Stan Gretan

How a company governs all of its activities is part of the decision process in me buying its products. This is going to be the norm.

Posted by Stan Gretan | November 12, 2007 8:07 PM

Susan Plunkett

Stan, I interpreted your post as meaning consistency in value actions throughout the organisation. I actually feel a buzz when I encounter businesses that offer great connections from the cleaners up to the CEO and where their collective actions are considered by THEM as being even more important than their philosophy statements (dare I say spin) :)

If I truly had faith that a business had a great A1 environmentally sound product and that they were willing to speak of their achievements in this area *as well as* elements they were still aiming to resolve, yes I would pay more unless, and we must recognise this, I simply could not afford to do so.

If the greater mass of consumers simply can't afford to spend more then the question may be moot. However, this is where governments have a role to play in subsidising and offering financial incentives for businesses to charge less OR to offer green goods directly to families.

In Australia recently (or at least in New South Wales) each household has been offered 6 'green' long life globes and a water saving shower head with free installation of all.

Might I ask a different question?

How many shareholders in a company would be prepared to take a cut on their dividend for the year to enable the company to undertake a major green incentive? I'd be interested to hear of any examples where shareholders have placed pressure on a company to 'do better' re the environment.

Posted by Susan Plunkett | November 13, 2007 12:17 PM

Jeff Swystun

Frank et al,

I wanted to make you aware of a great article in the November 13th Wall Street Journal: How Going Green Draws Talent, Cuts Costs by Dana Mattioli. This is truly the nexus of corporate responsibility and smart business. The article points out that fresh talent expect "greeness like they expect work-life balance, ethnic diversity and globalization."

The piece cites studies that show 80% of young professionals are interested in securing a job that has positive impact on the environment while 92% want to work for environmentally friendly employers.

It goes on to cover examples of increased productivity and lowered costs as additional benefits for companies tangibly and honestly implementing green initiatives.

Green = $ and :)

Posted by Jeff Swystun | November 13, 2007 2:41 PM

Susan Plunkett

In terms of the phrase "lifestyle balance" Jeff, I caught a newspaper report of a study conducted here that indicated that the vast majority of job positions claiming "lifestyle balance" wound up expecting more time at work or on work from employees than 'normal' 9 to 5 positions. Interesting adjunct issue.

I agree with the study you cite however. I do think the majority of workers would much prefer to work for an environmentally responsible company than not.

There is a "business-environment paradigm". I have a quite old article falling under this heading and it's very useful in that it offers business the common sense of championing the environment by ensuring everyday processes are geared correctly and that it makes perfect business sense to engage in activity that affects and concerns the community in which the business resides. Oddly, I wonder whether marketing companies may be expected to do more and to offer stronger indications of success simply *because* you are in a creative action field and claim that expertise.

Posted by Susan Plunkett | November 13, 2007 10:54 PM

miro slodki

This is a motherhood survey question
of course we all want to do our part

but many will come to think this would be a value-add brand advantage the company can exploit to get incremental sales.

But as an environmental premium? - not on this planet

I love Susan's question - would Wallstreet/shareholders accept a lower return for a major green initiative?

exactly.

Posted by miro slodki | December 31, 2007 3:18 PM