A few months ago Boston Consulting Group and MIT Sloan Management Review published a report Sustainability Nears a Tipping Point. It’s the results of a survey completed by managers and executives from companies around the world, asking them how they’re developing and implementing sustainable business practices. There’s lots of interesting stuff here so definitely worth a read. What I found interesting was the insight into ‘Harvesters’ – no not the buffet restaurant that always featured criss-cross chips in its adverts, but the report’s term for companies that say that their sustainability activities are contributing to their profits. The survey results show clear differences between the ‘Harvesters’ and companies who are further behind in their responsible business/sustainability efforts. Harvesters are:

• Three times more likely to have a business case for sustainability
• 50% more likely to have a CEO commitment to sustainability
• Twice as likely to have a separate function for sustainability
• 50% more likely to have a person responsible for sustainability within each business unit
• More than 2.5 times more likely to have a Chief Sustainability Officer

None of these points particularly surprising apart from the middle one about having a separate function for sustainability – from our experience this is the last thing a company needs if it is aiming to fully integrate sustainability into its strategy and operations. In actual fact, the wording here is a bit misleading... Whilst there are specific roles and functions to manage responsible business activities on a day to day basis, these have strong backing from CEOs and are supported by senior management committees; not so separate after all.

The real differentiator seems to be the existence of a strong business case for sustainability; in some cases they’ve even changed their business models. As Mark Vachon from GE ecomagination puts it “the idea is not to put your pencil down and quit...it’s to go back and figure out what new level of innovation is required to get to the right answer”.

The burning question is how to get to this level of commitment and pro-activity? What comes first: the CEO who sees sustainability as an opportunity or the business case that shows that it’s a no-brainer? And what happens if there isn’t either; there’s no desire to find a way to make it work? Not easy questions to answer on a general level... However, one thing that can only be helpful is for ‘Harvesters’ to vocalise the positive outcomes of the measures they’re taking, encouraging others to follow suit.

P.s can we drop the 'Harvester' label - it's not working for me!

Time for some real Hope

Hope could be the latest fad to hit consumers’ buying habits this week, as Budgens begins selling blocks of it. And by that I mean literally wooden blocks with the word 'hope' written on them. Place a block in your shopping basket and, when you get to the till, £1 will be added to your bill and donated to Alzheimer's Society. This nifty new idea was created by advertising agency JWT, and trials are already a big talking point.

There’s an interesting link here with the rise of ethical consumption. We've seen surveys show that 83% of people willing to change consumption habits if it can help make the world a better place, and the rise of ethical shopping with consumers choosing fairtrade, sustainably sourced goods and brands supporting good causes. The blocks of Hope build on this trend – enabling everyday shopping habits to have a positive impact on other people. And of course, on top of that it’s a great way to help charities at a time of falling public donations.

But are we at risk of a distraction here? Is this really the way we want to help solve social and environmental issues – impromptu, tiny donations while on our weekly shop? Leaving aside issues about the number of charities, the size of the donation and the unpredictability of income, surely a better way for supermarkets to help charities is to enable you to buy in a way that contributes to causes, rather than throwing around your small change. After all, buying certain products, such as those with a cause marketing element or those where the brand stands for a certain code of ethics, is already a way we can consider ethics while we shop.

There are other ways to show what I, the consumer, hope for. Isn’t it better when I buy shampoo knowing that the product wasn’t tested in animals? Or that through buying this orange juice rather than that one, I know it’s been produced in a way that takes account of carbon impacts? Or that buying this tea means that the community where it was grown are going to be able to build a new school? I don’t mind whether it’s about ethical production of a product, or ethical donations as a result of purchasing – as long as it makes me think about the product and my impacts on the world, it makes sense.

I'd like to see more companies understand that people will place goods, and not just blocks of wood, in their basket if it means they can bring hope to solving a social or environmental issue.

We have seen the real success stories of Pampers with its vaccine scheme and The Body Shop with stance on animal testing, and the stats are there to show that linking products with ethics brings brand benefit as well as social/environmental impacts.

Blocks of hope is a nice new way for a supermarket to help charities. But the impact’s a lot smaller than that of purchasing ethically. I’m hoping that the real impact of this initiative is that it becomes yet another demonstration to businesses that people want to factor ethics into their shopping activities. It’s time for new, innovative and exciting ways to prove the ethics behind the brands on our shelves.

Think Big, Sustainable Dining, B-Corps and more

Our latest e-bulletin takes a look at some of the latest movers and shakers in responsible business– from Telefónica’s ambitious Think Big programme, unlocking the potential of young people in order to unlock the potential of the business itself; to the new partnership between Harden's Restaurant Guides and the Sustainable Restaurant Association, which will make it easier for diners to choose where they eat based on sustainability as well as cuisine.

We also take a look at the rise of the Benefit Corporation and B-Corps (NB. they're different) in America. Do we really need a new classification for businesses that pursue profit as well as purpose? It’s true that B-Corps like Patagonia are showing real innovation and commitment – you don’t get much bigger than 'Don’t buy our product' as a sustainability message. But Patagonia was an innovative, socially responsible business long before signing up as a B-Corp. Introducing a new legal 'status' for responsible business risks giving the impression that 'normal' businesses aren't expected or able to balance profit with social value.

If you’d like to read the full e-bulletin, get in touch – katie@goodbusiness.co.uk