Go

Uncategorized

July 21st, 2010

Calling all Climate Champions: It’s time to bring our planet Back-2-Cool!

As the summer heat breaks and you begin to gear up for the 2010-2011 school year, what do you know about the companies that get all your back-to-school shopping dollars? Which ones are actually working to bring our planet Back-2-Cool? In 2008, the top 100 brands spent over $100 billion dollars on US advertising alone, and the back-to-school season was second only to the holiday season in revenue generated (US Census Bureau). Companies use these advertising dollars to promote products that require energy, packaging and transportation – all of which contribute to climate change. The question is, what can you do affect the way these companies do business and help bring our planet Back-2-Cool (B2C)?

The answer: Become an engaged climate-conscious consumer and find out what these companies are actually doing (or not doing) about climate change. If these companies truly want your attention and your money, shouldn’t they know how much you care about the climate crisis?

Of course they should. But you have to tell them. Join the Climate Counts Back-2-Cool Campaign as we shift the back-to-school momentum away from business as usual and towards strengthening corporate climate action.

Over the next ten weeks, Climate Counts will take a close look at the Back-to-School ads from scored companies in the Apparel, Electronics, Food Products, and Internet/Software sectors (which combined had over $1.2 trillion in 2009 revenues). The goal of the campaign is simple: to inform you about the climate action (or inaction) of the companies behind the ads, encourage you to make informed choices, and finally, urge you to raise your voices both to the companies and to your friends.

If you want to tell companies that you believe corporate climate action matters, be part of the B2C Campaign and help us change business as usual! Please join us at Back-2-Cool.

Mark Harrison is the Campaign Coordinator at ClimateCounts.org and can be reached at mharrison@climatecounts.org.

Join our campaign here and follow our campaign on facebook & twitter!

B2C Campaign is supported by these great organizations:

DoSomething, Alliance for Climate Education, Green Music Group, 350.org

July 1st, 2010

Eco CEOs Grow Anxious Waiting for Green Consumers

Are CEOs greener than we think? And if it’s true, what’s holding them back from moving the market towards a sustainable future? In a recent survey conducted by Accenture and the United Nations Global Compact, 93% of nearly 800 CEOs saw sustainability as important to their company’s future success and 81% stated that sustainability issues are now fully embedded into the company’s strategy and operations. Compare that to the mere 50% in 2007 and it doesn’t take much to realize sustainability is being talked about in board meetings.

.
But what’s driving this eco-shift in the corporate mindset? The answer is actually quite simple: You. 58% of CEOs identified consumers as the single most important factor driving sustainable business. That’s right, you, the climate-conscious consumer, are driving this marketplace revolution, beating out company employees (45%) and governments (39%).

.
As the greatest driving force behind corporate climate action, your consumer choices and voices are felt in revenue streams and heard in corporate board rooms worldwide. Companies spend millions of dollars fine-tuning their brand perception to match consumer wants and needs. 72% of CEOs identified strengthening brand, trust and reputation as the strongest motivator for taking action on sustainability issues. Yet, a disparity exists between the actual sustainable activity of brands, and consumers’ sustainable perception of brands. So how can climate-conscious consumers fix this? Easy. Say something.

.
In order to keep these CEOs on their toes, consumers must exercise their muscles and let CEOs know that “climate counts.” Visit www.climatecounts.org to email and tweet companies directly and have your messages land on the table in the next board meeting.

Follow our work on Facebook and Twitter and share our work with your friends.

May 21st, 2010

BP: THE GULF BETWEEN IMAGE & REALITY

The devastating and escalating events in the Gulf of Mexico underscore an amazing collection of problems: reliance on polluting energy, absence of a coherent national energy plan, the problems with lax government oversight, and dozens of others. Perhaps most clearly, it shows the gulf we should have seen years ago between the image of BP and the reality of BP.

This spiraling disaster might literally have never happened if BP had made a real and deep commitment to changing more than its logo. Almost 10 years ago, BP – the largest corporation in the UK – spent an extraordinary amount of money and resources on a now infamous rebranding effort ($125 million a year, according to the New York Times) to show its commitment to a world “beyond petroleum.” Branding experts would certainly argue it was money well-spent; for a time, the company became emblematic of the environmental transformation that could occur even within the largest of the world’s businesses and of the ROI that could result when the marketplace rewarded those changes.

Consumers were promised a cultural shift and, to a large degree, bought it. The company was going to remake itself. It was going to become a very high-profile example of how a company with the resources and know-how to profit from 19th-century energy solutions was perfectly positioned to do the same in a 21st century where the realities had changed. The company could be a leader in renewable energy and even transition away from the business of oil extraction. The company could even be positive voice for corporate climate action from an industry sector with a vested interest in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

It was all a façade.

Unfortunately, the BP case illustrates a glaring example of the disconnect between cynical rebranding efforts designed to shore up the dollars of a growing and loyal green consumer segment and the cold, hard realities of global business. Consumers didn’t get the culture shift they thought they were buying. It’s now clear they saw a company paying the worst kind of lip service to sustainability — while still polluting heavily, while still profiting from the extraction of fossil fuels, while still cutting major corners on safety, while still promising the moon to communities where they did business, while still pouring huge dollars into political campaigns and lobbying designed to win powerful friends of fossil fuel expansion in Congress and in statehouses around the country. BP had played a game of smoke and mirrors. There was no corporate culture shift in “beyond petroleum.” It was cultural disdain. Essentially, the company said, “Who needs to invest in 21st century solutions when people will give us credit whether we’re really leading or not?” The company realized the consumer could be hoodwinked into not asking the hard questions.

When a disaster like this happens, it’s sometimes reassuring to try to find the potential good that can come from it. There is more and more evidence that neither the White House nor the Congress will be using this disaster to issue the necessary clarion call for the new energy future we so desperately need. If we’re lucky, maybe the impact will be largest in deepening both consumer savvy and consumer scrutiny of corporations so that their programs to “go green” have both measurable depth and staying power. Otherwise, we’ll never be far away from being duped again.

Quick note: As an organization annually scoring well-known companies on their efforts to address climate change, Climate Counts made the conscious decision when we launched in 2007 to NOT to score oil & gas companies and automobile manufacturers. In trying to help consumers make more climate-conscious choices when they spend their money, it seemed almost absurd to evaluate companies that had such an inherently profound impact on the climate crisis. Would it really be reasonable to suggest to a consumer, as they drive down the road in a vehicle produced by one of the numerous car makers who’ve fought vehemently against increased fuel efficiency standards, that they are truly more responsible by choosing to buy gasoline from Shell vs ExxonMobil vs Chevron vs ConocoPhillips vs….BP? We chose to opt out of that fool’s errand.

Wood Turner is the executive director of Climate Counts and the founder of the Climate Counts Industry Innovators program.

February 22nd, 2010

The True Power of College Students

It is often said that the college years are the best years of one’s life. In the ideal setting, the freedom to learn, grow friendships, explore one’s passions and embrace youth all collide in a four-year span to create a sort of responsibility-free utopia. Amidst this collision, a college student may feel detached from the real world, but she is still very clearly a participant in the consumer economy.

College students spend over $740 billion on furniture, electronics, and apparel every year. Add that to what they spend on airline trips home, food, and beer and one thing should be clear: if students were to tell big companies they care about climate change, those companies would listen.

- National Research Federation & BIGresearch, CIA Aug-07

The big picture – youth is fleeting, but consumption isn’t.

If you think about it, campuses are communities, marketplaces, learning centers, idea generators, and ultimately, earth shakers. When corporations sell to college campuses, they are not only selling to large academic institutions, they’re directly tapping into future generations of consumers. But too few students realize that they have almost exactly the same opportunity in reverse. They’re not simply one-way receptacles for corporate messages. They can and should learn to talk back to those companies.

It does not take a petition thousands of signatures long or a day when the company switchboard lights up with complaints to make companies listen. Many business leaders will acknowledge it only takes a few dozen messages to bring a consumer or investor concern to a company’s attention. Just think of the impact a fully engaged student body could have. Everyone consumes goods and services, everyone can have a say in how the companies that produce those goods and services operate. But when launched from college campuses, those voices can really resonate.

The choice is yours.

Climate Counts Campus Champions have the power to jumpstart a climate-awareness consumer movement. They can motivate their peers, colleagues and administrators to take action. Climate Counts can serve as a source and a roadmap. With our information and support (nearly 150 companies scored representing over 3,000 brands), Champions can activate climate-conscious consumerism on their campuses and have a direct impact on way companies do business. The attention of college students on public policy related to climate change is critical, but perhaps nothing is more important in changing the trajectory of climate change than changing business as usual.

Mark Harrison coordinates campaigns at Climate Counts. E-mail him about the Climate Counts Campus Champions program at: mharrison@climatecounts.org

February 5th, 2010

How much do I really matter in a democracy?

With last month’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations (with much deeper pockets than yours and mine) are now able to directly support specific political candidates and issues without spending limits or disclosure, we’ve seen the upending of decades of bipartisan support for the regulation of corporate and individual campaign contributions. President Obama addressed this new ruling directly in his first State of the Union address when he argued the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

Let’s step back and digest this for a moment. 2009 has come and gone and one year into a “new” Washington, we are still facing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce that this past year contributed close to $100 million dollars lobbying against climate legislation. These dollars – which came from a sometimes unaware corporate membership – contributed to the stalling of any momentum the legislation was gaining prior to Copenhagen. Those dollar counteract the concerns of many Americans who believe such policy is necessary to change our energy and environmental future. But everyday Americans simply don’t have the kind of money of the Chamber or some of its members have to effectively “sponsor” senators.

Yes, we have voices. Yes, we have votes. But with the Supreme Court’s decision, our democracy is showing its preference for favoring corporate dollars which more often than not greatly outweigh our influence on the political process.

Still, even though the decision threatens our direct role in our democracy, the power we have as individuals is incredible. Too often we fail to realize the real power that we can have over the companies that now stand to wield such an excess of influence on our government. So in a kind of roundabout way, we can still engage in our democracy by making it clear to big corporations that big global issues – climate change and climate justice, access to clean drinking water, and poverty and disaster relief, to name a few – truly matter to us.

Every time we shop, we’re voting. Every time we eat, we vote. Every time we watch TV, we vote. The list goes on and on. So why not vote for our future? Corporations know where you shop, they know what you eat, and they know what you watch. Their business revolves around what consumers want or they fail. If we are truly committed to a more sustainable world, we should support companies that are making efforts to reduce their impact on the environment, supporting strong public policy on climate change, and engaging with us openly on their efforts to be good corporate citizens. It actually becomes a quite simple equation. If those companies know we care about the environment and climate change and demonstrate our willingness to reward them for their meaningful action, those companies will naturally become the most outspoken forces for aggressive climate action in their interactions with our government. In short, our money talks and will motivate deep-pocketed corporations to put their money to use for good.

This is all about making lemonade out of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Let’s make it work to the advantage of us, the consumers of the products and services marketed by these “corporate persons.” Let’s put increasing pressure on the world’s most well-known companies – many of them some of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases – to put their money towards the issues that matter to us.

The key is making them realize our support for their businesses is contingent upon how responsive they are to our very real concerns about global challenges like water scarcity, poverty, and, yes, climate change.

January 27th, 2010

New Year’s Resolutions are a dime a dozen. Why not make 2010 a year of meaningful resolutions?

Take a look at the 2009 Climate Counts Scores of 20 companies in the Food Products Industry.

Food Products - At a fundamental level, climate change and agriculture are two issues that are inextricably linked; risks from flood, drought, and disease all loom large over our global food systems. And the impact of those food systems themselves on climate change is dramatic; packaging of food products and the impact of waste on the environment are only growing as significant issues. Consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of their food choices and are learning that not all multinational food companies look alike when it comes to their attention to issues like water scarcity, toxicity, animal welfare, and, of course, climate change.

That said, because of consumer awareness and engagement, more and more food companies are getting the message. Ten of eleven companies in the food products sector improved their Climate Counts scores from 2008 to 2009. Unilever and Stonyfield Farm have continued to lead, both working to fully integrate climate action into business strategy and across the global value chain.

Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, General Mills, Sara Lee and ConAgra Foods each improved their scores by double digits. Significant increases in company scores resulted from a range of actions including third-party verification of company climate data, clear goals and public engagement. PepsiCo’s greatly improved reviewing of emissions and reduction goals bring them in close proximity to archrival Coca-Cola. Nestle and Kellogg also improved their scores, and with Sara Lee’s 20 point increase due to the data reported in its first-ever comprehensive sustainability report, this sector no longer has any companies that are considered “stuck” in the lowest tier of Climate Counts scores (scores of 12 points or less).

January 5th, 2010

Why not tune into the truth in 2010?

Media companies should bring words and actions into alignment.

Media - As the Western world continues to be inundated with thousands of ads daily, many of which are for “green products,” consumers may be overlooking the environmental impacts of media giants themselves.

Companies in this category, including General Electric and Disney, often have a considerable impact in many different realms. In 2009, GE maintained brands found within the large appliances, airline, electronics, and pharmaceutical sectors along with their media ownership of CNBC, MSNBC, and Bravo (it should be noted that GE sold off its media business to Comcast at the end of 2009). Their different and diverse business units all have varying climate impacts, with each subsidiary facing complex challenges. General Electric continues to rank the highest in this category, much of which can be attributed to strong carbon reduction programs emerging from its Ecomagination initiative.

News Corporation also improved this year, in part because of the company’s emphasis on internal educational efforts around climate change issues. Disney and Time Warner showed solid gains with Disney’s investment in renewable energy demonstrating a strong commitment to innovation. With just three more points, Disney will join GE and News Corporation in the Striding category.

After showing progress from ’07 to ’08, CBS continues to remain non-committal to concrete emissions reductions and as a result is at the bottom of the sector. Having not even calculated its emissions, Viacom remains behind CBS. Incidentally, this shows a disconnection to one of Viacom’s major audiences, the youth; as the parent company of MTV, Comedy Central, VH1 and numerous other youth-oriented media outlets that have promoted climate action, Viacom has shown little commitment to dealing with climate change in-house, while its viewers are some of the largest supporters of climate legislation.


December 22nd, 2009

As technology propels us into the future by fitting our universe into computers, phones, and cameras, a question looms large: what do the companies that make them do in the present for our planet?

With the highest overall sector average (65) of any sector scored by Climate Counts and all twelve companies now in our “Striding” group of companies, the Electronics/Computer sector has solidified itself as an example for other industries.

Electronics - Energy and sustainability issues are hot topics within this industry, since an electronic gadget’s life cycle (ranging from the extraction of materials, to the production, to the distribution, to the used energy, to the disposal) has such a far-reaching impact on the product’s – and the company’s — climate footprint.

This sector has set a high standard for corporate climate leadership by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A significant percentage of the environmental impact of an electronics product – much of it tied to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions – occurs before the product is ever purchased by the consumer (e.g., the mining of ores for electronic conductors is hugely energy intensive and corrosive to the land). And since many of these products are disposed of within their first year of existence, the waste generated by electronics industry is enormous. An entire life-cycle-analysis of a product reinforces Climate Counts’ belief that corporate climate leaders must take responsibility for measuring and reducing the energy they use (including the demand they create), the waste they generate, and the emissions that result — companywide — as they create what has become an endless cycle of new products. It is a challenge that takes the notion of real innovation to a higher level.

Internet/Software - The connection between the click of a mouse and GHG emissions of the Internet/Software sector can be hard to get a handle on. But consider this fact alone: it is estimated that a modest server farm (drawing a mere 25 megawatts) uses enough electricity to power 20,000-30,000 homes.  With server farms all over the world consuming millions of watts of electricity daily, much of which comes from coal, the Internet/Software industry is responsible for the output of enormous amounts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

With a 23-point jump, Microsoft overtook Google for the top spot in the Internet/Software sector. Microsoft’s largest improvement was how its strong goal is resulting in reduction of carbon emissions. eBay earned 48 additional points (the largest point increase of any company scored by Climate Counts) for similar reduction efforts along with strong support of public policy that addresses climate change.

Yahoo! had a nine-point improvement due in large part to their reduction efforts around their data centers. Even with its own nine-point improvement, Amazon.com still falls short of its Internet competitors on climate leadership.

December 16th, 2009

Do the clothes you buy really have an impact on climate change?

With so-called environmentally responsible products everywhere, it’s become fashionable to be “green,” but is the fashion world confronting the realities of climate change? While boutique green fashion companies (that espouse sustainability as a key value) are growing, have the large companies that dominate the landscape improved their scores in the past year?

Apparel/Accessories - Nike continues to lead not only the Apparel/Accessories sector, but also received the highest overall score. Recently, Nike gained national attention leaving the board of the US Chamber of Commerce due to policy disputes regarding potential climate change legislation. Levi Strauss surged past Gap, finishing second in the sector. For the second year in a row, Levi Strauss was among the biggest movers, making a double-digit leap from 22 to 58 points, due in part to its leaving the US Chamber of Commerce because of climate policy disputes and setting strong emissions baselines.

Jones Apparel Group and Limited Brands made measurable efforts to evaluate and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through alternative transport initiatives and energy efficiency programs.

VF Corporation and Liz Claiborne have scored at the bottom of the sector for three years running. These companies are lagging others in their sector which have realized the need to address the risks of climate change and the opportunities to engage environmentally conscious consumers. Although progress is being made at the highest levels, the apparel sector as a whole still appears disjointed in its response to climate change.

December 11th, 2009

You deserve a vacation. Why not give the planet a break too?

Climate Counts scored a total of 16 different Airlines and Hotel companies in 2009 and came up with some interesting results. When scored on a scale of 0 – 100 points, each sector began to establish clear leaders committed to combating climate change.

Airlines - The Air Transport Association (ATA), which includes all but three of the twelve airlines scored, has been urging the Obama Administration to oppose an emissions tax leading up to Copenhagen. The current recession has hit the tourism industry hard with the airline industry absorbing a large part of the economic pullback. The possibility of an emissions tax expanding overhead costs has prompted the ATA to oppose universal emissions regulations. As new scientific data continues to provide evidence of the threats of climate change the window for the airline industry to respond is shrinking.

With ten of the twelve scored airlines improving their scores (five of those improvements by more than 10 ten points) the industry as a whole made some big strides in 2009. American Airlines moved up from third to first this year by reducing their emissions intensity and committing to the EPA Climate Leaders Program. By measuring its companywide impact, establishing goals, and enhancing public information, US Airways made the second largest improvement of all 90 companies scoring 43 points and vaulting itself into second place in an otherwise low-scoring industry.

Hotels - Buildings account for 39% of the energy usage and 38% of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. The US Energy Star Program estimates that on average, America’s 47,000 hotels spend $2,196 per available room each year on energy. That’s more than the average US household. Hotels can trim lighting, heating, air conditioning and water costs while at the same time slashing carbon emissions.

Hotels have significant room to improve and one leader to follow — Marriott Hotels. Marriott Hotels is the first and only company in this sector to be classified as “Striding” towards reducing its carbon footprint. With LEED certified buildings, improved supply chain management, and the expansion of efficiency pilot projects, Marriott has earned the outright lead in the hotel sector, more than doubling the next best score.

Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge