Source: Levi's

By Marisa Greenwald (Green Marketing & Sustainability Practice, Grossman Marketing Group)

We have written often at Sustainable Ink about the importance of transparency, as well as the need to account for the environmental impact throughout a product’s lifecycle.  With that in mind, we are pleased to see a positive step taken by some well-known corporations.

At next month’s Outdoor Retailer trade show in Salt Lake City, retailers will receive a new tool to help them pursue their sustainability goals.   A group of about 100 retailers and manufacturers, including Nike, Levi Strauss, and Target, have joined forces to develop software that makers of apparel and shoes can use to measure the environmental impact of their products and assign to each an “eco-value” similar to the Energy Star rating of appliances.

Known as the “Eco Index,” this software tool works by posing a series of questions to companies on their environmental and labor practices, including some questions directed towards the companies’ suppliers.  The software then assigns a score that represents a percentage of a perfect score.  The goal of the Eco Index is to showcase competing items in retail settings with various “eco-value” scores so consumers can easily factor sustainability considerations into their purchase decisions.  Firms like Timberland and Patagonia have publicly expressed their desire to move the conversation forward and gain consensus among similar companies so that an effective and meaningful eco index program can be implemented.

With the heavy use of chemicals and crude oil to produce and ship these items, apparel production takes a heavy environmental toll that warrants accountability.  While many consumers are increasingly motivated by sustainability concerns, it is often difficult for them to understand the environmental consequences involved in producing many of their favorite products.  If companies begin to report the environmental impact to create their products, and consumers react by choosing certain items over others on environmental grounds, companies may become even more motivated to improve their sustainability efforts.

For more information about the Eco Index, check out this article from The Wall Street Journal or this recently featured piece in Fast Company.

Wayne Evans, Sr. Vice President for Procurement, the Americas, DHL

In our effort to explore green business issues and the impact sustainability has on organizations’ purchasing patterns, we are proud to interview  Wayne Evans, Senior Vice President for Procurement, the Americas, DHL.  During the interview, Wayne reflected on his team’s commitment to sustainability, and how he and his colleagues have found that green business practices can help save money.  If you have any questions that you would like to submit to Wayne, please let us know.

1.    Could you tell our readers a little bit about DHL and the kind of work you do there?
DHL is part of Deutsche Post DHL. The Group generated revenue of more than 46 billion euros in 2009. DHL commits its expertise in international express, air and ocean freight, road and rail transportation, contract logistics and international mail services to its customers. A global network composed of more than 220 countries and territories and 300,000 employees worldwide offers customers’ superior service quality and local knowledge to satisfy their supply chain requirements. DHL accepts its social responsibility by supporting climate protection, disaster management and education.

In my role as Head of Procurement for DPDHL Americas I am responsible for purchasing more than $1b of goods and services across 22 countries.  I manage a team of 70 individuals that have buying and sourcing experience in categories such as transportation, fuel, packaging, travel, production equipment, etc.  My day-to-day activities are focused on leading the team, meeting with business partners to understand their needs, and meeting with suppliers to better understand new products in the market.

2.    When did DHL first start talking seriously about green strategies?
DHL has been working on green strategies for many years.  In 2008 the company completed a major initiative designed to baseline the carbon footprint of the Company.  This was a critical step as it established criteria by which we can measure progress against an established goal.

3.    Would DHL pay more for a green-sourced product?
There are many considerations involved in a sourcing decision but in fact it is possible to pay more for a green product.  This can happen as the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is factored because initially it might appear that the cost is higher but when you factor the operational costs the product might in fact be lower in cost.  As an example, if we look at the TCO for a truck we may find Vehicle A has a slightly higher cost than vehicle B.  However, the higher-priced vehicle has greater fuel efficiency which is greener and over a period of time the total cost of ownership (TCO) is lower.  In another situation we did make a conscientious decision to buy recycled paper at a slightly higher cost because it is better for the environment.

4.    In which areas does DHL most frequently make green-minded business decisions?
Transportation has the largest impact on our carbon footprint and therefore it is the critical area to focus on.  This is a large part of our business and there are many levers that we can use to reduce the carbon impact.  We are heavily engaged in hybrid vehicles including trucks and we also look for ways to use electric vehicles and even bicycles where possible.

5.    What have been the major trends in green procurement over the last few years?
One of the core goals of procurement is to identify different ways to drive down costs. There are different ways that procurement organizations can combine cost savings with green initiatives.  One example is recycling items such as stretch wrap.  Many companies use a significant amount of this product to package and ship.  In the past during the unpacking process the materials were removed and thrown in dumpsters for disposal.  One of the more recent trends was to add a bailer which is a container used to gather the plastic waste materials and they are picked up by recycling companies who process this material into something like a pallet.  Companies can actually receive money for the used packaging materials and they use less space in dumpsters which lowers the cost of trash pick up.

Procurement professionals are also starting to look at ways to evaluate suppliers with regards to their “greenness”. Based on this evaluation, suppliers will be given credit for being a green company and in close bid situations it could be a deciding factor.

Another trend is demand management, where procurement professionals are getting engaged in minimizing the amount of product needed.  By using only what companies need there will be less waste and less cost.

6.    Can you tell our readers a bit about the GoGreen strategy at DHL?
Our goal is to improve our CO2 efficiency by 30% by 2020, compared to a baseline of our 2007 performance.  To help us monitor our progress towards our 2020 goal, we have set ourselves an interim target to improve the CO2 efficiency of our own operations by 10% by 2010. The ability to calculate our own carbon footprint is a key prerequisite of our GoGreen Program. We need to identify opportunities for reducing our footprint and to track how much we have changed our ways.  We also need the data to offset our GoGreen products and services, and in due course to calculate our customers’ individual footprints.

7.    Do you think the organization thinks about green issues differently since it is based in Germany?
It’s not so much that we think differently but more that we act differently.  Because we are a global company we act in a global way.  When we identify a key strategic initiative such as this it is rolled out across the world and implemented accordingly.  The green movement is a bit more obvious in many parts of Europe as they have been following some of the best practices in conservation for quite some time

8.    What kind of impact has the recession had in shaping or modifying the green strategy at DHL?
The recession has not had much of an impact because as previously mentioned “green is typically lean.”  Some of the projects with longer term ROI and high capital investments could have been impacted as companies were trying to conserve cash flow during the recession.

9.    What kind of difficulties have you faced implementing GoGreen with workforce and management?
Since the green initiative is a CEO-sponsored and lead initiative it has not been difficult getting support.  The only challenges come when there are large capital outlays required without a sufficient business case.

10.    What has been your greatest triumph in implementing the Go Green campaign?

We support four (4) businesses in the US and each is very independent.  We have been successful in pulling them all together and aligning strategies.  We have many projects that were initiated such as recycled paper, hybrid vehicles, alternative lighting, etc.

11.    What has been the biggest struggle or challenge in implementation?
In some cases it is not always easy to make clear sourcing decisions based on the supplier’s “greenness” as there are no real standards for accurately rating a supplier.

12.    Could you highlight a few examples of unique contributions DHL has made in the area of sustainability?

• Our “go green product” allows customers to pay a small additional fee to offset the carbon impact of the shipment. This money is used to plant trees and funds other programs that offset the impacts of the shipments.
• Use of renewable energy in Mainland Europe – over 25% of energy now comes from renewable sources
• Lighting programs in the USA – more than 50 sites now use energy efficient lighting, with initial results showing consumption down by 18% to 30%
• Transport efficiency programs across the UK have lead to a 4% year-on-year fuel efficiency improvement

Target Marketing has posted the presentation online with the slides and audio.  Please enjoy!

In addition, here’s a link to a blog post I wrote in April with some notes I took on Case and Singer’s remarks.

21 of the 100 tips involve sustainability, and over the next couple weeks, I’ll be sharing these with you, by category.  If you’d like to download the complete set of 100 tips, please click here.  They are free! The four categories covered in the “green” section are 1) General Sustainability, 2) Green Promotional Products, 3) Green Design, 4) Green Printing.  I’ll get started with the General Sustainability tips.

Research shows that Americans want to work for, buy from, and donate to organizations that make significant and sustained efforts to address environmental issues.

1. Sustainability can help you cut costs as well as build sales. We have experienced both at GMG and are happy to help you do the same at your organization. To learn more, just contact Ben Grossman at 617.591.2919 or bgrossman [at] grossmanmarketing [dot] com.
2. Be transparent about green marketing claims—make sure they are verifiable by an independent, third party.
3. Include your colleagues in your sustainability efforts; often the best ideas come from the bottom up, rather than from the top down!
4. Spread the word about the sustainability efforts your organization is taking. Your customers, investors and colleagues care.
5. Simple changes in your office can have a huge impact: use energy efficient light bulbs and put recycling bins at every desk. We encourage our colleagues to bring in old batteries, light bulbs and other household materials to be recycled for free.
6. Employee education is key—sustainability must be part of the company culture. If so, it is much easier to implement (and less likely to be cut).
7. Make sure to back up your green marketing efforts with truly sustainable business practices throughout your organization.

I hope you find these helpful.  We’ll be back to you after the 4th of July holiday with more!  Many thanks for reading!

Image courtesy of Whole Story - the official Whole Foods Market blog.

Earlier this spring, Whole Foods Market and Cork ReHarvest announced a partnership to allow Whole Foods customers to leave wine corks in drop boxes in all Whole Foods stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdomto be recycled.  This is an interesting program with a great focus on the lifecycle of products.

Although many people recycle cans, bottles and newspapers, too many other products slip through the cracks and end up in landfills.  I have written in the past that all products that cannot be recycled in towns and municipalities at curbside should come with instructions on how to responsibly be disposed of when finished.  Whether this includes empty toothpaste tubes or laptops, it is important for companies to not only focus on the green marketing message at time of sale, but also the environmental considerations at the end of the product’s lifecycle.

Whole Foods has been an industry pacesetter for some time, having announced a partnership with Preserve in early 2009 to allow customers to bring in hard-to-recycle #5 plastic to stores to be recycled.  This includes Brita filters, which too often find the trash after two months use.  Here is some additional coverage on the Whole Foods blog from April 2010.

My firm, Grossman Marketing Group, also tries to do its part by not only using environmentally-friendly products but also allowing our employees to bring in used lightbulbs (CFL), batteries and paint from home to be recycled.

Consumer goods and electronics companies have a long way to go to ensure that their customers know the facts about what to do with their products when they are finished using them.  However, these partnerships that companies like Whole Foods have created are an encouraging step – and probably a very good way to continue to build their brand and encourage store foot traffic at the same time!

By Marisa Greenwald (Green Marketing & Sustainability Practice, Grossman Marketing Group)

Ceres’ report, titled “21st Century Corporation: The Ceres Roadmap to Sustainability” which it released earlier this spring, contains noteworthy proposals for corporate governance and green marketing.  As a network of investors, environmental organizations and public interest groups, Ceres incorporates the private sector perspective into the sustainability movement.  The report encourages organizations to create serious internal metrics for sustainability rather than limiting their focus to their sales and PR efforts.  Out of the 20 expectations presented for new business standards, I wanted to highlight three in particular, which, if implemented, would help align business objectives with sustainability goals in a meaningful way.

The first expectation of note is “requiring clear public policy position statements” from companies.  Ceres believes that companies should disclose their public policy positions, as well as membership in and contributions to trade associations. When appropriate, companies should also develop public policy positions that support best practices in sustainability.  An example of this was in Fall 2009, when several companies, including Apple, left the U.S.  Chamber of Commerce because of the organization’s criticism of pending climate change legislation.  This expectation would go a long way in removing the current disconnect between lobbying and marketing by requiring companies to integrate sustainability messages into consumer communication, and actually prove that they’re truly committed to environmentally-sound practices.

Another standard worth mentioning is for companies to require “suppliers to meet the same sustainable standards as the company.”  As part of a marketing communications company with some of the strongest environmental standards in the industry, I understand the environmental impact that sustainable practices, and, alternatively, their absence can have across the entire supply chain.  This recommendation would reward suppliers with positive environmental practices, incentivize companies to work with environmentally-minded suppliers, and hold companies accountable not just for their own practices but for their vendors’ practices.

A final impressive expectation laid out in the report is “designing and delivering products [and services] aligned with sustainability goals.”  This expectation goes to the heart of a company’s work and places a high consideration on sustainability in product formulation and promotion.  By factoring environmental considerations into the creation of products, companies will be playing a positive role in shaping consumer behavior by moving consumption patterns toward sustainable ends.  As someone passionate about green pursuits, I see this expectation as the one with the most potential beneficial impact in the sustainability cause.

Ceres mentions one interesting way to implement this final idea: it recommends that companies “re-conceive the idea of a ‘product’ such as transitioning from offering products to offering utilities or services. “  In fact, Ceres mentions one of Grossman Marketing Group’s most sustainable-minded clients, Zipcar, which has reshaped the way consumers use automobiles.  As mentioned, Zipcar offers customers the use of a car in hourly units, which removes the need to own a car for urban use and moves toward offering the car as a service.  Zipcar also offers lower pricing for hybrid vehicles, encouraging customers to use this cleaner mode of transport.

While this report contains some impressive ideas for corporate reform, it is unclear whether and to what extent such expectations will be implemented in the coming years.  Regardless, the report serves as a positive sign that some agreement has been reached between private sector influencers and public sector opinion leaders on the need to move forward in implementing sustainability standards.  It also lays out for companies a sustainability roadmap, should they choose to use it.

Click here to access the full Ceres report.

The environmental measures include:

• Energy usage
• Waste disposal, reduction and recycling
• Environmental regulatory compliance factors

Also of note is that P&G is providing extra points on the scale (from 1-5, with 5 being the best) to firms that provide sustainability ideas.

The scorecard will initially be rolled out to 400 suppliers throughout P&G’s entire supply chain.

The key takeaway from this news report is the increasing movement of large companies to reward suppliers for green business practices at the expense of competitors who have not demonstrated environmental leadership.  The message is clear: cut your carbon footprint, or you will see your revenues cut.  This is a sure sign that sustainability goes hand-in-hand with profitability.

Here’s a link to the article in Ad Age.

Last week, I noticed that the bottle had changed.  It is now made of a darker blue plastic, and has a slightly different shape.  When I looked closer, I saw that the label included a new logo, with the phrase, “ECO SENSE BOTTLE.”  There is a trademark symbol after eco-sense, which makes the logo look pretty official.  Here’s a picture I took with my phone:

Image of the "ECO SENSE BOTTLE" logo on new 5-gallon Poland Spring bottles.

Given my interest in green marketing and green business issues, I looked closer at the bottle, hoping for an explanation of what eco-sense means.  Unfortunately, the only language that could be considered an explanation was, “our eco-sense bottle is returned, refilled and recycled.”  As far as I know, the large bottles on water coolers have been getting returned, refilled and recycled for years.  In fact, when the Poland Spring delivery team comes to our office, they drop full bottles off and pick up empty bottles to be cleaned and refilled.

Unfortunately, the bottle does not have any more information on what the company, owned by Nestle, means by the new logo.  Therefore, I called Poland Spring late last week and connected with someone in their Consumer Affairs department.  When they learned that I was calling about a bottle typically delivered to businesses, they connected me to a group that fields questions and comments for their business services group.

I spoke with a very nice representative who explained, “We’re trying to use less plastic on the actual bottles.” She also explained that they are made from “an easier plastic to recycle.”  I asked a follow-up question about the ease of recycling the material, but she didn’t have specifics available.  I made the suggestion that future bottles include this additional information about containing less plastic and being easier to recycle.

The key lesson from this experience with Poland Spring is one that I and others in the green marketing community have been emphasizing for years: when you make green claims, you must be transparent and provide the details behind the language and numbers. Wherever possible, it helps to provide third-party references for your claims.  Poland Spring did not do this, which surprised me, given their past experience: Nestle Waters was hammered with greenwashing claims by bloggers when they came out with their eco-shape bottle across all of their water brands in 2007-2008 (of which Poland Spring is one) – here’s another example of criticism they received.  I understand why they have been accused of greenwashing for their retail side bottles, as the majority of plastic bottles end up in landfills, and the eco-shape logo gives people the impression that they are being environmentally-friendly by drinking bottled water.  Terrachoice, a leading environmental marketing agency, defines greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”  I personally try to drink water out of a reusable bottle whenever possible, and my firm has given them to all of our employees as a way to practice what we preach.

The difference in the case of the eco-sense 5-gallon bottle is that it is not greenwashing, but rather a failure of a major brand to provide clarity on its green claims.  Large water coolers enable people to cut down on bottled water consumption in favor of filling up reusable water bottles like those made by Sigg or Nalgene.  Poland Spring went to the trouble of trademarking “eco-sense” and creating a special logo for the term, but they didn’t take the extra step of providing consumers an explanation of what the term means.  According to Cone, a leading cause marketing agency, 91% of consumers want to hear about companies’ social and environmental commitments.  More than the high-level green logo or tagline, conscious consumers want to “get under the hood” and understand the details behind companies’ green claims.

By failing to include further explanation of their eco-sense logo, Poland Spring failed to give their customers the option of learning more.  I would strongly suggest they address this lack of transparency, and immediately start adding further information about their eco-sense program onto the larger bottles.  It may cost a few more cents per bottle in printing fees, but they will more than make up for it with stronger customer relationships.

Here’s a link to access the webinar and watch it.

Below please find some notes I took on Case and Singer’s remarks.  Merdan served as a resource to answer questions near the end.

Scott Case, Vice President, TerraChoice

• Discussed growth of green products and claims in the marketplace
• Covered environmental claims and how the FTC is investigating and enforcing their regulations to counter questionable environmental claims
• Defined greenwashing as misleading consumers about the environmental details of a product or service
• Terrachoice has developed 7 Sins of Greenwashing
• Discussed various leading green labels (EcoLogo, Energy Star, Green Seal)
• Suggested do’s and don’ts of green marketing. His key suggestion was one I strongly agree with and advocate – “If you’re making a public claim, provide public proof”

Randi Singer, Litigation Partner with Weil, Gotshal & Menges

• First rule of advertising is that it needs to be true
• Discussed FTC’s “Green Guides”
• All claims must be specific, transparent, supported by science
• Need to avoid general environmental benefit claims
• Specific claims must be true and not deceptive (e.g. “Biodegradable” must completely break down and return to nature in reasonably short period of time; “Recyclable” must be able to be collected and reused)
• FTC has been reworking their Green Guides for several years, held 3 workshops in 2008 (1st focused on carbon offsets and RECs, 2nd focused on green packaging claims, 3rd on buildings and textiles)
• Expects new Green Guides to be released in 2010

Q&A – Excellent session – starting at around the 45-minute mark, covering some of the following topics:

• Supplier verification
• Paper choices

I hope you enjoy the webinar!

I believe this message is a short-sighted one. As I have written over the past couple years since the economy started to dip, companies that slash their commitment to sustainability to cut costs will suffer long-term consequences with customers who are increasingly demanding that organizations they buy from do business in socially-responsible ways.

The writer, Ethan Boldt, does try to segment marketers into various buckets, based on their (or their customers’)  interest in sustainability and how this impacts their marketing decisions:

1. Marketers and organizations that do not care about green, regardless of the economy
2. Organizations that always care about green, regardless of the economy
3. Marketers that care about green, depending on their target markets

I do agree that sustainability is more important to certain companies than to others, depending on the markets that they serve.  However, the writer and some of his subjects imply that a barrier to “green mail” usage is due to its higher cost structure and that only once economy rebounds will it make a comeback.  This article fails to mention that people can be greener about their mail without it costing their organizations any more money. The fact that people can use wind power, soy-based inks (if printed offset) and certain types of recycled paper without any additional cost, is crucial to understand, as there is a rampant misperception in the marketplace that going green costs more. If people work with the right production partner, they can go green in a way that does not have a negative impact on the bottom line.

Marketers need to be sensible about watching expenses, especially when the economy is still weak.  However, if there were better education in the marketplace (from the U.S. Postal Service, the Direct Marketing Association, etc.) about ways to go green at no extra cost, I am confident that not only would marketers make more sustainable choices, but customers would come to expect that mail be done in a green way.  These would be positive developments, and would help ensure that direct marketing leaves less of a footprint on our fragile planet moving forward.