The business of giving

Crocodiles and shoes, carbon emissions and paper, petroleum and energy saving, what do these have in common?

Given recent developments, they may have more in common than one may imagine. As the environment and its conservation becomes one of the pressing issues of our time, some are tasking businesses with becoming its guardian. This may seem rather ironic, given the fact that historically, social responsibility and corporate governance have co-existed in a relationship fraught with divides and tensions. However, there may be valid reasons for the shift of this responsibility to business.

Brendan May, international head of corporate responsibility and sustainability at Weber Shandwick believes that governments may neither have the resources, skills or the know-how to deal with the myriad issues on the world's agenda. And global issues encompass more than climate change or the environment. Ethical business practices, global poverty and the greater benefit of society are but a small representation of the multiple issues the world faces today. His view is that businesses will move the boundaries of technological innovation to help mitigate some of these issues we now face.

Other reasons for the mounting responsibility may be the internet, the blogosphere and the increasing attention that consumers are paying to the environment and ethical business practices today. Steve Garton, global head of media research at Synovate says, "concern for the environment has gone mainstream", citing that more than two-thirds of respondents in the Synovate/BBC global study on climate change said they were very or somewhat concerned. Activists the likes of Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger have also played their part in drawing public attention to the grave danger the world faces from climate change and ensuing hazards.  

Public scrutiny of business is also on the rise and the rapidity of information transfer makes it indispensable for businesses to keep close tabs on their practices and how these could be viewed by the larger public. Aysha Saifuddin, founder of the Kaarvan Crafts Foundation strongly believes consumers are more "socially conscious" and wouldn't want to purchase products that have been made through a process that has increased poverty, harmed environment or destroyed wildlife. Moreover, high-profile scandals have forced Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR onto the main menu of most big corporations. One can observe a large number of companies pledging resources to the environment, to alleviate poverty and in general, giving back to the community.

Seen through a kaleidoscope, this sudden onslaught of CSR and eco-branding could leave different impressions. Gavin Coombes, CEO of FutureBrand Singapore identifies companies who are genuinely motivated by a concern for the environment. He cites the example of Patagonia, a clothing company in the US that only uses unionised labour and carbon-neutral methods to produce its clothing. Simultaneously, though it may sound cynical, he thinks there are companies who "see it as means of improving brand awareness or balancing whatever negative impact they have had on the environment in the past." GE could be reaping the benefits of ‘eco-imagination', a key component of the brand's long-term growth strategy. The brand has also confessed to not being altruistic in any way but simply filling a gap in the market, Coombes explains.   

Even if businesses act out of pure self-interest, it may not be a bad thing, as May points out. "That's what they're there to do and the question is not how much money they make but at what social and environmental cost they make it." Whatever the motivations, CSR would have to be deeply embedded in the core DNA of an organisation for it to work, he adds.

Beyond the self-gratification and genuine interest, brands may also have such roles thrusted on them. "Because brands are such an integral part of our culture, what they stand for can help influence popular discourse and debate", Coombes says. They could lead the way, bringing new social and environmental problems to light and putting their financial weight behind causes that are close to their ideals and brand essence.

This could explain the difficulties of using the term ‘green branding' in association with all brands. While some are naturally linked to the environment through their lines of business, others would find it harder to use this term. "For companies without a direct connection to the environment, like banking, such a positioning would be window dressing", Coombes argues. He would rather use the term social responsibility as opposed to green. On the contrary, this shouldn't deter such firms from associating with an eco-friendly cause.

Brands like BP, who are invariably linked to climate change and who are often portrayed in poor light by eco-friendly activists, have served as pioneers, adopting the environmental cause well ahead of others in the mid-90's. More recently, brands like Chevron have invested over $2 billion in renewable and alternative energy sources and plan to invest more than $2.5 billion from 2007 through 2009. But isn't it the very nature of the oil industry to take from the environment, cause pollution and deplete energy resources?  

Tracey Gardiner, Caltex global brand manager, Chevron may not agree. She highlights the Caltex brand of retail fuels, in particular the Techron range that cleans engines, thereby helping to increase fuel efficiency and reducing the level of CO2 emissions. While investing in alternative energy sources and creating eco-friendly petroleum products, Caltex also runs an in-house energy index and tries to control its energy spending, believing energy conservation is the "best current source of new energy".

But the most interesting initiative the brand has taken is to use its positioning to promote dialogue on depleting energy sources on its site willyoujoinus.com, proving Coombes right on the power of brands to influence and incite debate. The site gives users the option to play ‘Energyville', a game asking participants to choose the most efficient energy sources to power their towns. The game measures the economic, environmental and security outcomes using an automatic score card.

What is an online game could well apply to the real world and is one that humanity could lose, if it ignores the far-reaching effects of environmental damage. Studies by Synovate show post-industrial carbon dioxide concentration has risen to 380 ppm (parts per million) and only a genuine change in attitude on the part of large corporations can make a definitive impact on restricting future damage. With this is mind, I approached Double A with some scepticism. The company's farmed trees are said to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.32 million tonnes per year and to manufacture electricity using tree waste, thereby saving 200 million litres of oil consumption every year.

Double A senior executive VP Thirawit Leetavorn explains the brand draws its strength from using farmed trees that prevent cutting down of trees while also providing additional income to the one million farmers who plant them in unused land around rice, corn and cassava crops. The company's unique manufacturing system that also includes using rain water and recycled water allows Double A's mills to run at a high production rate.

The farmed eucalyptus tree takes only three to four years to reach maturity as opposed to the natural eucalyptus one that takes seven to eight years. However, Leetaworn feels they've not used the farmed trees concept as a marketing tool and plans are underway to raise awareness on the unique paper production methods across educational institutions in Thailand.

When profitability and the environment co-exist, one can observe a definite increase in brand value and enhanced consumer perception vis-à-vis the brand. It may be hard to arrive at a definite number of consumers asking the environmental question but it is on the increase. Who leads though is another question? As John McCarvel, MD of Crocs puts it, Asia leads sometimes, the US leads at other times and so on. Wendy Ong, director, strategic planning at DDB Singapore also thinks it's a trend that has mostly been driven out of the West and is rather undeveloped in the region. At least, she hasn't seen much green advertising in Singapore. She explains such causes need to resonate with consumers and up until now consumers in Singapore have been more concerned with consumption than preservation.

While certain Asian markets like Korea and Japan may be more developed than others, we're seeing a microcosm of it in Singapore, McCarvel observes. Take the French supermarket giant, Carrefour. Working alongside the National Environment Agency, the Singapore Environment Council and other retailers, the brand promotes Bring Your Own Bag Day (BYOBD) every first Wednesday of each month. Shana Lim, marketing and communications manager, Singapore observes a definite increase in the use of these reusable bags in comparison to a year ago.

Singapore is quite advanced in this area and a visit to the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) would throw light on some of the issues the organisation is trying to highlight. Y&R worked on a campaign for the SEC on Earth Day contributing to one of the few cases of green advertising in Singapore. But such advertising continues to be rare here, feels Ong of DDB. She even goes to question the validity of traditional advertising that uses carbon and paper when one could move in favour of the virtual space.

Whatever the medium, eco-friendly messages of brands need to resonate with its core assets. Crocs, a brand that has seen rapid growth across the last five years may know exactly how to do that. Capitalising on a combination of factors, the brand recently adopted Sungei Buaya, the Singapore Zoo's newly revamped crocodile habitat for a one year period. Croc's MD, McCarvel doesn't shy away from talking about the increased visibility this will bring to the brand and highlights the involvement on the brand's part from a market presence standpoint.

The adoption is but one layer of the multiple green initiatives the brand is taking. "It is relatively new to us", McCarvel says, but having set foot in green territory, he feels they can do so cost-effectively and in a way that doesn't adversely impact their business.

The bottom line is that businesses need to satisfy the needs of stakeholders and eco-friendly initiatives would be easier to implement when built top-down. Not surprisingly, stakeholders themselves and the investment community may not want to invest in a brand that seems socially irresponsible or that doesn't take environmental hazards seriously. May puts it accurately: "When money starts to talk is when people actually start to listen."  

Global CEOs, marketing heads and senior management are all sitting up and taking note of the environment. Not a day goes by without new eco-friendly measures being created by brands, both big and small. Chris Pash, director of content, Factiva Research notes news about green branding and companies linking their brand to environmental issues has doubled over the last three years.

While employees would need to be inducted, it would not be possible to transform brand positioning overnight. So how much cost is involved and can one concoct green branding for the numerous advantages it brings to one's brand? Coombes thinks "it's about the credibility gap". If companies state they're environmentally conscious and repeatedly do otherwise, they may need to clean up their act first. "This can cost far more than creating a new logo or identity", he says. If a company has its act right, then it could simply be the cost of repositioning and redesigning graphic identity.  

While the challenges may seem numerous, it may not be that hard to integrate sustainable development into an organisation's core marketing or branding activities. The Kaarvan Crafts Foundation is a pioneer of fair trade in Pakistan and serves as a good example.  The programme is owned by the women entrepreneurs themselves and the company is evaluated not only on the economic empowerment it brings to them but also the social impact and actual sustainability of the programme.

Sustainability may be the key word when it comes to both economic and social growth and intelligent CSR could prove instrumental in the actual deployment. So is CSR good to have, so brands can capitalise on the financial and emotional gains it brings?

Saifuddin of Kaarvan says green branding or fair trade branding is good to have and helps a company's brand image tremendously. May of Weber Shandwick thinks it's more about risk reduction and adding value to brands. Ultimately, either a social or environmental cause humanises a brand, according to Coombes who explains that some take it too literally. He cites Cisco that calls itself the "human network", Dow Chemical that is the "human element" and Chevron, which is "human energy."

In fact, Ong of DDB mentions Shell's efforts in preserving ecological systems has given it a more humane persona than other big oil companies. While it may seem more humane to support certain worthy causes, there could be overcrowding within this domain. Not all brands can be green but almost all, without exception, can be socially responsible. Giving back to society and to the environment shouldn't be a cause but post-industrialised economies have made it such.

Environmental conservation and social growth must be intrinsic with the financial growth of businesses and the sustainable development of economies worldwide. For this to happen, marketers and the wider business community would have to approach issues with the future in mind. Often, business decisions are made to combat current problems and meet immediate needs. But the clock is ticking and time is trickling away. Given the current state of the environment and the pressures on Planet Earth, the concerns of businesses and where they spend marketing dollars seem to fade away.

Brands, both large and small could serve as messiahs, mobilising employees, customers and stakeholders to keeping this world safe for the future or at least ensuring that no further damage is done. Green or social branding are just terms but the actual will to change is within human hands and cannot be quantified in terms of returns to the community or to business. The global cause is not a banality and something's got to give.

By Deepika François