be the non-verbal gist, usually said discreetly from behind world-weary eyes adorning an otherwise sweet and polite social face. As a generally polite fellow myself, I usually say nothing. But I notice. And I wonder...

When did this happen? When did people who could inspire others become relegated to the ranks of magicians and snake-oil salesmen? When did our mistrust of our own deeper nature harden into a cynical shell protecting us from even those who would earnestly seek to contribute to our well-being?

I don't know about you, but I've never met a cynical, smug baby. Nope. Cynicism is learned. Inspiration, on the other hand...well, that's beyond learning. Inspiration is what happens when we unlearn, when we let our guard down and experience the moment, fully and completely, exactly as it is, without the need for justifications, polish, or spin.

Don't believe me? That's fine. But answer me this:

Have you ever fallen madly in love? Have you ever had an amazing conversation that kept you up for until ungodly hours, without a need for food or sleep? Has a brilliant piece of music ever moved you to tears? Have you ever felt transported by the eloquence of a gifted orator? Have you ever felt ineffably connected to a stranger in a moment of crisis? Have you ever been entranced by the timeless charms of a chubby baby?

These are just a few faces of inspiration. It's infinite—in fact, it's the literal experience of infinity, of that unbounded experiential dimension that each of us carries innate. Socially, it is the recognition that we share this infinite something with each other. Is it hard to imagine that you could incorporate this sort of experience into your everyday life as a duty-bound adult? Yes, perhaps—but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Not only is it possible, but it's necessary and it's inevitable.

We live in a mind-blowing time where a critical mass of people are becoming disenchanted with the old ways, and are actively seeking new ways, or contexts, for living. We seem to be collectively unwilling to continue pretending as though there is nothing more to us than just a temporary body and a pleasure-seeking mind. We seem to be craving something deeper and more sustainable, not just in terms of our outer environment, but also our inner environments. We seem to be ready to reclaim our birthright—the natural state of inspiration that all those years of forcing and persuading bred right out of us.

As we move forward, we'll learn that our biggest barrier to reclaiming this higher ground and seizing this opportunity rests not in the world outside us, but in our inner willingness to let go of the cynicism that we've accrued to protect ourselves from an apparently dangerous, threatening world. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" is but the recognition that we are bigger than our piddling fears, and are finally willing to yield to a deeper voice that knows the way. This voice is inspiration, and whenever we meet we either share it or lose it together.

__________

John Marshall Roberts is an author, speaker, and communications strategist for a variety of sustainable and socially conscious clients. His new book, "Igniting Inspiration: A Persuasion Manual for Visionaries," is available here. Find more information on his blog.

This article first appeared on CTN Green.

via | sustainable life media

Making Way for the New Corporation

The economic reality that everyone is now facing is the necessary dismantling of a flawed system that allowed for the egregious over-valuation of houses, bundled mortgages, re-financed debt portfolios. Now is the time for us to build a new reality, one based upon a new ethos of good economics and the new politics of optimism - but this will require alternatives to current corporate structures. By Sandy Skees

---

I just finished reading a wonderful paper submitted by Susan Mac Cormac, a partner at Morrison | Foerster, titled "The Emergence of New Corporate Forms," submitted at the 2007 Summit on the Future of the Corporation. Her premise is that the rigid divisions between for-profit and non-profit will no longer work in the new economy because companies and organizations are waking up to need and benefit of combined prosperity/social missions endeavors.

I couldn't agree more.

An example given, of the new Minnesota Socially Responsible Corporation, describes legislation that allows companies to create a corporate structure that integrates "financial success and social responsibility." This bill, introduced in 2007, is another indication that many disciplines and industries, including legal, taxes, corporate designations like B Corporation, and sustainable brands, are all participating in a new reality that is more than a fad, a trend.

Companies - whether early stage or established - that adopt a sustainability focus and match economic prosperity/shareholder value with social responsibility and environmental nurturing will be at the forefront of the new Good Economy.

A sustainability focus helps companies give customers better products that can lead to a better life. When all of us are stretched thin and trying to absorb the reality of our failing systems, the time is right for companies to join the effort by acknowledging their responsibility and opportunity.

What business wouldn't want to create a more profitable and innovative enterprise, all while building stronger relationships with customers, employees, communities and even shareholders?

That's the Good Economy we can all nurture, grow and celebrate.

__________

Sandy Skees is a senior international public relations/marketing strategist, providing counsel and program development for communications that affect people, planet and profits through stakeholder relationship management.

This article was originally posted on Sandy's blog, Communications4Good.

via | SLM

I Heard You're a Great Lover

What makes a bonfire brand? The answer is quite simple: It’s about inspiring folks in an authentic manner to join your conversation and become your evangelists.

Marty Neumeier said it best in his wonderful book Zag: The days of telling everyone you’re a great lover is over. From now on, it’s all about others telling your story for you.

So how exactly do you, the marketing professional, actually accomplish that? In fact, it's a lot like dating:

Stop talking about yourself so much. As the old Chinese proverb suggests, "the unspoken word is heard a thousand times louder than the spoken word." So stop planning marketing and PR campaigns around every little green thing you do. It’s a waste of cash and in many instances, it can create a level of distrust and negative questions around your brand. SC Johnson telling me how green they are by creating their own green label, for example - it falls on deaf ears. You want me to connect? Have someone I respect tell me that you’re a great lover. Doing the right thing should be enough reward unto itself (forgive my altruistic ideals) and if/when others discover your goodness and share your story, well...that’s called gold.

Get in the game with social media. Your brand is officially in the hands of those you serve. So cut your marketing budget in half and invest in great human capital and better product. Yes, your marketing team will freak out and call bullshit, but once the numbness subsides, the great teams, will find energy and abundance in the necessity of thinking anew.

Choose authentic lovers. Partner with those that can tell your story. For example, look at all of the brands that benefited by having distribution with Whole Foods Market. The perception was/is that Whole Foods is the "house of goodness," and so your mere presence suggested you were legit. In many ways, Whole Foods helped shape and define the resonance and authenticity of so many brands (including Seventh Generation). Another example would be B Corporation, fascinating new initiative that seeks to keep conversations objective via a set of comprehensive and transparent social and environmental standards.

Consider your sources. The less we listen to corporations telling us how green they are, the more likely greenwashing will diminish. That said, we should place emphasis on those we trust versus those that pitch. Paying others to tell your story is not recommended. Case in point: Sierra Club endorsing Clorox’s Green Works product line would have been cool, but discovering that Sierra Club was a paid consultant, not so cool. It created all sorts of red flags and produced more questions than confirmation for the authenticity and intentions of both Sierra Club and Clorox. The moral of the story - authenticity cannot be bought.

Ditch your carefully laid plans. Ad agencies better reinvent themselves fast - real fast. Brands need to build bonfires, not media plans and fancy ads.

Be flexible. The Chief Marketing Officer role needs to evolve or it will die. As I have said before, I am not sure what marketing means, but resonance and relevance is vital. That said the tired CMO job description should shift to something far more meaningful. Can I suggest Chief Trimtab, Gardener or Conversationista?

Less is more. "Do-nothing branding" will emerge as a new trend. In other words, we will see bonfire brands grow without any traditional marketing strategies. I kid you not. One of the best things the team did at Seventh Generation was create a product catalog that mirrored a coffee table book. It brought the brand and product to life in a way that previously did not exist. It became a catalyst for discussion at the ground level. So the key for all of us going forward is to really sit and think about what will optimize resonance and relevance without any preconceptions as to what drives a brand. The cool thing is that it is a unique design question for everyone and thus, everyone can create and design on their own accord.

Natural selection. Brand Darwinism will ring true - we will see the collapse of hundreds, if not thousands, of brands based on natural selection. A logo and an idea are not enough any more (thank God!). That said, many brands will find it tough because they lack the authenticity and acumen to grow a bonfire brand. History and tradition are meaningless. It’s all about what you are doing going forward. The good news? A whole new breed of brand will emerge with stronger principles and a greater respect for authenticity.

__________

Duke Stump has worked as a brand builder for more than 20 years, most recently for Seventh Generation and Nike. He is now principal and chief architect of the NorthStar Manifesto, a brand-consulting studio.

Americans Believe Green Investing is Poised for a 'Golden Age': Survey

By GreenBiz Staff

Heightened support from the Obama Administration and the new Congress on environmental issues, strong green elements in the proposed stimulus and anticipated regulatory changes are fueling optimism for green investment, according to Allianz Global Investors.
That's the assessment of results from the latest survey of American investors for the asset management firm, which says Amercians see a "golden age" coming for green investing.
In addition to expecting broad policy change from Washington, D.C., investors are increasingly perceiving firms that seek to address environmental issues as strong investment opportunities, the company said.

"The need for pollution control, clean water and energy efficiency is not going away," Brian Gaffney, managing director and CEO of Allianz Global Investors Distributors, said in a statement. "Investors perceive there is real opportunity here and they want to capitalize on it."
Gaffney said investors' positive outlook on the environmental technology sector reflects their perception of the area as a long-term opportunity. "Investors understand that robust demand for innovation and solutions will fuel growth, and consequently profits, for years to come," he said.
The survey found:

• 78 percent of investors believe that the Obama Administration in its first year will produce more policy promoting business investment in the environment than the Bush Administration produced during its entire tenure
• 74 percent believe that the new Congress will more strongly support policy promoting business investment in environmental technology
• 97 percent believe that exploring alternative fuel sources remains important despite declining gas prices
• 91 percent believe that resolving environmental problems will be a major issue for years
• 69 percent consider it important to look at investing in companies that capitalize on addressing those problems.
• 78 percent say environmental technology has the potential to be the "next great American industry," and 64 percent considered the sector to be the "most desirable" investment opportunity among 10 categories surveyed
• 72 percent contend that plunging stock prices have had no effect on their inclination to invest in environmental stocks
• 48 percent say they are "at least somewhat likely" to invest in environmental companies this year
• 22 percent in 2008 made investments in firms capitalizing in environmental trends compared to the 17 percent who reported doing so in 2007

The survey also found that 52 percent believe the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be higher a year from now than it is today. And 58 percent of the respondents said they think Europe is ahead of the U.S. in trying to tackle the problems — an aspect that could spur investors' interests in American firms engaged in environmental issues.

The survey polled 1,264 adults from December 12 to 19, 2008. GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, a division of GfK Custom Research North America, conducted the survey over the Internet for Allianz Global Investors.

Participants were required to be at least 25 years old and have primary or shared responsibility for investment decisions in households with financial assets of at least $100,000. The survey conducted December 14-20, 2007 tallied responses from 1,003 completed interviews.

Vital to Business Survival: Reading the Signs of Change

By Brandi McManus

In this era of heightened environmental awareness, the ability to recognize the transformational power of the green movement -- and act on it -- can be the difference between life and death for a business. Brandi McManus' four-part series "Growing a Green Corporation: Meeting the Next Great Disruptive Challenge of the 21st Century" begins today with a look at the perils of failing to recognize disruptive change.

Muskets, Crossbows and CEOs

In the 18th century, warfare was changed forever. Out were the romantic knights with armor and lances, and in were muskets, artillery and infantrymen. Armies now used gunpowder as an effective means to destroy an enemy from afar. Although early muskets had a limited rate of fire, range and accuracy, firearms allowed anyone to become an effective soldier with very little training. Previous military units like bowman and knights needed years of practice to master their skills. These disruptive changes created an entirely new approach to the art of war.

The prince or king -- the CEO of that era -- who recognized the disruptive force and seized upon it early gained an overwhelming advantage.

Growing A Green Corporation

This four-part series covers ... • Reading the Signs of Change • Assessing the Impacts of Environmental Pressure • Investing in Sustainability: Shades of Green • Building Your Green Team

Disruptive change is present in every era. It shifts the underlying forces of society, industry or business. In modern times, we have many examples of industries undergoing a disruptive change -- computers, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, newspapers and music to name a few.

The question facing today's CEO may not be a matter of life and death, but it is vital to business survival: What is the next great disruptive change, and when should you act?

History is littered with the failures of companies that did not see disruptive change or technology: Kodak and the digital camera, BMG and digital music, the minicomputer industry and personal computers, and Dell's entrance into printing and the threat it posed to HP. Fortunately, history reminds us of the success of those who ride the wave of disruptive change: Apple with its iPod, General Electric, SAP and Oracle.

There are huge rewards for recognizing the indicators of disruptive change. The penalty for lack of response? Struggle, failure and an ignoble exit.

Business tools of a bygone era.

What in the world is the next disruptive force?

Business leaders in every industry have a powerful interest in figuring out what the next big disruptive change will be. Will society move to e-books? Will voiceover IP dominate the telecommunications industry? Will CD collections be discarded in favor of digital?

Those are important issues, but they pale next to the real change that is coming. The clues to this change are literally all around us -- in the air, under our feet and in our water. The single most important issue of our generation is not only threatening how we do business today, it is threatening our society, economy and health.

This looming issue is the environment.

Once a concern only for hippies and extremists, the environment has become a pressing issue for everyone living in our world today. In "Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value and Build Competitive Advantage," authors Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston write: "In today's world, no company, big or small, operating locally or globally, in manufacturing or services can afford to ignore environmental issues."

Some may argue about the causes of climate change and the role that humans play. But from a business perspective, there is no question that the environment is fast becoming a driving force behind public, governmental and economic activities around the world.

In short, the environment is the new musket.

12next ›last »

Design is an Avocado: The Layers of Green Design

via | greener design By Brian Dougherty

There are three distinct ways of thinking about a graphic designer's role: designer as manipulator of stuff; designer as message maker; and designer as agent of change.

I like to think of design as a big, ripe avocado. The outer layer of this avocado represents the physical world of paper and print. This is the obvious part of design that we immediately see-the layer of stuff. Yet if we peel back the skin of the avocado, we discover the meat. This is the realm of brand and information. All of that stuff on the exterior really exists in order to convey information and deliver messages.

If we dive still deeper into the design avocado, we find one more layer-the seed at the center. This seed represents the central challenge around which all of the messages and stuff of design revolve: effecting change.

Designer As Manipulator of Stuff

The kind of graphic design that I learned about in school is a world of typography and images, paper and ink. It is the descendant of Gutenberg and the Bauhaus. It is essentially a world of stuff. In this world, graphic designers are manipulators of words, creators of image, and specifiers of materials.

Within this conception of graphics, green design is a matter of finding and using better physical materials. Designers may research things such as recycled and tree-free papers; or try to find nontoxic inks; or devise folds and structures that result in less waste. When most designers think of green design, these are the common themes.

In the early days of Celery, we immersed ourselves in the world of alternative materials and manufacturing techniques. We collected a library of unusual papers made from bamboo, banana, beer, and a bounty of other materials. We discovered topics outside the typical realm of graphic design, such as biomimicry, biocomposites, and Bucky Fuller. Ten years later, this is still a big part of what we do. We are researching and experimenting on nearly every project we touch.

Designer As Message Maker

Along the way, I have also come to know a different realm of graphic design-one that is not specifically about stuff. In addition to creating physical artifacts (all those booklets, brochures, and banner ads), graphic designers also help clients strategize about how to build strong brands and craft communications that resonate with their target audiences. As such, we are message makers. The messages designers make, the brands we build, and the causes we promote can have impacts far beyond the paper we print on.

This points to a different level of green graphic design. In addition to seeking out better materials and manufacturing techniques, designers can craft and deliver messages that have a positive impact on the world. An obvious example of this sort of green design is when designers work with nonprofit advocacy organizations. For instance, Celery helps the Global Footprint Network communicate with political leaders around the world about sustainable development. We use green materials, of course, but the ideas and messages we work with have much more potential to change the course of world development than our material choices do.

Likewise, green designers may help values-based companies build strong brands and succeed in the marketplace. These companies in turn help to educate their customers about social and environmental issues. Innovative brands can also have an influence far beyond their market share because they can shift the competitive landscape for major industries. A small company like Elephant Pharmacy, which has four stores in the San Francisco area, has carved out a comfortable niche by focusing on holistic wellness and natural products, but it has also influenced larger competitors to focus more on these things.

However, green messages are not limited to nonprofits and green businesses. Community outreach, cause marketing, and corporate responsibility are all well-developed corporate activities that allow graphic designers to work with messages that can have a positive impact. Designers can help companies position themselves as leaders on social and environmental issues, which in turn can influence business operations for years to come.

Designer As Agent of Change

At its core, design is about effecting change. Someone, somewhere is dissatisfied with the way they find things, and they attempt to improve the situation by investing in design.

As designers, we are trying to help clients change the way people think and/or the way they act. In this sense, designers are uniquely positioned to shift not only our own actions, but also the actions of many others who are touched by our work-including our audiences and our clients. We may be hired to change the user's experience of a client's brand. But in the process of doing this, we have the power to change the brand itself. We have the power to influence the substance of a product or service. Green design at this level is about being a force for positive change.

Building a Bonfire Brand

During my first all company meeting at Seventh Generation, I stood up as the new Chief Marketing Officer and mentioned that I had no clue about marketing (yes - a lot of folks looked in disbelief at each other saying ‘who the heck hired this guy?’), but that I did believe in building resonance, relevance and bonfires.*

What rings louder and more true? Saying you are going to create a marketing plan, or saying that you are going to build a plan that optimizes the resonance and relevance between your brand and those you serve? Initiatives informed by the latter consider the whole - you, your culture, those you serve and the greater good. It’s a simple framework for decision-making. Does the initiative optimize resonance and relevance? If yes, proceed. If not, drop it.

Now consider the following. What ignites a greater sense of possibility and emotion - building a brand, or building a bonfire brand? A bonfire brand is something that galvanizes and mobilizes your evangelists. So ask yourself the following: Are folks gathering to talk about your brand? Do they defend your brand? Does your brand have evangelists that tell your story for you? Ardent critics that want to see you thrive? If no, ask yourself and those you serve why not? What can you do to ignite the fire? What are the keys to unlocking the possibility? If your brand is not a bonfire brand, then you need to be concerned, incredibly concerned. You are in essence replaceable. Conversely, bonfire brands have an effortless loyalty from those they serve. A few examples - Apple, TED, Seventh Generation, Nau, Whole Foods, Buckminster Fuller Institute, Kiva, New Belgium Brewery, Patagonia, Burning Man (literally and figuratively), and the Boston Red Sox. It is important to note that what matters most is not the quantity of voices at the bonfire, but the quality and depth.

One last thought. If you are as good as you say you are then people will be drawn to you. They will in essence bring the wood for the bonfire and stoke the flames. You will become a beacon and folks will engage in the bonfire. So for Christ’s sake stop watering down your story to make it mainstream. Let them come to you versus chasing them. You’ll stay true to your core and chances are, you’ll be stronger because of it.

* While I would love to have been the one with the creative capacity to conjure up the term ‘bonfire brand’, I first heard the term several years ago from John Olson @ OLSON & Company in MN. It has resonated with me ever since. FYI - he’s a fascinating, fun-loving and brilliant guy!

__________________________

Duke Stump has worked as a brand builder for more than 20 years, most recently for Seventh Generation and Nike. He is now principal and chief architect of the NorthStar Manifesto, a brand-consulting studio.

This column originally appeared on Duke's blog, The Real 100.

Let's Hope "Change" means the Global lead in Energy Technology

It's time to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin the work of remaking America. Roads, bridges, electric lines, harness the sun, and the wind and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. All this we can do; all this we will do. -- barack obama

Green Jobs Could Top 37M in 2030: Report

By GreenBiz Staff

Green collar jobs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors employed more than 9 million Americans in 2007, producing more than $1 trillion in sales, according to a new report.

The two industries hold the the potential of generating 37 million jobs by 2030, but this will be more difficult to achieve without the proper policies in place at the federal and state levels, according to the American Solar Energy Society and Management Information Services Inc., which together released the report, "Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S. and in Colorado."

Aggressive policies are needed immediately to maximize green jobs gains, especially in later years, according to lead author Roger Bezdek of Management Information Services. "Every year we lose on the front end has a negative and unfortunate impact at the back end," Bezdek said in a conference call with reporters Thursday.

The report is the second of its kind produced by the two organizations and may be the only example of time-series research on existing green jobs, the vast majority of which are found in the private sector. The groups pegged green jobs in the two industries at 8.5 million, with 972 billion in annual sales.

One of the challenges in producing the report, the authors said, is the lack of agreed-upon definitions of what constitutes the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. The report sets its own standard definition and forecasts growth through 2030 using three scenarios -- business-as-usual, a moderate scenario where some pro-energy efficiency and renewable energy policies are enacted, and an advanced scenario that pushes the envelope on cutting edge technologies, policies and market conditions.

If nothing is done and we proceed in the business-as-usual fashion, the two industries may generate an additional 16.3 million jobs by 2030, compared to 19.5 million in the moderate scenario. The most robust policies could produce 37.2 million jobs by 2030.

Hot sectors with the highest revenue growth included solar thermal and photovoltaics, biofuels and fuel cells. The jobs most in demand will include electricians, mechanical engineers, welders, metal workers, accountants, analysts, environmental scientists and chemists -- the vast majority of which are existing jobs that will take on environmental dimension.

The report also offers an in-depth look at these industries at the state level, using Colorado as a test case. According to the report, the sectors produced $10.3 billion in sales and employed more than 91,000 in Colorado in 2007, comprising more than 4 percent of gross state product.

As many as 613,000 jobs and up to $61.5 billion in sales could be achieved in the state by 2030 under the advanced scenario.

Doing More with Less

By Joel Makower via Green BuZZ


Doing more with less. That seems to be a common theme among companies in 2009, which is shaping up to be the Year of Living Frugally. Companies aren't necessarily cutting back (though many are), but they're learning how to be more efficient than ever. That includes ever-more-efficient resource use -- and reuse. Hence, this week's feature story, about corporate "dumpster diving," in which a range of companies are finding treasure among trash.

Companies are also getting better at closing the loop, as Zeftron Nylon's Richard Ranke told GreenBiz.com associate editor Jonathan Bardelline in this week's GreenBiz Radio. The company is turning used carpet back into "virgin" nylon, and back into new carpet, transforming a liability -- used carpet -- into an asset.

There's certainly no dearth of detritus. Consider e-waste, of which some 66.5 million pounds were recycled last year by major manufacturers and retailers, according to new EPA data, a 30 percent rise from 2007. That's good news -- to a point. In our upcoming State of Green Business 2009 report ... Read More

After Life ::.

By Sarah Fister Gale

Product manufacturers worldwide have invested millions to improve the sustainability of their production processes. From the harvesting of raw materials to packaging on the final product, innovative changes are enabling companies to significantly reduce their carbon footprints.

That cradle-to-grave approach has resulted in novel front-end thinking about the impact products have on the environment. But it's not enough. Until companies approach product design with end-of-life in mind, landfills will continue to overflow with these “sustainably-designed” products whose usefulness have come to an end.

“Cradle-to-grave thinking creates incredible waste,” says Jay Bolus, vice president of technical operations for McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), a private consulting and Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) certification firm in Charlottesville, Va. “The concept has always been to throw things away when we are done with them, but there is no 'away' anymore. Unless we design with the end in mind, our legacy will be our landfills.”

This end-of-life design approach is gaining popularity in many green organizations where designers are incorporating characteristics into new products that allow for easy recycling, repurposing and dismantling when their current usefulness ends.

End-of-life design decisions must happen at the outset of product development for them to be effective, Bolus points out. “That focus informs a lot of other product decisions with respect to materials, how things fit together and how they come apart,” he says.

While this is a fairly new approach for some designers, industries such as floor coverings and automotive manufacturing have been leading the trend to identify and incorporate end-of-life choices that promise reduced waste for generations to come.

Driving A Trend

When people think of innovative green companies, they may not immediately think of the automotive industry, but auto manufacturers have been designing with end-of-life in mind for decades.

“Cars have been recycled for a very long time,” notes Dan Adsit, manager of vehicle environmental engineering for Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Mich. “We are very aware of what materials we use and how to bring them back at the end of a vehicle's life.”

Ford has strict requirements for recyclability in vehicle designs that starts at the drawing board and cascades across the development process. From using recycled materials in new vehicles and minimizing the use of restricted substances, to establishing processes and networks to dismantle, sort and repurpose up to 95 percent of any vehicle at the end of life, the auto industry has gotten end-of-life strategies down to a science.

And a big part of its success is industry members' willingness to collaborate with the competition.

“We believe that collaboration is the way to get things done,” says Claudia Duranceau senior research recycling engineer at Ford. “It allows us to be proactive, to work together to phase out materials, and to make sure we don't duplicate our efforts.”
Even in such a competitive market, all of the players in this industry agree that when it comes to end-of-life processes, there is more money to be made working together rather than apart. And the auto manufacturers benefit from being able to reclaim those materials for use in future vehicles.

“When we recycle cars, you can't tell where the material came from,” says Duranceau.

1 2 3 next ›last »

We Want Renewable Energy & Green Jobs Too: Native American Groups Tell Obama

by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 01. 7.09

Citing the disproportionate burden Native American populations will bear because of climate change, and have borne because fossil fuel energy development (in particular uranium mining), a coalition of Native groups, including Honor the Earth, the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and the International Indian Treaty Council, is asking the incoming Obama administration to give greater support to tribally owned and operated renewable energy projects, as well as green job programs. Here’s why:

Tribal Lands Have Great Renewable Energy Potential
The groups pointed out the energy potential of tribal lands, asserting that renewable energy projects located there could generate an estimated 535 billion kWh/year of electricity from wind power and 17,000 billion kWh/year from solar power. Furthermore, investing in renewable energy would generate more jobs per dollar invested than continued investment in fossil fuels.

Native Nations Have Higher Unemployment, Poverty Rates
On the green job front, the groups say that even though Native Nations have “borne the brunt of destructive energy development that has reaped massive profits for some,” the unemployment rate on reservations is more than twice the national rate, poverty rates are twice national levels, and reservation homes without electricity are ten times the national rate. Furthermore, in the continental US 11% of Indian homes lack complete plumbing, while in Alaska this rises to 33%.

Because of this there is great potential to put people to work improving building energy efficiency, improving local energy infrastructure and building renewable energy projects.

The Obama Economic Stimulus Plan that incorporates a green economy and green jobs portfolio must include provisions for access to these resources by our Native Nations, our tribal education and training institutions, and Native organizations and communities.

Read the full policy recommendations: Energy Justice in Native America and the Next Administration

Sustainability 101: The Human Problem

By Stephen Linaweaver

These are indeed difficult and extraordinary times for businesses, and the natural reaction is to cut back on areas such as sustainability, which are not quite yet an established function in most companies, don't necessarily bring in direct revenue, and are not core competencies for many.

Cutting back on sustainability now, however, would be a mistake because it will only get more expensive to implement programs in the future, when more of your competitors are doing it as well. One of the most critical elements of understanding sustainability and making it a driver of value is getting out of the starting blocks and up the learning curve.

Here are seven activities you can do, with minimal investment in a down economy, to start getting up that learning curve.

The key is to start. Like any journey, the hardest part is getting off the couch or out the door. Begin now.

Build the Yugo

There is an inclination to reveal a Cadillac when you unveil your sustainability strategy. You don't. Build the Yugo first.

This was a lesson we learned in Silicon Valley during the tech boom. That bubble created several distortions, one of which was the belief that you needed to have your "beta" version perfect before you made the first release. Most of those companies burned through their cash before they had a chance to make a difference.

The mantra we used at the start-up where I worked was "Build the Yugo, Build the Yugo" (this was, unfortunately, after we had been mired in months of trying to get a Cadillac on the showroom floor). The same holds true with sustainability.

Start simple. Measure ... carbon, for starters. What you measure, you can monitor. What you monitor, you can change.

Define Sustainability

It is a wooly word. Ask 50 companies, NGOs, or sustainability consulting firms, and you will get 40 different definitions, while the other 10 will ask you whether you mean business sustainability, environmental sustainability or if you're trying to invite them to a conference they don't want to attend.

Twenty-five years ago, The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." While that is more of a macro-economic definition than micro-economic, that is a good a place as any to start. Sustainability is using resources at a rate that can be renewed or using the earth as a sink at a rate that does not exceed its absorption capacity.

Academics and writers have been focused on sustainability long before we started to notice demonstrable change in climate or "green" entered the hyperbolic realm of Madison Avenue's whiteboards. If you want to get specific, look to Herman Daly, Eric Neumeyer, Kenneth Bolding, Aldo Leopold, among many others.

But for starters, pick a definition that makes sense to you, your employees, and your stakeholders, and go with it.

Know Your Company

Every company will be at a different point on the sustainability awareness curve.

Click for larger image

If you are a company that is or has been a non-believer in climate change, you are making that decision based on emotion -- don't bother with a sustainability initiative. You can't argue with emotion using reason. Exxon is a good example of this. At the top end of the curve, you have complete believers -- such as Patagonia or Seventh Generation, who are also making decisions on emotion. Here you obviously want to appeal to the values of your employees and the culture of your company to ensure the success of initiatives.

In between is a broad spectrum of companies that are all making decisions on sustainability based on rational decision-making -- what makes for good business? Here you want to know what your awareness is, who needs to be convinced, and make a business case for change.

We often see clients whose employees are more aware than management about sustainability. You can have internal champions who can help build the case for initiatives, but remember there needs to be a strong business case. Trying to argue with reason using emotion fails. Emotion is what drives you to advocate for change, while reason is often what makes it happen.

READ ON >>

Sustainable Consumption ::.

[Editor's note: In this exclusive excerpt from Joel Makower's new book, "Strategies for the Green Economy, we look at the easy steps to tell your company's green story. You can read a previous excerpt here.]

Joel Makower is executive editor of GreenBiz.com.

Excerpted with permission from Strategies for the Green Economy, by Joel Makower, published by McGraw Hill. © 2008 Joel Makower.

Talking to consumers about buying less stuff just might be the third rail of green marketing. Reducing or limiting consumption is antithetical to marketing, or at least it has been so far. Practically no one seems to want to go there. I'll accept my portion of responsibility. In the late 1980s, when I penned The Green Consumer, I helped advance the notion of solving our planet's environmental ills by making good purchasing choices -- that we could, in other words, shop our way to environmental health. "By choosing carefully, you can have a positive impact on the environment without significantly compromising your way of life," I wrote. "That's what being a green consumer is all about." I didn't stop there:

It wasn't very long ago that being a green consumer was a contradiction in terms. To truly care for the environment, it was said, you had to drastically reduce your purchases of everything -- food, clothing, appliances, and other "lifestyle" items -- to a bare minimum. That approach simply doesn't work in our increasingly convenience- and consumption-oriented society. No one wants to go back to a less-comfortable, less-convenient way of life.

This is still true, of course -- no one wants to be less well off. And, for the large part, few people seem willing to change or be inconvenienced in the name of Mother Earth. Sure, people are making small changes -- turning off computers, swapping out light bulbs, using cloth bags instead of disposable ones, buying hybrid cars, and recycling stuff. All necessary, but hardly sufficient.

Sustainable consumption is decidedly more complex and more global than just environmental concerns. It has to do with satisfying basic human needs and with spiritual, moral, and ethical matters. It has to do with the growing appetite in China, India, and other developing countries for cars, appliances, fashions, fast food, and many of the other things accessible to the consumption class. According to Norman Myers, a professor of environmental science at Oxford University, more than a billion people in 20 developing and transitional nations have recently become wealthy enough to begin consuming like Americans. Sustainable consumption also has to do with the underconsumption that characterizes roughly a third of the world's populace.

So how on Earth do companies acknowledge the elephant in the living room -- sustainable levels of consumption? Should they?

It won't be easy. For better or worse, we live in a commercial world and consumer society. You can see it at work in the cacophony of advertisements and commercial messages that intrude on our daily lives, in the companies and webs of commerce whose existence depends on consumers' endless appetite for more, and in the political leaders who work to promote unsustainable levels of economic growth, often at the expense of ecological and human needs. You can see it at work in our culture of debt and our need for keeping up with the Joneses.

Yet the environmental impacts of our consumption are virtually hidden. Most of us don't see firsthand the roughly 120 pounds of natural resources extracted from farms, forests, rangelands, oceans, rivers, and mines that go into the products that are consumed each day. For example, experts have estimated that the sum of all substances required to support one American for a year, including water used that is no longer available for reuse, totals nearly 1 million pounds -- or roughly 109 truckloads for a family of four. And do we recycle those 1 million pounds of resources? Not likely -- in the United States alone, individuals discard nearly three million plastic bottles every hour and enough steel and iron to continuously supply all the country's automakers.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that average human consumption of water, forests, land, energy, and other natural resources exceeds the capacity of the biologic systems that support our planet by 20 percent. This means that we must change the way we produce goods and services lest we risk "overdrafting" our "ecological account," as ecologists put it, with devastating effects on economies and the environment.

Of course, we suffer in other ways from this buying binge. For several decades now, psychologists, sociologists, and other observers of the human condition have discussed and deconstructed the disparity -- or perhaps it's a gulf -- between consumption and happiness. More, it seems, is not necessarily better in terms of engendering security, self-esteem, meaning, personal fulfillment, or any of the other Maslowian traits that make for individuals, communities, and societies that are healthy, in every sense of the word. Americans, for one, consume more per capita than anyone else, yet we're chronically unhappy.

It would be one thing if all the stuff we buy somehow made us better people, but this doesn't seem to be the case. There is an extensive literature on materialism demonstrating a negative relationship between materialism and well being. For example, in a 1985 study by Russell Belk, now a marketing professor at the Schulich School of Business at York University, materialistic people were found to be possessive, in that they preferred to own and keep things rather than borrow, rent, or throw things out. They were seen as non-generous, or unwilling to share their possessions with others. And they tended to covet their neighbors' stuff, feeling displeasure when others had things they themselves desired. This is no victimless crime. Materialistic lifestyles can infect marriages (by devaluing non-materialistic bonds that keep relationships together during tough times) and parenting (since our children's value systems tend to imitate our own).

The reason we often seem powerless to resist this maelstrom of marketing messages is that we've been conditioned to buy, buy, buy from nearly the moment we emerge from the womb. Journalist Thomas Hine, in his fine book, I Want That, explores the history of acquisition -- finding, choosing, spending -- from our amber-coveting Neolithic forebears to twenty-first-century bargain hunters on eBay. Three of four American babies visit a store, usually a supermarket, by the age of six months, although some start "virtually at birth," he says. "They soon begin to realize that the store is the source of some of the good things that they had previously associated solely with their parents." It's not long before they're pointing at and choosing, often insistently, their breakfast cereals, toys, entertainment, and fashions.

For toddlers, teens, and grown-ups alike, exercising the power of choice in the marketplace is exactly that -- a form of power. Shopping enables us to take control and wield authority in our often-powerless lives. Indeed, as Hine deftly points out, the mere act of going shopping itself can be more important than anything that ends up in one's shopping cart as a result. Shopping, Hine argues, "is an exercise of both profound responsibility and profound freedom."

Not that we manage to exercise the former or achieve the latter. When it comes to navigating the marketplace, rational thinking often gets short shrift. Hine cites a study in which 36 percent of women and 18 percent of men admitted buying things they didn't need. Roughly one woman in four says she "can't resist a sale," and one in three says she shops to celebrate. Hine notes that shoppers "conspire in their own seduction," allowing themselves to be manipulated by marketers.

Given all this, the idea of consuming less rings hollow. We are looking to be seduced, it seems, and the marketing world is ready, willing, and able to beguile us with its respective psychological pheromones.

What is the business opportunity in confronting consumption? Few companies have likely asked this question, and fewer still have made it part of their strategy. Patagonia, for one, raised the issue with an essay in its fall 1993 catalog. After the company had undergone an environmental product audit, the company's founder, Yvon Chouinard, came to the conclusion that "Everything we make pollutes." As a result, the company "decided to make a radical change: We are limiting Patagonia's growth in the United States with the eventual goal of halting growth altogether." The company dropped 30 percent of its clothing line in its most recent catalog. "What does this mean to you?" Chouinard asked his customers. "Well, last fall you had a choice of five ski pants, now you may choose between two. This is, of course, un-American, but two styles of ski pants are all that anyone needs. They contain all that we have learned about design and the best available coatings for weather protection."

Kia, the Korean car maker, promoting its Sedona model in the United Kingdom, attempted to differentiate itself from competitors by encouraging walking instead of driving for short trips, not your typical car company tactic. Kia promoted the notion of a "Walking Bus," in which "a group, or 'bus,' of children walks from home to school each morning quickly and safely under the guidance of trained adult supervisors."

There are opportunities here. "We've all talked about sustainability, but suddenly having to sell less product is what frightens most companies," says Sarah Severn, director of corporate responsibility horizons at Nike. "Selling less isn't necessarily what's called for. Consumption is not the problem. It's the nature of consumption." The problem with most products -- Nike's and others' -- is that their materials have a relatively short life span before becoming unusable waste. Severn believes that companies able to improve on this model may be well positioned to succeed in a society geared toward sustainable consumption. So, for example, if Nike or anyone else could make shoes from materials that can be taken back and remanufactured into new shoes, all done with renewable energy and closed-loop manufacturing systems, "You have a regenerative model," says Severn. "The key is to maximize the use of resources that are already in play, radically reducing virgin materials input, but still meeting the consumer's requirement for innovation and freshness."

As Severn makes clear, this is no bah-humbug movement. The idea of sustainable consumption increasingly is being discussed well beyond the back-to-nature crowd. The Geneva-based World Business Council on Sustainable Development, a global alliance of mostly large companies, convened a summit several years ago to talk about how to respond to a world in which the notion of sustainable consumption gains currency. The meeting -- attended by 3M, British Telecom, Coors, Dow, DuPont, Fiat, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, and others -- was designed to stimulate corporations into considering the subject.

The public already is starting to think about sustainable consumption. For instance, there's the voluntary simplicity movement, which in recent years has grown beyond the Birkenstock crowd to include burned-out yuppies and others wishing to escape the fast-track treadmill. Voluntary simplicity courses now are being taught in schools, even inside companies. And there's the growing attention paid each year to "Buy Nothing Day" (or, in some countries, "No Shop Day"), a small but increasingly global annual Earth Day–like event aimed at promoting reduced consumption, celebrated on the last Friday of November. Few companies' bottom lines have suffered from this day-long rash of anti-consumerism, but that's not necessarily the point. It's all about education, raising consciousness, and a metaphysical smack upside the head just as the holiday shopping season commences. It's an all-too-brief reminder: Think before you shop.

How will your company fare should sustainable consumption, by whatever name, become part of the public conversation? What is the story you will be able to tell? Will anyone believe it?

To a large extent, this is the ultimate green-economy strategy -- enabling customers to reduce their impacts by doing business with your company. What is the opportunity to create products or services that become the green default -- the no-brainer option that is better and greener? What is the opportunity to be disruptive -- changing the economics, the business model, the market perception in a way that renders such barriers as the unaffordability and inconvenience of "going green" moot? What is the opportunity to create products that solve customers' problems -- enabling them to fulfill their needs in a way that makes them genuinely part of the solution?