Earth Day Mixed Marketing

Happy Earth Day! For whatever reason, I never thought to explore the origins of Earth Day – something I just accepted as a yearly occurrence since I was a child. According to Wikipedia, the first Earth Day in 1970 was designed as an environmental “teach-in” on university campuses around the country.

More than 40 years later, what has Earth Day become?

Well, it certainly is a bit more visible. And it seems global, both of which are fantastic. But I wonder if we’re headed down a path where Earth Day becomes a “Hallmark holiday,” designed to generate commercial sales and absent of the original organizers’ intent.

As someone who is entrenched in “Corporate America” every day, maybe I’m experiencing this from one particular lens. Since I’m not in a school setting, I don’t know if educators still use today as a touch-point for teaching. There also does seem to be a lot of media this week that aims to educate the public about our fragile planet. In my opinion, however, the loudest Earth Day voices are the corporate ones. Has Earth Day gone corporate? If so, is this a good or bad thing?

Let’s take a look at some Earth Day messaging from the private sector:

Starbucks – Long a leader on all things CSR, Starbucks is offering free coffee to patrons who bring in a travel mug today.

Levi Strauss – The jeans pioneer is continuing to promote its Levi’s Water Tank facebook game, which draws the connection between global access to water and the amount of water that it takes to create and wash a pair of jeans.

Whole Foods Market – Almost synonymous with planet-friendly, Whole Foods is not using any disposable bags today, instead encouraging customers to bring in their own reusable bags and offering some at a discount.

BCBG – The fashion retailer has a collection of items that benefit the Sierra Club. Its “Be Chic, Be Green” campaign is visible online and in its store windows. Some of the products feature recycled materials. Others just seem to look cool.

Microsoft – The company is sparking discussion about the connection between technology and environmentalism through its blog post about cloud computing.

Old Navy – In a partnership with TerraCycle, the discount fashion house is encouraging customers to bring in old flip-flops that will be recycled into playgrounds.

No doubt, hundreds of companies are also focusing inward, encouraging employees to connect back with Mother Earth. Virgin America, CA Technologies and Verizon are three companies whose employee programs are also generating some good buzz.

On this Earth Day, it’s almost impossible to ignore the corporate voices that encourage me to recycle a little more, reduce my disposable containers or conserve energy. And whether it’s the Corporate or the Responsibility in CSR that’s driving these messages, I don’t think it’s doing any harm. I just have to remind myself that maybe a better way to celebrate is actually going outside for a hike instead of ordering a new jacket made of recycled materials.

The Ratings Game

Last week I had the chance to meet with several corporate CSR leaders and in many conversations, the CRO's annual list of "100 Best Corporate Citizens" came up. Like every other list that purports to rank companies based on CSR, differing viewpoints and minor controversy always arise.

When I mentioned the list last week (usually to congratulate a colleague whose company earned recognition on it), I heard several comments, including:

• "You know how it is. It's a game you've got to play and hope to influence."


• "When [company name] is in the top 25, you have to wonder how credible the list is."


• "Well, it means something only if you agree with the methodology, which I really don't."

Usually, these comments were accompanied by a roll of the eyes, a shrug or a dismissive noise.

In my last two CSR positions, I worked at companies that appeared on the list and part of my job was to furnish SRI investment firms with information that would help them provide accurate and timely information about our company's CSR practices to their clients. Since the CRO list gathers its research from such an SRI firm, I served as the point of contact to provide them with information about our company's efforts.

And while I agree with my fellow CSR practitioners who feel that these rankings create unnatural competition and cannot possibly provide an apples-to-apples comparison of companies' CSR programs, I do believe they can have value.

As one of my colleagues said last week, "At least it gets our CEO talking. He's mentioned it to investors and other business partners." It's a clear and easy proof point for executives to drop in a conversation. It can serve as a "measurable" way to validate the hard work of a CSR team. It can also serve as a framework for a company to organize, build and communicate a CSR program. (Although I wouldn't recommend using the last bit as a driving force for a CSR strategy.)

In the end, I truly do congratulate CSR leaders whose companies appear on this and other CSR rankings list, but I always remain skeptical of where companies are placed in relation to each other, especially when a company can jump 20 spots in either direction in the course of a year. But as long as they encourage companies to continuously improve upon their stated missions to help people, communities and the planet, I'm all for it. Even if it may be an artificial motivator.

Greenbranding?

There's no question that McDonald's golden arches represent an iconic brand. The bold arches on a red backdrop are ubiquitous around the world and signify a variety of things (positive and negative) to consumers everywhere.

Some might associate the logo with happy childhood memories and cheerful television commercials (Who doesn't love Ronald McDonald? Or, at least, the Hamburgler? Robble Robble!). Others may view the logo as a corporate behemoth that has industrialized food and agriculture, dive-bombing a nation's nutrition. A few may also view McDonald's as a pioneer in partnering with environmental nonprofits such as Conservation International, the Environmental Defense Fund or the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It seems this last opinion is one that McDonald's hopes to strengthen in its customers' minds, at least in Germany. By changing the red background to green, McDonald's wants to signify a more environmentally friendly brand, one that innovates in the corporate sustainability space and seeks credit for its progress.

The McDonald's CSR journey is well-documented in business school cases, articles and its own publications. I've had the opportunity to meet many members of the company's CSR team and I can tell you that they take their responsibility seriously and are among the most well-intentioned practitioners I know. Even though I knew of much of the company's work, its Global Best of Green 2009 publication was an eye-opener for me and I was impressed by (and jealous of!) the wealth of ideas that have bubbled up from its employees around the globe.

But I still have to question the company messing with its branding. Does the average consumer truly believe that McDonald's is making honest strides at environmental sustainability? Did the company consider the economic value of its brand equity in making this change? Is it wise to drastically alter the brand promise in one region of the world, but not in others? Will consumers still care about sustainability in a few years?

I don't claim to be a marketer or an expert when it comes to branding, but I'm skeptical of this move. As a CSR practitioner, I'm excited to see a company take on this type of change in such a big way, so I hope my initial misgivings are proven wrong!