3BL Media Announces Launch of 3BL TV, Featuring Web Video Content from CSR’s Most Influential Bloggers – Christine Arena, Chris Jarvis, and Fabian Pattberg | 3BL Media

(3BLMedia/theCSRfeed) – Northampton, MA – January 27, 2010 – 3BL Media, the experts in corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability and cause marketing communications, today announced plans to launch 3BL TV (Triple Bottom Line TV), a Web video channel scheduled to debut next month.  At the core of the channel’s programming will be regular video segments produced by Christine Arena, Chris Jarvis, and Fabian Pattberg, who are recognized as the most respected and widely read bloggers covering topics related to CSR and sustainability.

“3BL Media’s initial foray into Web video, the CSR Minute, is now recognized as the leading daily Webcast for CSR news and information,” said Greg Schneider, co-founder and CEO, 3BL Media. “With the launch of 3BL TV, we are building on that success and increasing our reach as a media company at the intersection of CSR, social media and web video.”

Programming on 3BL TV will include:

• theCSRminute – a daily video digest of CSR and sustainability news

• theCSRreport – an in-depth look at the CSR world via company profiles and interviews.

• CSRunscripted – personal essays featuring viewpoints, opinions, and insights.

About the Featured Contributors:

Christine Arena – corporate strategist, syndicated blogger, and award-winning author whose books include The High-Purpose Company: The Truly Responsible (and Highly Profitable) Firms That Are Changing Business Now (Collins, 2007), and Cause for Success: 10 Companies that Put Profit Second and Came in First (New World Library, 2004). Christine’s “Case in Point” blog, which separates the strategies and companies that make a positive difference from those that don’t, is currently published on a number of major business news websites.

Chris Jarvis – keynote speaker, consultant, and author of the Realizing Your Worth blog that focuses on CSR and corporate volunteering. In working with business and non-profits to create outstanding volunteer programs, Chris presents examples and practices that create value for companies while providing important benefits to the community.

Fabian Pattberg – a sustainability, CSR, and social media professional with many years experience whose expertise includes managing the production of multiple sustainability/CSR reports; planning and coordination of stakeholder engagement campaigns; advising companies on their CSR strategy/ implementation; and the use of social media for companies to promote their sustainability credentials.

”I’m excited to be working with Christine, Chris, and Fabian,” said John Howell, Editorial Director, 3BL Media. “Their experienced, authoritative voices brought to Web video on 3BL TV will allow 3BL Media to further support our mission of raising awareness for the importance of corporate responsibility.  This venture brings our viewers and readers beyond the CSR Minute’s headlines, to in-depth profiles and interviews, opinion, and analysis.”

About 3BL Media
3BL Media is the leading CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), sustainability, and cause marketing communications company. The company’s experienced team of professionals helps organizations—from nonprofits to multinational corporations—have a positive influence on society and the environment through information sharing that leverages the most cutting-edge technology and social media. 3BL Media defines, builds and refines the tools and methods necessary to help organizations communicate their commitment to the Triple Bottom Line in the way stakeholders want and need to know.  For additional information, please visit:

http://3blmedia.com
http://twitter.com/3BLMedia
http://facebook.3blmedia.com
http://linkedin.3blmedia.com

Press Contact:
Steven Wright-Mark
Schwartz Public Relations
steven@schwartzpr.com
212-677-8700 ext. 29
http://twitter.com/SchwartzPRnyc

3BL Media Contact:
Greg Schneider
gschneider@3blmedia.com
866-508-0993 ext. 113
http://twitter.com/Greg_Schneider

<

CSR Minute Special Report: Greg Schneider, CEO, 3BL Media

Greg Schneider, CEO, on the mission and methods of 3BL Media

The ‘Real-Time’ Of Social Media

Few things have changed faster than the way we communicate. Coupled with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or green movement, there has been an explosion of information available about how and what companies and organizations are doing to improve society and the environment.

During the past year, at least three major events have influenced how communications relate to CSR:

1) The new administration in Washington is focused on volunteerism, green-collar jobs, alternative energy and other CSR issues.

2) Bernie Madoff and the “collapse” of Wall Street spotlighted (once again) the need for greater transparency and corporate governance.

3) Consumers are demanding information about what the companies from which we buy our goods and services are doing to have a positive impact on society, improve the environment, and in general “save the world.” Companies are finally starting to be held accountable and responsible for the impact and influence they can have to affect change, and they realize the need to communicate it. From a media and PR perspective, this presents both opportunities and challenges.

Any company can issue a press release talking about all the good they’re doing, and consequently greenwashing — and a lack of authenticity has become almost epidemic. It seems every brand wants to capture the green consumer.

The media challenge: To communicate effectively in ways that a growing, “green-focused” audience, consisting of varied demographics, is responsive to and can trust. Authenticity must absolutely be obvious. The age-old, traditional press release isn’t what it used to be. Yes, there’s still a place for it in modern communications, but it’s become widely accepted that its impact is diminished.

Enter blogs and bloggers, videos, podcasts, and various commentaries … all new and different ways to reach an audience no longer receptive to traditional methods such as press releases. Combine this with issues that people are passionate about, that affect their lives and their children’s lives, such as corporate responsibility and sustainability … and that’s the mix that must be communicated. To address that, successful organizations have begun to realize that the value of delivering their messages, consistently in all different media formats, engages a passionate audience.

A paradigm shift has occurred, and we have evolved into new vehicles that embrace social media and technology. Leading organizations have finally realized that the idea of dragging viewers to a Web site to read carefully formulated, single point-of-view, “we really don’t mean to engage with you on this” pronouncements is over.

The obvious answer, as how to reach and influence the most people around a topic or issue, (get the news out, if you will) is to engage them using a media format to which they are most receptive. So, give it to them. And, do so where they’re already spending Web time; online communities, social networks, video channels, iTunes, blog sites and so on.

Forget about the destination Web site. Game over. Every day there are communities of individuals organizing around issues they are passionate about, hungry for information and knowledge about these issues. Whether it’s corporate responsibility, socially responsible investing, human rights, fair trade, the environment or transparency, people have a greater opportunity to engage on each of these issues through new media.

As media professionals, we must help our clients reach and engage with these communities, where they live. And we need to do this using every media format at our disposal to influence and be influenced by the professionals, the consumers and the media points that interact with their brands.

When it comes to issues as important as CSR and green business, leveraging new media to effect change is a must.

 

Prior to founding 3BL Media, Greg Schneider was the COO of a news distribution service focused on corporate responsibility. In recognition of the obvious evolution of communications technologies and the expanding global interest in CSR and sustainability, Greg, along with some friends and colleagues left their jobs to start 3BL Media. Reach him here.

CSR Minute: September 17, 2009 – Caterpillar’s Dow Jones Sustainability Index; Alcatel Lucent’s Award; SDialogue’s Name Change

Corporate Social Responsible News: Caterpillar’s Dow Jones Sustainability Index Status; Alcatel Lucent’s Eco-Award; SDialogue’s Name Change

Japanese Women Reassess Gender Equity

This blog entry follows Devin Stewart’s visit to Japan.

The Japanese are one big family, it is often said. Small trends and changes in the family mood are amplified and exaggerated in the press–no matter if the trends are real or imagined. In fact, there is a whole industry, involving TV commentators, the print press, social scientists, and small businesses, that taps into these blips. One of the most salient trends I detected during my recent trip to Japan (visiting Tokyo, Yokohama, and Kushiro) was a subtle shift in the attitudes of young women toward gender equity.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story about a new trend in Japan–again whether it is real or imagined is debatable. The article (titled “With Jobs Scarce in Japan, Women Become Professional Flirts”) said that some women are choosing to become hostesses in order to survive during the recession and that the image of hostessing as a job has gained some respectability. The article’s sensational photo featured a single mother who works as a hostess (oh no, Japan’s mothers are becoming prostitutes!).

I asked a Japanese friend, who is an MBA candidate in Japan, about this article and she said that the deeper issue is that single women in their late 20s and 30s are kicking up their search for financial stability. This drive includes doing previously shunned jobs or searching for husbands by engaging in “kon katsu” or “marriage hunting,” which includes the use of websites that help women find men. Given the U.S. media’s fondness for exoticizing Japan, what are we to make of this new trend? During my recent trip, I was eager to find out.

After talking with many people during this trip, my view is that this trend is both much ado about nothing and much ado about something very subtle, but not necessarily what one would expect on the surface. Keep in mind my view is based on conversations only, not quantitative analysis.

In one regard, this story is about nothing much or at least something that has been going on for a long time in Japan and in the world. Men and women need ways of finding spouses in all countries. Given Japan’s ostensible shy culture, its society has developed indirect methods of match making. In the past, it was arranged marriages (“omiai”). In the recent past, it was singles parties at restaurants (“gokon”). In today’s digital world, the newest version of this method is match making websites and other services that facilitate marriage hunting. No big change.

But in another regard, something else is going on here. Women seem to be reassessing gender equity. To understand, we have to go back about ten years. During the middle of Japan’s “lost decade” of the 1990s and early 2000s, economic growth was weak and companies were trying to respond–as was the government. Policymakers and businesses appeared to have found a mutually beneficial solution: tap into Japan’s under utilized resource–its women’s human capital. From the policy community, this idea was captured by my former boss and former MITI official Nobuo Tanaka in his essay “Girls, Be Ambitious,” published in the early 2000s. Here is his essay’s sober conclusion:

Encouraging women to enter more fully into the labor force will increase competition for jobs at a time when Japan’s unemployment rate is at a post-war high; salaries for male workers could suffer as a result. But two working family members instead of one, which is still more or less the norm in Japan, means more income for the household. Also, it could encourage the sharing of housekeeping chores and child-rearing, tasks which are really much more tiring than office work, as a famous female ex-MITI official once said.

One of our recent speakers, Goldman Sachs Japan Chief Strategist Kathy Matsui, remarked that she was surprised to discover it is not only Japanese labor conventions that keep women from participating more fully in the workforce, but a tangible lack of career aspirations among Japanese women themselves. In her investigations into the economic implications of Japanese women in the labor force, an area that she calls “Womanomics,” she notes that fostering career ambition is something that must be addressed as well.

It is difficult to say whether this can, in fact, be addressed through policy: it may be an educational, or even simply a child-rearing, issue. But ambitiousness and career aspirations are very much a desirable characteristic in the upcoming generation of Japanese young women. There is no doubt that they can make a significant contribution to the economic restructuring of Japan, something that we, as well as all of you outside of Japan, are anxious to see emerge.

Meanwhile, from a businessman’s perspective, this idea seemed appealing in that women could be hired part-time, thus the birth of another trend in Japan–the furita and arubaito (part time workers). It seemed to be a win-win-win situation–policymakers found a new resource for Japan’s economy, businesses found new flexible labor, and women found a new role in the workplace and a new sense of equity. In fact, women could pursue a dream of becoming career women. But how did it turn out?

For some women, the dream was fulfilled–they found careers. For others, the dream was ephemeral–they found drudgery in part time work with no social safety net and no stability. The current recession is hitting these women especially hard as they are seen as expendable–thus the New York Times article about women trying previously undesirable types of professions. As my MBA friend put it, women are doing whatever it takes to find financial stability, whether it be in becoming hostesses or trying updated versions of the age-old match-making practice in Japan. Women are also re-thinking gender roles.

My sociologist friend puts it another way. There are two successful types of couple equity: (traditional) complementary relations where the man does certain tasks (say working full time) and the woman does other tasks (say shopping and raising children); and equal relations where both the man and the women pursue the same tasks (say careers, shopping, and raising children). For centuries, Japan has favored the complementary type of relationships and thus its society has been structured to facilitate it. The newer, equal relationship has had some negative consequences: some women chased their careers and now find themselves alone; or in some cases, raising children and pursuing a career has just proven untenable in Japanese society. As my friend put it, women’s expectations and goals have changed and they are therefore reassessing what fairness means between the sexes.

Does this mean the drive for gender equality has failed in Japan? Was the push for women to chase careers misguided? It is too soon to tell. But all of this raises a subtle question. Equity, equality, fairness, and well-being are all virtuous goals for a society. Equality between the sexes and the dream of raising children in a happy home are reasonable goals. But as the Japanese case shows, they can be mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, these trade offs are not unique to Japan either. In a recent phone call back home, I learned about the struggles of Washington’s career women in their 30s. Loneliness has driven them to use the dreaded match-making websites. Is this a unavoidable byproduct of modern living?

Devin Stewart’s original content can be found at Fairer Globalization

Business Ethics Blog: CSR is Not C-S-R

Regular readers will know that, over the last month, I’ve posted 3 blog entries critiquing the term “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). I’ve asked, rhetorically, whether the “C,” the “S,” and the “R” make sense. I’ve argued that, no, in each case the word those letters stand for fail to capture the range of issues devotees of “CSR” typically think are important. Basically, the conclusion is that “Corporate Social Responsibility” isn’t (just) about corporations, isn’t just about social questions, and isn’t just about responsibilities.

Now, this isn’t to say that there’s no topic at all that would suit the term “CSR.” If you really are just interested in corporations (and not other kinds of businesses), and if you really are just interested in their obligations (and find questions of rights, permissions, values, and virtues relatively uninteresting), and if you really are only interested in corporations’ outward-looking, specifically social obligations, well, then I guess you really are talking about CSR. But I suspect the number of people — and the number of companies — whose interests are that narrow is pretty small.

So, this all seems to imply:

• If you want companies to think carefully about the full range of normative (ethical) questions related to commerce, don’t ask them about CSR.
• If you want business students to be prepared for the decisions they’ll one day face as manager, don’t teach them courses in CSR.
• If you’re interested in learning a bit more about the ethical challenges faced by business, don’t read a book with “CSR” in the title.
• If your company wants to manage effectively the full range of ethical issues it’s likely to face, and not just one subset, don’t hire a “CSR” consultant.

Now, clearly I’m trying to be a bit provocative. You could have good reasons to do each of the things I’m warning against above. And many companies and consultants who use the term “CSR” use it, I’m sure, as a mere term of convenience, and are fully aware that it’s only a very rough label for the full range of ethical issues in business. But if you care about the topics I’ve covered in the last 3 blog entries on this topic, and if you happen to find yourself talking to a company or consultant (or professor) who’s excited about CSR, you might want to ask a few questions about what they mean by that.

This blog entry by Chris MacDonald appeared originally on The Business Ethics Blog.

Debunking the Myth of Sustainable Brands

Let’s face it: there is no such thing as a ‘sustainable brand.’ Achieving true sustainability means constantly thinking about ways of giving back more than a company takes from the environment and society. In essence, sustainability means creating tangible value for stakeholders.

While brands are important corporate assets, the value they create for stakeholders tends to be largely intangible in nature. Brands themselves do not physically pollute, clean-up, employ, invent, invest, engineer, design, reach out, assist, collaborate and singlehandedly, they cannot save the world. Corporations and the networks, innovations and people inside them, on the other hand, can – and often do.

Irrespective of how catchy the phrase ‘sustainable brand’ is, the fundamental issue remains: either a company is sustainable, or it’s not.

Some companies approach sustainability with an unparalleled level of innovation and fearlessness. I have written about such companies numerous times in books, essays and articles, which is why I am so disappointed to see many of them continuously omitted from the surveys, articles, and highly-touted lists pulled together and promoted by the corporate social responsibility (CSR) industry – particularly those citing the “greenest,” “most ethical” or “most sustainable” citizens or brands.

In March, CRO Magazine chose Merck, Monsanto, Chevron, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Smithfield Foods and other questionable choices as “Best Corporate Citizens of 2009” (read my response here).

Last week, a survey released by Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates,  Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates; and, Esty Environmental Partners indicated that Clorox Green Works, not Seventh Generation, was the “Top Green Brand.”

Perhaps this result was to be expected given that Clorox Green Works now owns over 40 percent of the green cleaning category. But I found the result disappointing, since Seventh Generation is a 20-year old pioneer in the green cleaning market, a leader in green business practices, and is well on its way to becoming a truly sustainable company. Clorox Green Works was recently introduced and has basically relied on its marketing muscle and existing distribution infrastructure to achieve success with Green Works. Although the Green Works product line is a step in the right direction for Clorox, the company also markets highly profitable toxic products like Formula 409, Tilex, and Armor All.

As frustrating as Seventh Generation’s pass over was, the icing on last week’s faux ‘sustainable brand’ cake had to be Forbes’ lead story: “ExxonMobil: Green Company of the Year.”

Exxon’s latest marketing campaign sends a message to stakeholders: “Taking on the world’s toughest energy challenges” while “preserving and protecting the environment.” Some people might buy that message, along with the company’s pitch that, despite its past and allegedly present efforts to fund global warming skeptics, a sizable investment in natural gas equals a genuine commitment to “going green.” But judging from the reader commentary posted on the Forbes website, not everyone is easily persuaded:

What are you smoking Forbes?? Besides Natural Gas?? Or did Exxon just buy a lot of advertising from you? Calling the company that denies global warming is real “green” is akin to calling the Mob a bunch of nice guys. Burning natural gas is not green, period. Cleaner, yes. But not green. Do some real investigative journalism and not just regurgitate some PR hack’s false truths!

As this reader commentary correctly points out, by calling an unsustainable company like ExxonMobil “green,” Forbes crosses the line between journalism and public relations. In the same way, by labeling other unsustainable and ethically dubious companies “Best Citizens,” “Greenest Brands,” “Sustainable Brands,” or what have you, the CSR industry is effectively perpetuating a standard of greenwash.

Greenwash is dangerous to our economy because it runs the risk of breeding consumer and investor cynicism toward genuinely sustainable companies that create environmental, social and financial value through the products they sell, the investments they make and the issues they relentlessly fight for. All of this ‘information greenwash’ being spun out of research groups, media companies and the CSR industry accumulates on the web over a period of months and years. In time, consumers and investors will be left with a data trove of incomplete and arguably inaccurate information with which to make investment and purchasing decisions. That means their money could end up in the wrong places – in companies and investment funds that, if they knew better, they would not support.

That problem is as serious as it is unjust.

Christine Arena is the author of The High-Purpose Company – The Truly Responsible (and Highly Profitable) Firms that are Changing Business Now Like what you just read? Get your daily dose of corporate insights.

Follow Christine Arena Twitter: @christinearena

A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action Please

This time around I want to share some thoughts and ideas that came up for me this week about CSR and the conversations we have about it (and as a preview, if you keep reading, you’ll get to hear what Elvis Presley thinks of sustainability).

The other day I had the chance to sit in on a conference call and presentation hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business Office of Executive Education and their Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability(BSES) program. Part presentation and part sales pitch for the upcoming BSES in October, the webinar entitled “Sustainability Matters” was hosted by Professor William Barnett, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at Stanford and Director of the BSES program.

Professor Barnett started out with a discussion of the Kuna Indian Nation living off the coast of Panama. According to Barnett, the Kuna demonstrate the harmony that can exist between indigenous people and their natural environment. They’ve lived a seemingly isolated existence in which they’ve developed incredibly sustainable farming practices without influence from the outside world.

Over time, the Kuna Indians that used to live in the interior country have started moving towards the coast, and although we might assume they continued with their sustainable ways, that turns out to not be the case. Instead, it appears the Kuna have been using the water along the coast as a virtual dumping ground, badly damaging the coral reefs and coastline. Barnett made the point that the Kuna serve as a perfect example that sustainability is not “one size fits all” – that is, what works in one place, or organization, or Indian Nation, might not work in another.

He then went on to give a quick overview of 3 important constituencies – businesses, environmental NGO’s, and governments – and the role that each plays in the sustainability conversation:

Business: Traditionally, sustainability (and CSR in general) in business has taken on a compliance function: making sure we stay out of trouble – a view that Barnett said ignores “potential for Triple Bottom Line opportunities”. While it doesn’t always directly pay to be green (that is, moving beyond the “low-hanging fruit” cost cutting measures that help the environment and save money), there are indirect benefits to these types of behaviors (ie: responding to consumer demand for environmental and social responsibility on the part of business). What’s really interesting here, Barnett pointed out, is that “it would be a disservice to assume that they [business and environmental goals] go hand-in-hand”. They are not always complimentary and trade-offs are common and inevitable.

Environmental NGO’s: Barnett said these types of organizations (including Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund) have gone through a “pragmatic shift” over the last decade – moving from aggressive activist to partner with business. Traditionally some of these organizations worked as antagonizers, but they are now learning when to fight and when to cooperate. Barnett said these organizations serve four main purposes: 1) helping consumers distinguish between “greening” and “greenwashing”; 2) creating and supporting certification programs and standards that showcase real environmental change; 3) educating business and consumers and raising awareness; and 4) working with government and regulators to develop solutions, identify constraints, and create change. In essence, these NGO’s are the middlemen that bridge the gap between business and government in sustainability.

Governments: Like compliance in business or activism in NGO’s, the traditional role of governments in sustainability was all about regulation. Today, Barnett said, governments are looking for ways to “harness markets to solve social problems”. In many ways, environmental solutions (like cap and trade, solar power, ecotourism, and others) have become the source of new markets by providing incentives for technological innovation that’s good for the environment.

After a couple of questions from the audience, the call ended – and while it was an interesting overview of the topic, I was left, truthfully, feeling a little deflated. Sure – what Barnett said made sense, and for folks looking for a primer on sustainability, it wasn’t a bad intro.

But I couldn’t help but channel a little Elvis Presley and think to myself:

I know it’s a little off-base but my point for bringing Elvis into this whole thing (beyond listening to some fun music) is this:

I’ve attended a lot of these sustainability events, and sat in on a lot of these calls, and finally gotten to the point where I’m hearing the same thing over and over again. After talking to a few of my friends in CSR and sustainability, they agreed with me. Together, we wondered: at what point does the conversation around sustainability strategy and execution actually become an action plan? How can we dive below the 30,000 foot view, to stop just talking about it and start doing it?

What’s interesting about this is that in some ways it showcases the problem that everyone’s having with sustainability. Sure, some people have been working in CSR for decades so they’re already “in the know”. And while I haven’t been involved myself for too long, I’ve taken proactive steps to immerse myself in these issues and drill down quickly. But in many cases and for many people, the conversation is so new, and the territory in some ways is so uncharted, that people and organizations aren’t acting as boldy as they should because they’re waiting for everyone to get on board. The priority right now is conversationand making sure we’re all on the same page. Thus, conversations like the one Barnett led are important first steps in engaging a wide and broad audience.

And yes, we do want this wide and broad audience to be involved and engaged – so I guess I can be a little more patient while the conversation slowly progresses forward. Change is slow, and talking about why we should change is even slower.

In the meantime, though, I don’t think I’ll be signing up for another webinar any time soon.

This blog was written by Ashley Parsons Jablow, a former nonprofit fundraiser and current MBA student/corporate philanthropy intern and founder of Changebase.

Consumers Note the Importance of Green, Economy a Barrier

The ImagePower Green Brands Survey 2009, co-produced by Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates, and Penn, Schoen & Berland, reports the attitudes of over 5,000 consumers from seven countries toward a variety of green issues.

The report offers insight into what consumers feel makes a green corporation stand out, their perceptions of brands, and where their spending is going in the next year. A global attitude toward green issues is painted by the data. Apparently the U.S., though its heart may be green, is more focused on the greenback.

The United States tops the list of countries where economic concerns overshadow environmental ones. The 17% of U.S. consumers more concerned about the environment than the economy stand out in stark comparison to Brazil’s 62% and India’s 53%. Economic concern is mirrored in the top reason given for not purchasing green products and services – 64% of those in the U.S. consider these too expensive. (Consumers in other countries feel more limited by the availability.) The U.S. consumer does plan to spend more on these products and services over the next year – at least 39% of those surveyed do. However, the extent to which they plan to raise their spending places them at best in the middle of the seven countries surveyed. This is not to say that U.S. consumers don’t feel that being green is important, they do, just not as much as consumers elsewhere.

Twenty-three percent of respondents from the U.S. consider a company’s environmental attitude “very important” when shopping around. Still, the U.S. finds itself in the lower half of this list; only the U.K with 15% and Germany with 20% were below it. When including the category “somewhat important” the U.S. fared dropped to the bottom; its 77% (apparently a high percentage) has it tied with the U.K. and Germany for last place.

Taken one way these numbers could paint a bleak picture of environmental attitudes and the perception of green brands. However, it is overwhelmingly clear that consumers want to go green and respect companies that do so. This is universal.

Right now it is more important than ever for companies to be seen as environmentally conscious. Consumers across the globe are asking for this and there is consensus on what they want to see,

“. . . the most important thing a company should do to be considered green is reducing toxics; simply partnering with green organizations is not enough.”

This commentary written by David Martel

The ImagePower Green Brands Survey 2009, co-produced by Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates, and Penn, Schoen & Berland, reports the attitudes of over 5,000 consumers from seven countries toward a variety of green issues.

The report offers insight into what consumers feel makes a green corporation stand out, their perceptions of brands, and where their spending is going in the next year. A global attitude toward green issues is painted by the data. Apparently the U.S., though its heart may be green, is more focused on the greenback.

The United States tops the list of countries where economic concerns overshadow environmental ones. The 17% of U.S. consumers more concerned about the environment than the economy stand out in stark comparison to Brazil’s 62% and India’s 53%. Economic concern is mirrored in the top reason given for not purchasing green products and services – 64% of those in the U.S. consider these too expensive. (Consumers in other countries feel more limited by the availability.) The U.S. consumer does plan to spend more on these products and services over the next year – at least 39% of those surveyed do. However, the extent to which they plan to raise their spending places them at best in the middle of the seven countries surveyed. This is not to say that U.S. consumers don’t feel that being green is important, they do, just not as much as consumers elsewhere.

Twenty-three percent of respondents from the U.S. consider a company’s environmental attitude “very important” when shopping around. Still, the U.S. finds itself in the lower half of this list; only the U.K with 15% and Germany with 20% were below it. When including the category “somewhat important” the U.S. fared dropped to the bottom; its 77% (apparently a high percentage) has it tied with the U.K. and Germany for last place.

Taken one way these numbers could paint a bleak picture of environmental attitudes and the perception of green brands. However, it is overwhelmingly clear that consumers want to go green and respect companies that do so. This is universal.

Right now it is more important than ever for companies to be seen as environmentally conscious. Consumers across the globe are asking for this and there is consensus on what they want to see,

“. . . the most important thing a company should do to be considered green is reducing toxics; simply partnering with green organizations is not enough.”

This commentary written by David Martel