In a previous post titled “Why brands should consider Mother Earth a stakeholder,” I commented that I am not a fan of the “government-should-do-something” argument. The government only acts on issues like these when a crisis is imminent and public opinion requires it. It seems to me that of all the parties that have a stake in the future, the one in the best position to “do something” is actually big business. Major corporations not only own the problem, but they have the resources to address it.
Activist groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and others are beginning to realize that the big businesses that are so often the target of their protests may turn into allies when it comes to making change happen. For instance, Kimberly-Clark recently commended Greenpeace for helping it develop more sustainable sourcing standards for its tissue products. As Scott Paul, USA Forest Campaign Director at Greenpeace, stated in the news release, Kimberly Clark’s adoption of these new standards has implications for another stakeholder group: competitors. “Kimberly-Clark’s efforts are a challenge to its competitors,” said Paul. “I hope other companies pay close attention.”
That is a very compelling point. When the brand leader in the category adopts a more ethical stance, it not only strengthens people’s commitment to that brand, but it forces competing brands to reconsider their behavior. Green companies respond by becoming greener, and may actually have an opportunity to bolster their market share by pointing out what they’ve been doing right all along. For example, Marcal, the “Earth-Friendly Paper Goods Company,” has been around for over fifty years in the United States, but sales of its paper products are just a fraction of Kimberly Clark’s.
At the same time, the not-so-eco-friendly companies are given pause for thought. For instance, when StarKist made the announcement that it was shifting to dolphin-safe tuna, StarKist’s two main competitors, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea, immediately followed suit. While the competitive reaction helped undermine Starkist’s intention to charge a premium for their product, it did mean far fewer dolphins were killed.
So I believe that if we want big changes, we need to look to big business to make them happen. Look what happened after Wal-Mart decided to sell only concentrated liquid laundry detergent. Consumers across the U.S. who wanted to buy the cheapest, most convenient product were still doing so, but they also found themselves using a product that helped them save water and reduce waste. As The New York Times reported,
By selling only concentrated liquid laundry detergent, an effort it began last year, Wal-Mart says, its customers will save more than 400 million gallons of water, 95 million pounds of plastic resin, 125 million pounds of cardboard and 520,000 gallons of diesel fuel over three years.
So what is your viewpoint? Is big business or big government more likely to change things for the better? And do you believe that positive change starts with the leading companies or the most environmentally friendly ones? Please let me know.
(2 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
October 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
nigel, there is no preferred path, just as there is no single solution or aspect to the problem/challenge at hand.
Big government codifies but it can not implement.
Business can not act if there isn’t a demand from consumers
Shareholders wont allow it unless there is a business case or social realignment/rejection/ostrisization of old practices.
To borrow from Confucius who said, “a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step”….in the end the most positive change has to first start within all of us. After that, the rest falls into place.
cheers
Miro
October 28th, 2009 at 6:43 am
I think the example of Walmart is particularly important. The company dominates retail in the US and as such has enormous leverage. Its power to do good not only forces competitors to emulate, but its vendors invariably adopt Walmart standards for all other retailers as well. After all, Walmart accounts for roughly one third of revenue for many (if not most) suppliers. And as such creates a disincentive to change standards for everyone else.
Bottom line, retailers probably have more leverage (and far less bureaucracy) than government.