While driving to work this morning, I was stopped at a red light next to a Mobile station. As I looked out of my car window, much to my dismay, there was a Mobile attendant changing the advertised price of gas to $3.74 for one gallon of regular gasoline.
As I contemplated how oil companies could charge upwards of $120 a barrel, I wondered why our government has not taken a firm stance to help keep costs down. After all, the cost of oil doesn’t just affect how much we pay at the pump – it affects everything from the price of groceries to our electric bills.
While our presidential candidates debate the gas tax holiday, one company has launched a marketing initiative gimmick to help consumers control their gas prices. Chrysler introduced the ‘Let’s Refuel America’ campaign, in which new Chrysler owners will ‘only’ have to pay $2.99/gallon at the pump. The program covers gas costs for three years, and up to a maximum number of gallons. BusinessWeek has the details:
The customer who opts for the $2.99 card gets charged the going rate at the pump, but their credit card statement will only bill them for $2.99 a gallon, for regular gas ($3.29 for premium). Chrysler will pay the difference. The deal is limited to 12,000 miles a year for three years.
Although the actual savings from this offer won’t be seen for three years, early estimates predict savings will be just under $500 for the three years. The Associated Press reported that Chrysler’s major competitors (Ford, Toyota GM, and Honda) said they aren’t planning to follow Chrysler’s lead, but Suzuki has made a similar offer in the U.S. with free gas for the summer.
When it comes to grocery shopping, it has always been a question of paper or plastic – but not anymore. With reusable bags now in style, some stores (and China) are ready to do away with plastic bags.
Reuters reported today that China launched an initiative to ban plastic bags as of June 1. The Chinese government is putting pressure on the manufacturers of the plastic bags through tax hikes on plastic bag production, in attempt to limit the amount of litter in China’s countryside.
Although it’s unclear how well this ban on plastic bags will work, China’s efforts are impressive, especially during a time when the country had been targeted by avid protesters around its treatment of Tibet.
Back in the United States, Whole Foods decided to go plastic-free. USA Today reported that Whole Foods stop offering disposable, plastic grocery bags in all 270 stores in the USA, Canada and United Kingdom as of Earth Day, April 22. According to Whole Foods, this change will keep roughly 100 million plastic bags out of the environment during the time period of April 22 to the end of 2008.
Whole Foods has replaced plastic bags with the option to purchase reusable ones for just 99 cents. The reusable bags are 100% recycled, and customers receive 5 cents of their purchase every time they reuse a bag.
What’s better then going green? How about going clear.
Xerox is currently developing a new type of paper and printer that would allow someone to print a document, only to have the ink fade away after 16 to 24 hours, so that the paper can be reused.
Cnet reports that users don’t have to wait for the paper to fade either. By running it through the special printer made for this paper, the printer will erase the old image before putting the new one on.
How is this possible? The paper is coated with photosensitive chemicals that turn dark when hit with UV light, and according to Xerox’s tests, the paper can be used hundreds of times.
Imagine printing out a meeting agenda, only to realize that one item was left off. Instead of having to re-print an agenda for everyone at the meeting, the same paper can be ‘cleared’ and re-printed on, cutting down on waste. The only problem people could run into is if something important is printed – only to have it disappear the next day or week once you really need the information.
Earth Day version 2008 gave us an opportunity to see businesses from all over declare their support for the environment.
Planting a tree or learning about how recycling can help the earth used to be the main focus of Earth Day – but that was way back before Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and being ‘green’ became the cool thing to do.
Today, every day is an old fashioned Earth Day, with grocery stores encouraging shoppers to bring in reusable bags, and everyone from Coke to Marriott trying to paint on a green image. Green is no longer just the cool thing to do – it’s a competitive advantage.
Earth Day 2008 seemed like no better time for many companies to announce new initiatives. The Red Sox donned special uniforms for their game yesterday, which had a green recycle sign around the logo. Circuit City created a new Web site that shows consumers five simple ways to go green. Of course, all of these suggestions end in giving your credit card information to Circuit City. Google couldn’t wait for Earth Day to come, while WIRED offered seven suggestions for a greener life, and AdvertisingAge also shared how people and businesses can be more earth friendly.
So many eco-friendly marketing messages are piling up that it no longer is clear whether companies jumping on the environmental bandwagon get much advantage for doing so, marketing experts say. Instead, a green marketing campaign now is standard operating procedure for big companies.
Anheuser-Busch is just one of these companies, and is airing four new television and print ads that feature employees discussing the company’s commitment to the environment. You can see the videos on the green page of their Web site, which even includes a sentimental story:
Today, many companies are “going green.” But at Anheuser-Busch, we’re proud to say our tradition of environmental stewardship dates back to our founder, Adolphus Busch. In the late 1800s, he began recycling leftover grain from the brewing process, using it for cattle feed, a practice that continues today.
Deborah Zabarenko of Reuters took a more political approach to Earth Day, and reported that even President Bush planted a tree – there’s nothing like a great photo opportunity!
The world has never seemed more focused on the environment than it is this Earth Day — and that worries many environmentalists.
Launched in 1970 as a protest against corporate environmental misconduct, Earth Day has become a planet-hugging marketing frenzy for companies themselves. Makers of everything from snack chips to sport-utility vehicles now use April 22 to boast about their efforts to help save the planet. Pitching energy-efficient products, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., once criticized for being environmentally unfriendly, isn’t content with a mere Earth Day. In a national marketing campaign, the retailer is declaring April “Earth Month.”
It’s clear that Earth Day is well on its way to becoming a consumer holiday like Valentine’s Day. The only question is whether or not the good that comes from this awareness can be substantial in helping the environment.
From energy efficiency to reuse, recycling and sustainability, green is an emotive issue. The subject is covered by the media and bloggers with differing levels of accuracy and relevance. RaceTalk took the opportunity to speak with James Murray, editor at Business Green.
James is one of the UK’s most respected specialists on green issues. Here, RaceTalk gets his insights:
RaceTalk: Hi James, many thanks for taking some time out to talk to us today. Have you been surprised by the growth in volume of communications on green issues?
James: Not really, it’s been one of the longest running but slowest burning issues of the last 10 years! I think the impact Al Gore made was a big kick-off point for the most recent movement – that’s almost two years ago now, so it’s taken quite a while for the majority of companies to get their houses in order.
RaceTalk: In terms of the volumes of PR communication on green issues – have you been seen a dramatic rise in that in the last 6-12 months?
James: Yeah, absolutely, that’s really come through. It took a year for companies to get their heads around green issues and decide whether they wanted to do something.
Now we’re moving into the second year and they are all trying to communicate and push the green message – it’s really taken off. However, while it’s approaching the mainstream, it’s still not completely mainstream and a large proportion of companies have yet to adopt a green strategy so the potential for it to expand is enormous.
RaceTalk: Given the rapid growth of green communications, how would you rank the quality?
James: It varies enormously. It depends on the maturity of the PRs and the companies they represent. What I will say is there’s an awful lot of rubbish out there – PRs just cobbling together a survey saying that: “businesses now care about green issues” or “90% of businesses are starting to worry about energy costs.” It’s so passé and it’s been done to death, but then at the same time you are getting a lot of organisations that have a good solid handle on how to adopt green practices and communicate them. These are the ones that have good stories to tell and products that actually meet green standards. Communication with these guys doesn’t come across as marketing fluff.
RaceTalk: Obviously, you are a specialist in this area and you know the issues inside out. How would you rank mainstream media’s coverage of green issues?
James: From a business perspective that’s part of the reason we launched. The environmental coverage particularly across the mainstream media tends to lean towards ‘tree-hugging’. There is an assumption that all businesses are raping and pillaging the planet.
The business press meanwhile has struggled to get their collective heads round this whole new sphere. It’s there for them to worry about, but they haven’t really got in-depth understanding of environmental issues and legislation to be able to report on it adequately.
RaceTalk: Do you think procurement departments are updating their buying and due diligence approaches by incorporating environmental considerations?
James: Certainly. It’s slow progress but it is happening. All Government departments are legally obliged to do so and now more than ever, you can see multinationals doing it. In fact, a good example is Walmart. They’re actually dropping suppliers that don’t meet required standards now on the environment. On the technology side, HP has a big outreach programme to all it’s suppliers to try and train to improve environmental impact. The importance of the issue is gradually filtering through to mass business and consumer consciousness.
RaceTalk: Does any organisation stand out as excellent communicators in this field?
James: It’s a very difficult one. In terms of the big names it’s hard to fault companies like M&S and HSBC – they’re not perfect but they have communicated their initiatives well. Aside from the big boys, some of the younger, less ‘sophisticated’ companies like Ecotricity, Innocent smoothies have grown quickly from a solid environmentally conscious base – ultimately, they find it a lot easier to communicate because they don’t have skeletons in the closets.
The consumer technology industry is a mixed bag. Most are doing it quite well and the majority are open about the fact that they have got major issues within the industry.
One thing I will say is that there’s a large and growing element of Greenwashing going on. It must be tempting to say that the latest model is green when in fact, more often than not, the greenest thing is for users not to replace the previous product! There is also the tendency towards communicating the benefits of energy efficient devices, but at the same time a lot of nasty chemicals are inside the product or being used in the manufacturing process.
There has been a degree of honesty I think from the IT industry that they’ve got problems, and the level of R&D investments from the big members in improving energy efficient has been pretty impressive so I’m hopeful that in the next 5 years we really will see progress.
Ultimately, the question in the back of our minds is whether the tech companies back away from green issues and revert to pushing as much kit as possible, regardless of environmental concerns, or whether they are genuinely serious about this.
So there is a list of reasons why Coke is bad for your health (even though Coke wouldn’t have you believe any of them) – but at least they’re committed to helping the environment.
Coca-Cola is serious about making a difference, and they’re not just talking the talk – they’re walking the walk. Their new initiative moves beyond a traditional bottle recycling campaign to take aim at vending machines.
Vending machines and commercial coolers that keep drinks cold run around-the-clock, rely on inefficient compressors and, worst of all, use HFCs, a potent greenhouse gas. So when Greenpeace challenged the Coca-Cola Co. to get rid of conventional vending machines and coolers, the world’s largest beverage company promised to develop replacements that are 40 to 50% more efficient and HFC-free.
Since then, Coke has invested $40 million in research and testing, published a 900-page technical study and organized a coalition of companies that sell cold drinks and ice cream, including Unilever, McDonald’s and (gasp!) PepsiCo., to attack the problem. Last year, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Coke declared victory: E. Neville Isdell, the company’s chairman and CEO, and Gerd Leipold, who leads Greenpeace, unveiled a new, HFC-free, super-efficient vending machine. About 8,000 of the climate-friendly machines have been deployed, most to high-profile venues like Davos and the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Marc later wrote in his blog that he’s become an admirer of Coke as he’s learned about the company’s sustainability work.
It’s great to see a company investing money to make real change, because although recycling bottles helps, that along is not nearly significant enough to spur wide-spread results.
This is explained in a video that BusinessWeek’s Heather Green wrote about yesterday called The Story of Stuff. The video goes into detail about our production and consumption patterns, and exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues. It’s 20 minutes long, but worth every minute.
The bottom line: Coke’s actions are admirable, but we need a lot more businesses and our government to take action in order to make significant changes.
It’s hard to find something that’s trendier then ‘green’ right now, and marketers are taking notice.
BusinessWeek’s Heather Green reported that a survey released by consultant Cone LLC and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship found that many Americans are not deciphering between the key words that are used in green marketing.
Over the past few months, just about everyone has been trying to jump onto the green bandwagon. From Sun Chips, Wal-Mart, and even Marriott, so many companies are trying to trying to show consumers their environmentally friendly side.
On this topic of appealing to consumers, the survey had some very interesting findings:
48 percent of Americans believe that environmentally friendly products actually have a positive impact on the environment.
39 percent of Americans buy products that they think are environmentally friendly.
22 percent of Americans correctly understand that an environmentally friendly product means that its impact on the environment is less negative.
While it’s clear that a reusable shopping bags and hybrid cars create ways for us to limit our negative impact the earth, it’s understandable that some companies may try to confuse consumers with their messages. However, what’s really beginning to become a grey area is what ‘green’ means.
So many businesses are claiming to be green, but there can be so many different variations of being green. While one company may change its lighting to environmentally friendly light bulbs, another company could vastly enhance their IT infrastructure, use ‘green’ printers, and change their light bulbs. Both of these companies can still call themselves green – but they’re clearly at different levels.
The bottom line is that competition between companies to become ‘greener’ is great for everyone, and the better we understand what type of affect each product actually has, the better it is for our environment
With Earth Day right around the corner, many people will be planting trees to help our environment. While these trees are being planted, multi-billion dollar Marriott International will be paying villagers in parts of the Amazon rainforest to not cut down trees.
Marriott will donate a relatively small amount of its own money – $2 million over the next three years – to the Sustainable Amazon Foundation, a newly-formed nonprofit organization.
The hotel company will also solicit contributions from its employees and hotel guests who want to offset their carbon footprint and help save the Amazon. “A lot of our group customers are interested in holding ‘green’ meetings,” explained Arne Sorenson, Marriott’s CFO. The company hopes to raise at least another $4 million from customers and employees over the next three years.
In Amazonas, some of the money will go to subsistence payments, known as “bolsa florestras,” for the 500 or so people who live in a 1.4-million acre area known as the Juma Sustainable Preserve. (That’s about the size of Delaware, officials said.) The Amazonas Foundation will also use the money to improve local schools and help villagers engage in more sustainable livelihoods, such as subsistence agriculture. Money will also fund monitoring in the area to insure that trees are not cut down, and to enforce existing Brazilian laws against illegal logging.
Marriott explains the importance of this partnership on their corporate blog:
Trees in the rainforest are being cut down because the timber is a valuable commodity. But these trees also absorb greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, and keep the planet from warming. Put another way, the burning and clearing of the rainforest produces more greenhouse gases than all the cars, SUVs, trucks and trains on the planet combined.
RaceTalk has been following stories about big companies going green like Sun Chips and Wal-Mart. Marriott is just one of the latest to jump onto the ‘green’ bandwagon, which also includes Major League Baseball.
The nice thing about Marriott’s initiative (no matter how strange it sounds at first) is that it’s not just implementing a reusable bag policy. It’s trying to accomplish something that can make a large impact on our environment. Hopefully other companies (and our government) will catch on and join the effort.
Yes, this is the same multi-billion dollar corporation that recently made news when it sued Debbie Shank, a low-level employee for the cost of her medical bills. Debbie was a shelf stocker for Wal-Mart before she suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident. She was awarded $700,000 through her lawsuit, and Wal-Mart was ready to take it all away before realizing the PR nightmare that even a company of their standards might not want to tackle.
In any case, the company is now ready to help. According to ADWEEK, “Wal-Mart says it is serious about going “green” and encouraging its customers to also do so. To support its position, Wal-Mart this week will launch what it called “the most comprehensive environmental sustainability campaign” in company history.”
Wal-Mart has created sustainability page on its Web site in support of Earth Month. The page touts ‘green’ products that are available in its stores such as light bulbs and coffee. Wal-Mart will also be giving away one million custom-made reusable shopping bags on April 19, which are usually priced at $1.
Maybe they can throw some more green at their employees as well…
“We didn’t wait for someone else to storm the beaches of Normandy. We didn’t wait for someone else to guarantee civil rights, or put a man on the moon, and we can’t wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis. We need to act, and we need to act now.”
These are some of the words of Al Gore’s new campaign video called We Can Solve The Climate Crisis. It’s aimed at Americans, and encouraged them to take the lead in solving global warming.
This doesn’t take anything away from Gore’s view that federal regulations need to change in order to help spur change. Gore told the Washington Post, “This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public’s sense of urgency in addressing this crisis. I’ve tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it.”
It will be interesting to see how this method turns out. For large scale change, the government and large businesses need to be on board. Using re-usable bags in grocery stores is a great thing for people to do – but this alone is not going to have a strong enough affect to change our environmental problems. Could Gore’s initiative help create additional public pressure on the government to finally address this issue head on?
Gore said that “The simple algorithm is this: It’s important to change the light bulbs, but it’s much more important to change the laws. The options available to civilization worldwide to avert this terribly destructive pattern are beginning to slip away from us. The path for recovery runs right through Washington, D.C.”
