Source: Walmart

Walmart has been a real sustainability leader in recent years and deserves lots of credit for it. But to my mind, this picture has nothing to do with its sustainability leadership nor, for that matter with sustainability. Indeed, to me it depicts an inherently unsustainable dynamic: prices the spiral endlessly downward while sales continue to rise. I am pretty sure there is a lower limit on prices, and an upper limit on sales for that matter.

Contrast Walmart’s “loop” with this depiction of the “Circular Economy,”, from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation:

This is a vision of a truly sustainable system.

Now, the comparison isn’t exactly fair, because Walmart is an enterprise, and its “productivity loop” depicts its own operating model, while “The Circular Economy” depicted above is an entire economy. But it is worth thinking about what the future of sustainability demands of a retailer like Walmart, after it has wrung environmental and economic inefficiencies from its own operations and from its suppliers. How will it need to adapt its model to fit with and support a sustainable economic ecosystem?

Any thoughts?

New York City (April 4, 2012) – Green Research, a New York-based corporate sustainability research and advisory firm, today released its latest benchmark of corporate environmental sustainability goals, this one analyzing the medical equipment and supplies industry, a large and profitable industry where the top 10 companies generate over $100 billion in revenue annually. The study found that sustainability in this industry focuses to an exceptional degree on waste management. While only a minority of firms in the industry set public, quantitative sustainability goals, more of those goals are focused on waste management than on any other objective, more even than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which tops the list in most other industries. “Reducing waste and diverting waste from landfills is a key imperative in this industry,” said David Schatsky, principal analyst and founder of Green Research. “It has even emerged as a new revenue opportunity.” The report highlights two companies, Stryker and BD, that have created businesses that reclaim, reprocess, recycle or remanufacture used medical products, helping hospitals reduce their own waste burden and creating a new revenue stream in the process. But companies are still missing significant opportunities.

The study found that just four of the 10 largest manufacturers of medical equipment and supplies have announced any public environmental sustainability goals at all. It also found that while these companies’ sustainability, citizenship or social responsibility programs are generally concerned not only with environmental issues but also social, ethical and other issues as well, when it comes to setting and disclosing specific, time-bound, quantitative goals, they tend to limit themselves to environmental goals. In the environmental dimension as well as the social dimensions, companies in this industry could go further in setting and declaring specific goals for themselves. The companies covered in the study are Baxter International, BD, Boston Scientific, Covidien, Medtronic, Smith & Nephew, St. Jude Medical, Stryker, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Zimmer Holdings.

Among the other findings:  As in many industries, significant environmental impacts in this industry occur outside a company’s four walls, in its supply chain or in customer use or product end of life. Eight-seven percent of the sustainability goals companies have set, however, are focused on internal operations. Setting supply chain sustainability goals is a missed opportunity in this industry. Green Research also benchmarked how the medical equipment makers present information about their sustainability programs on their corporate websites, focusing on six communication elements including the use of the corporate website homepage, sustainability contact information and reporting of key data.  Of the measures tracked, Baxter and Medtronic provided the most comprehensive information. Baxter provided all six elements, while Medtronic provided all but one: it did not engage a third-party assurance provider.

The medical equipment and supplies sustainability goals benchmarking research is available online at greenresearch.com. To learn more about the research, please visit greenresearch.com or contact David Schatsky at 646-783-8337 or info@greenresearch.com.

The data allows us to construct a profile of sustainability consultants, with information about consultants’ educational and professional backgrounds, the industries they are working for most, what types of projects are most popular and so on. The report is useful for consultants and the companies that hire them. The data is also very relevant to recruiters, organizations offering education, training and certification to sustainability consultants, and media companies and event producers who are targeting these folks. (You can download a free copy here.)

Misreading the Data

The study got some nice coverage in the media, but some of that coverage took a perspective that may be misleading. One piece, for instance, led off with this statement: “Some 49 percent of sustainability consultants believe business conditions are somewhat or very strong today even though just 26 percent of them work full-time in sustainability, according to a survey by Green Research.” This statement seems to suggest that sustainability consultants are underemployed—only a quarter are really working full time, after all. That’s not my reading of the data, however.

If you’ve worked as a consultant you know that it’s rare to spend 100 percent of your time doing billable work for clients. Senior consultants and managing consultants especially tend to spend a large share of their time on business development. Most consulting companies track the “utilization rate” of their consultants, and successful ones tend to achieve average utilization rates of around 80 percent. In our survey, just 20 percent of respondents reported a utilization rate at their company of 80 percent or more.

Consultants Spend Non Billable Time on Business Development and Internal Projects

How Consultants Spend Non-billable Time

When consultants are not consulting for clients, what are they doing? We asked that question, actually. A majority are working on business development or on internal projects. Some are in training or catching up with administrative work. That’s typical and healthy.

The consulting business is challenged by the fact that clients are often lacking budget, needing education and slow to make decisions. But a growing number of companies are getting serious about defining strategies and are starting to work on improving their environmental performance. This will be create demand for good sustainability consultants for years to come.

In any case, that question—”How can we make money encouraging people to consume less?”—caught my eye. It has the ring of despair, doesn’t it? How are we going to save the planet? To do so we have to consume less, but how in the world are we going to do that in a market economy that is driven by increasing consumption?

There’s no need for despair, although some of the answers that people posted were pretty negative. take this one, for instance:

Consumption is all about triggering dopamine. The problem is that multiple psychological factors (including childhood abuse, bullying, chronic stress) predispose certain types to any number of addictive behaviors…

Some folks posted some pretty interesting theoretical comments too. But I felt I had to jump in with some specific, real-world examples of how companies are making money while reducing consumption. Some of them are poster children for “sustainable/collaborative consumption.”  Readers of this blog may be already familiar with these examples, but in case you’re not, I’ve reposted them below. If you have other examples or additional thoughts, I’d love to hear them.

ZipCar and other car sharing services make vehicles available to us for just the hours we need them, and not a whole day. We “consume” less of the car; they make money.

Interface carpet recovers and recycles worn out carpet tiles into new carpet tiles. We get our floors covered, but consume less material in the process. Interface makes money. Armstrong World Industries has a similar story featuring ceiling tiles.

Procter & Gamble is an interesting case, for two reasons. They claim to have formulated Tide so that it works as well in cold water as hot water. They are working to persuade consumers to wash more in cold water–and to do it with Tide. Consumption of fossil fuels goes down, profits to P&G go up. At the urging of Walmart, they are offering an expanded set of concentrated formulations that contain less water. Water consumption goes down, P&G makes money.

My final examples predates the use of the term “sustainability.” Fancy food, tiny portions, less consumption, more profit. High fashion, tiny bikini, less consumption, more profit.

My point is that it’s not that hard to imagine low-consumption ways of making money. But it may be a challenge for companies wedded to wasteful business models.

Other thoughts or examples?

As hotels continue to expand their sustainability practices, numerous sustainability products have entered the market.  Many have been embraced by the hospitality industry over the years, such as ozone laundry machines, eco-key cards for guestrooms and bath/tissue products made from bagasse (a byproduct of sugarcane).  More are on the way. Successful products will deliver both cost savings and increased sustainability for hotels in the long run.

The Pillow-Vac® machine from Harris Pillow Supply is such a product. It allows hotels to renovate rather than replace pillows, at significant savings in cost and environmental impact.  Already hotels  like the Hilton Concord hotel in San Francisco and the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs have taken to this product.   I wanted to see how the Pillow-Vac® would fair based on factors in New York City union hotels.

Based on my own research into how often pillows get changed out for NY hotels, I was able to calculate a realistic ROI & payback period between small to large scale hotels.  The price of the pillow was set at $23.00, based on competitive vendor rates at wholesale value.  The number of pillows that need to be replaced per year was estimated based on the sample I took from my own workplace at the InterContinental New York Barclay.  Given those assumptions, mid to larger scale hotels would benefit most from investing in a pillow renovation product.  Your payback period could potentially range from 1.5-3 years with an ROI ranging between 33%-66%.

There are always other factors beyond the cost benefit calculation that should be taken into consideration, especially for hospitality operations.

Operational Factors

It is not easy to pinpoint how soon pillow renovations occur in a hotel.  The typical system in place to change out pillows is simply on an as-needed basis.   For instance at my current workplace, the InterContinental New York Barclay, we replaced roughly 108 pillows in 2011.  But, only 72 pillows were feather-based, the rest were foam.  Our estimated costs for purchasing new feather pillows came out to $1220.  With PillowVac® we would have realized a savings of roughly $503 in 2011.  If we were to assume that we change out less than 100 pillows annually, then our payback period would extend as long as 5 years.  Operationally, this would not be ideal for our use.  However, there are other circumstances where the PillowVac® would be most useful and should be considered for purchase by a property of our size and use—room renovations.  Renovations occur every 7 or so years. If hotels are able to budget for this type of investment during the year the renovation is planned, than the savings can be realized much sooner and would reflect closer to the numbers calculated in the original cost-benefit analysis.

Externalities

This is where New York City hotels differ from many other hotel markets.  If pillow renovations now get incorporated as a standard operating procedure (SOP) then a new system gets established within the duties of the housekeeping department.   Management has to consider the possibility that this could change union labor clauses to an employee’s job description; potentially slowing down the process of being able to renovate pillows.  Some questions to consider—Who will operate this machine?  Will the duties fall onto a union or non-union staff member?  How many people will learn how to operate this machine?    These are the factors to consider that will determine if your investment will be successfully implemented and integrated into your operation.  Considering the externalities will also help you determine if this is the right investment to make.  Every hotel is unique and has very different operating climates.  If you have a team that’s very sensitive to change, then introducing a new technology can be perceived negatively so should be approached with much more caution.  Knowing the heart of your operation can alleviate these potential roadblocks.   Holding conversations with staff and management beforehand is a great method to  prepare, engage and encourage departments for change.  This type of additional planning can ensure a more successful launch of an investment.

Conclusion

The environmental benefits of reducing our waste sent to landfills make for a great case to invest in products like the PillowVac®.  At the same time, we have to make sure that when we invest in new products it will make sense for our operation. Considering carefully how you will implement a new approach like this from start to finish.  For hotels, walking through the logistics of implementation can ensure you achieve the return on investment you expect.

Jennifer Moon is currently pursuing a M.S. of Sustainability Management at Columbia University and holds a B.S. in Hotel Administration from Cornell University.  She is currently the Sustainability Management intern at the InterContinental New York Barclay hotel.

New York City (February 15, 2012) – Green Research, the New York-based corporate sustainability research and advisory firm, today launched the world’s first global study to profile consultants working in sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The study utilizes an online survey distributed in conjunction with media partners globally and will examine the business practices, focus areas, and attitudes of independent consultants as well as consultants who work for larger firms. “There are a handful of well-known large firms with global footprints such as PwC, KPMG, Accenture and McKinsey,” said David Schatsky, principal analyst and founder at Green Research. “But there are thousands of smaller consultancies and sole practitioners that are lesser known that will drive sustainability among middle-tier companies over the coming years.”

The Green Research global sustainability consulting study is intended to support the market for sustainability consulting and help drive progress in sustainability globally. The survey asks about the backgrounds of the consultants; the demographics of their firms (for example, the age of the firms, number of employees and geographic distribution); the areas of greatest demand for consulting services; fees and revenues; partnership patterns; and the outlook for the consulting business in the coming year. “Both consulting firms and the companies that hire them will find the results of the study valuable,” said Schatsky.

Media companies and other partners globally are promoting the survey in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa. The International Society of Sustainability Professionals, the world’s leading professional association of sustainability practitioners, is promoting the survey to its members as well.

The results of the survey will be published in April of this year. The survey can be taken in English, Spanish, French or Portuguese and takes about 10 minutes to complete. All responses are anonymous.

Consultants are invited to begin taking the survey today here. [Survey is now closed.]

To learn more about this ongoing research, contact David Schatsky at +1 646-783-8337 or info@greenresearch.com.

The largest hotel companies have all launched sustainability or corporate responsibility programs. The programs feature significant similarities and differences. This post provides an overview of how the programs of the top firms compare.

The top five hotel companies (by number of hotel rooms) are Intercontinental Hotels Group, Marriott International, Wyndham Worldwide, Hilton Worldwide and Accor.  Combined these hotel groups represent over 23,000 hotels (about 3 million hotel rooms) worldwide—suggesting the large potential impact the global hospitality industry can make.  The table below summarizes how these hotel companies have structured their sustainability programs.

Hotel sustainability/responsibility programs have two principal pillars: social and environmental.

Social. Why should hotel companies care about developing social components to their sustainability strategies?  Hotels are social hubs that bring people to destinations.  This makes hotels responsible for the impact they have on surrounding communities. Hotel brands tend to place importance on supporting economies of developing countries within which their hotels are located.  All five companies have invested in education and training programs for their associates.  In addition, IHG and Wyndham both offer degree programs for hospitality management studies.  IHG, Hilton and Accor also emphasize the importance of ethics and preserving cultures through their philanthropic aid programs. Accor stands out from the group with the broadest social program, one that supports several human rights campaigns.  Hotel companies seem to take the ”social” aspect of the triple bottom line strategy quite seriously.  I was impressed to find that these hotel companies offer such robust support of social initiatives.

Environmental.  Environmental programs are at the forefront of hotel sustainability.  Aiming to reduce a hotel’s ecological footprint is at the heart of all environmental sustainability efforts for hotel companies. With the exception of Hilton, all of the other companies engage in sustainability reporting. Accor was the first in the group to issue a sustainability report, starting in 2006. Most hotel sustainability reports provide sustainability metrics that assess the environmental impact of the company’s hotels— by measuring energy, water and waste.  IHG, Wyndham and Hilton have developed proprietary systems that help measure and report environmental footprint data, but requires data input from individual hotels in order to be used as an effective sustainability measurement tool.

Sustainability and Franchising

Not all the properties under these brands actually participate in the brands’ sustainability programs.  Why not? The answer can be found in the operating structure of the hotel business.  Many hotels that bear the name of a brand are often franchised.  In the event a property is franchised but managed by the hotel brand then participation can be widespread.  However, when a property is solely franchised it gets increasingly more difficult to mandate participation in reporting programs.  Wyndham, for example, where 99.6% of the properties are franchised (based on 2010), is positioning their investments in the right direction by engaging stakeholders through establishing the Green Franchisee Advisory Board.  I strongly believe that as sustainability practices get more refined, the next frontier for hotel companies to tackle will be 100% participation from their franchised properties.

Jennifer Moon is currently pursuing a M.S. of Sustainability Management at Columbia University and holds a B.S. in Hotel Administration from Cornell University.  She works in hotel operations at The New York Palace hotel.

Highlights from 2011

So many supply chain sustainability initiatives and announcements occurred in 2011 that any summary is necessarily selective and subjective. But here are a few that I think are significant.

Greenhouse gas inventories of the supply chain

More companies are going to begin calculating greenhouse gas inventories for their supply chains and their products following the release in 2011 of two standards. In October the World Resources Institute introduced the new standards for value chain (scope 3) accounting and product life cycle accounting. Already, according to a new Green Research survey of sustainability executives, sixty percent of respondents say their company will calculate its scope 3 emissions in the coming year and over half intend to report the results publicly. These standards will help companies understand and begin to take responsibility for the carbon emissions of their supply chains.

Monitoring and reporting the use of conflict minerals

This year saw a lot of discussion and analysis of the implications of a new U.S. law that will shine a light on the supply chains of thousands of companies. The law in question is the Dodd-Frank law, whose conflict minerals provisions require U.S.-listed companies to conduct due diligence of their supply chains and report whether they are buyers of conflict minerals (minerals that may originate in the Eastern Congo and surrounding areas and whose trade may provide funding to armed groups in the region). In 2011, dozens of major companies including Apple, General Electric, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Motorola worked to analyze their exposure and obligations under the law and began to put in place the due diligence processes required to ensure they are in compliance with eventual final rules. Given the global nature of supply chains, these regulations will have global impact and will accelerate the broader trend toward supply chain visibility and accountability. We maintain a site with news and information on the conflict minerals provisions of the Dodd-Frank law at section1502.com.

Sustainably sourced packaging

Green Research studies have found that companies in many industries entered 2011 with goals to reduce the volume of packaging they use. In 2011, we saw a number of commitments and initiatives to enhance the sustainability of packaging materials themselves. Toy makers Hasbro and Mattel announced commitments to shift to sustainably sourced packaging materials, for instance. Dell announced a new packaging material made of sustainably sourced mushrooms. PepsiCo announced a new plant-based bottle, and AT&T announced plans to begin using packaging that is partly plant based.

Commitment to sustainable palm oil

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil announced a surge in purchases of certified sustainable palm oil and many major companies, including Asda, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg’s, McDonalds and SC Johnson announced commitments to shift their most or all of their purchases of palm oil to certified sustainable sources.

Forest products certification controversy

A conflict between competing North American forest products sustainability standards boiled over in 2011 as a number of major U.S. companies including Aetna, Allstate, AT&T, Comcast, Garnet Hill, Office Depot, Performance Bicycles, State Farm, Sprint, Symantec, United Stationers and U.S. Bank dropped the Sustainable Forestry Initiative in favor of Forest Stewardship Council. There are already too many “standards” in the sustainability field; some consolidation is welcome.

Business decisions about ecosystem services

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development introduced a new tool this year to help corporations put a monetary value on the ecosystem services they affect or depend on. The Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) tool is intended to help companies incorporate thinking about ecosystem services corporate in their strategic and financial planning. Shortly after the CEV tool was published sports-lifestyle apparel maker PUMA released a much-lauded “environmental profit and loss” statement that not only valued the company’s environmental impacts but also revealed that most of its impacts occur in its supply chain, something that is true for many companies.

Supply chain goals still in short supply

Despite the growing awareness that, for many companies, the supply chain is where many if not most of their environmental impacts occur, many companies have struggled to make firm commitments for improvement in this area. In a 2011 study of the global pharmaceutical industry, for instance, we found that ninety percent of the sustainability goals pharmaceutical manufacturers have announced deal with their internal operations; only a handful deal with the supply chain. Supply chain goals are scarce in the other industries we studied as well, including alcoholic beverages, food processing and telecommunications.

Outlook for 2012

All of this sets the stage for what promises to be redoubling of effort to improve the sustainability performance of company supply chains. According to the aforementioned survey of senior sustainability executives, improving supply chain sustainability is the number two sustainability initiative (behind employee engagement) of their companies for 2012. I expect to see companies aim for closer collaboration with suppliers, adopt more stringent scorecarding, put a greater focus on ecosystem services and biodiversity, and apply the new carbon accounting standards to their supply chains, among other initiatives.

[This post first appeared on the 2degrees Network.]

A handful of top sustainability executives believe they have total control of their companies’ sustainability strategies. Most share influence with others, but nonetheless feel they are in the strategic driver’s seat. Three quarters of them rate their influence over sustainability strategy at their company as four on a five-point scale. Perceived influence is somewhat correlated with proximity to the C.E.O. but other factors affect influence, such as the talents of the sustainability leader, the board’s commitment to sustainability and cultural factors that determine a company’s ability to adapt and to act on stated priorities.

Corporate sustainability starts with strategy and continues through tactics, policies and procedures. In the areas of communications and external affairs, sustainability executives generally perceive themselves to have substantial influence. This is partly due to where the sustainability function reports in corporations: an earlier Green Research study found that 30 percent of sustainability departments report into public affairs or marketing groups. But when it comes to other corporate functions such as procurement, supply chain or product marketing, they carry less sway. Over a quarter of respondents to our survey report having little or no influence over supply chain policies or procedures at their company and another half have moderate influence. Many companies are just beginning to contemplate how to obtain sustainability performance improvements from their suppliers.

It is rare that sustainability executive have much influence over the finance function at their companies. At some companies, finance has taken on the role of calculating and reporting sustainability metrics such as carbon emissions. With a reputation for sober and credible reporting, the finance department can raise the credibility of such reports. At a few companies we know, the head of sustainability has enlisted the finance department as an ally. One chief sustainability officer told us that his CFO has helped identify unspent funds and applied them to sustainability projects planned for the coming year, and has approved sustainability related projects with a lower rate of return than the usual investment hurdle.

How to Boost Influence

The most effective means of enhancing one’s influence over sustainability strategy and tactics at work is participating in face-to-face meetings with senior leadership. Eighty-three percent of respondents to our survey cited this as a key means of extending their influence, more than any other choice. Among top sustainability executives, the figure is 90 percent. Sustainability executives should push for face-to-face meetings, including dedicated time with the C.E.O. and at board meetings. Some companies, like Alliance Boots, the U.K. retailer, have board-level sustainability committees that meet regularly and are governed like any other topical committed such as audit or compensation.

The second-most effective approach for extending influence on sustainability inside a company, according to our respondents, is helping executives in other departments develop the business case for sustainability initiatives. Sustainability departments should compile case studies of successful sustainability initiatives at other companies, along with costs and benefits and financial models. Acting as an internal consultant and champion who can help obtain greater budget for other departmental leaders is a powerful way of boosting influence.

Another potent method for building influence inside an organization is through the use of third-party sustainability rankings. Sustainability executives cite those rankings and their companies’ standings in them to motivate employees and galvanize action. “We’ve used DJSI as a benchmark, and the questionnaire has helped drive certain reporting and analysis initiatives internally,” one chief sustainability executive told us. “I think the most immediate implication is a sense of pride that tightens bonds between employees and strengthens both their connection to their workplace and their resolve to continue to make progress.”

For more information on the Green Research Annual Sustainability Executive Survey research, click here.

[This post was originally published on sustainablebrands.com]

by Al Iannuzzi

CRC Press; November 8, 2011

Creating a sustainable society will depend in large part on reducing the environmental impacts of making, distributing and using products and of disposing of them at the end of their useful life.  Every product company that hopes to have a role in our future is going to have figure out how to do this. They now have an excellent guide in a new book called “Greener Products: The Making and Marketing of Sustainable Brands,” by Al Iannuzzi. Dr. Iannuzzi is Senior Director of Product Stewardship and Worldwide Environment, Health & Safety at Johnson & Johnson, a $60 billion healthcare products company. He has spent his entire career advancing the environmental performance of his company and its products while helping it achieve its business goals. He therefore is very well qualified to have written this book.

The book is distinguished by its comprehensive scope, which ranges from the drivers of green product development, to the methods for developing greener products, through advice for marketing those products effectively.  It is organized in three sections. The first section covers the market and regulatory drivers for green products. The second section looks at examples of greener products that have come to market. It also includes a chapter by James A. Fava, a founder of sustainability consulting firm Five Winds International. The chapter provides an overview of some of the many tools companies can use to analyze the environmental characteristics of products and processes and to develop more environmentally efficient designs. The third section looks at green marketing “because,” says Dr. Iannuzzi, “what good is a greener product if you can’t get the customer to buy it?” The marketing section includes a chapter by executives of the Shelton Group, an advertising agency focused on sustainability and energy efficiency and a leading provider of consumer insights related to green products. Though the consumer data discussed in the book is focused on U.S. consumers, the book takes a global perspective, citing product examples from North America, Europe and Asia and examples of regulations in effect on six continents.

The first section of the book sets the context for the development of greener products. It highlights many of the market factors that are creating demand for greener products including consumer demand, retailer mandates, socially responsible investment, product ratings systems and green public procurement. Among the regulatory factors the book discusses are regulations covering packaging; restrictions on the use of chemicals; and an increasingly important concept called “extended producer responsibility,” which requires that manufacturers take responsibility for their products at the end of their useful life.

Section II is packed with examples of companies and the greener products they have introduced across a range of industries from apparel to consumer electronics to household cleaning to industrial chemicals and health care. Concise case studies of companies including Timberland, SC Johnson, Clorox, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Apple, Seventh Generation, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, DuPont, BASF and Johnson & Johnson, review what impelled them to invest in greener product development, what they did, how they did it and what the result was, providing a valuable overview of the experiences of companies that have taken a leadership position in the development and marketing of greener products.  A good example in this section is the Earthwards process developed at Johnson & Johnson. Earthwards enables “product development teams to evaluate a product throughout its life cycle and identify areas where it can be improved to lower its impact and increase social benefit.” The process uses a scorecard approach that was developed after looking at other companies for examples, interviewing people inside and outside the company and under the guidance of consultant Five Winds. The company also asked an environmental non-governmental organization to review the process and make recommendations, which were incorporated.  At J&J a product receives the Earthwards designation if achieves significant improvements in at least 3 of 7 dimensions (such as packaging, energy, waste, etc.) identified by the scorecard. By 2015 the company expects to have at least 60 products in its portfolio that have achieved the Earthwards designation.

The Chapter by Dr. Fava of Five Winds reviews many of the management systems (such as ISO 14000), programs (such as product stewardship and Design for Environment), tools (including life cycle assessment and environmental impact assessment) companies can use to build their own greener product future. I suspect most readers who are unfamiliar with this material will come away from this chapter somewhat overwhelmed by sheer volume of material packed into a small chapter. This is probably fine; it highlights the need to recruit some competent help when building a greener products process and culture.

The final section, on green marketing, presents an analysis of consumer survey data that segments consumers into four broad behavior and attitudinal groups, each of which has somewhat different motivations and find different messages appealing. The “Actives,” for instance, represent 22 percent of the U.S. adult population, are well educated, have above-average income, and participate in significantly more green activities such as recycling than average consumers.

A substantial amount of consumer research conducted over the years by many companies has failed to provide a silver bullet approach to marketing green products. Most research concludes that the majority of consumers is fundamentally more interested in meeting their own needs than the needs of the planet, and more consumers show interest in green products than are actually willing to buy them if those products fall short in meeting their price, performance or emotional needs.

It’s possible that over time some consumers will begin to consider “environmental performance” an important dimension of performance along with the others. And even today many consumers, including the “Actives” mentioned above, derive some emotional benefits from associating themselves with products that make credible green claims. But the fundamental approach to understanding customers and reaching them with marketing messages is no different for green products than for traditional products. “In short,” writes the Shelton Group,“the best advice for the successful marketing of green products is the same as it is for successfully marketing any other product: Know thy buyer!”

Section III also presents a set of examples of green marketing, describing positioning, packaging and messaging of products ranging from Clorox Green Works to Honest Tea to Neutrogena Naturals. It’s valuable to have all of these case examples in one place. But it’s speculative to consider them “best practices,” since most provide no information about the success of these products. The section also reviews and explains greenwashing, regulatory standards for green marketing, ecolabels and cause marketing.

For sustainability practitioners who have followed green marketing and green product development closely over the last few years much of the material in this book will be familiar. But for those new to this topic, or any marketer, product developer, consultant or product-company executive who wants an efficient way of getting a comprehensive overview of this field, which is becoming a pillar of successful business, this book is a valuable resource. (It’s available for sale now on Amazon.com and elsewhere.)