7gen Bloc

Good post. I had seen Joel Makower's post and felt like he was missing a big part of the equation. Thanks for sharing a different perspective.

Hi Jensen. Thanks for your comment, and thanks for following The Inspired Protagonist.
Best,
Jeffrey

Jeffrey,

Thanks for your post. I've long admired your outspokenness on the topic of the green marketplace, and your willingness to be, as you described yourself, an inspired protagonist.

I don't disagree with some of your points, but I think you missed mine. It wasn't about companies that can't handle criticism. And it wasn't about condoning companies that are being misleading or dishonest. As you well know, I have been an outspoken critic of greenwashing myself over the past twenty years.

But there is a tremendous amount of green activity going on in the world of business that doesn't fall into either category, and it deserves more than a little consideration and a knee-jerk response.

Nearly every big company these days is taking a hard look at its products, processes, and operations through the lens of environmental impacts, and many are making changes that reduce their impacts significantly, even though the changes may represent a small, even tiny, part of their operations. They are doing these things for range of reasons — to cut costs, increase sales, attract and retain employees, reduce risks, and improve their reputations, among other reasons. Frankly, their motivations are unimportant, as far as I'm concerned. What's important is that they are engaged as never before.

The challenge most big companies face is how to make gradual changes without being pilloried for not being "good enough." Incrementally, after all, is how big companies change. Smaller, privately held firms like Seventh Generation can move much more quickly and boldly, especially when they have leaders as enlightened as you. But unfortunately, such companies are few and far between. The overwhelming majority of companies, especially big public ones, move much more slowly. Nonetheless, many are moving in a green direction, making changes both big and small. Yet I'm not aware of a single one that claims to be green.

Let's look at two of the examples you cite.

* General Motors has created a promising technology that it plans to introduce in 2010. It is widely anticipated by most environmentalists and transportation experts as a viable and attractive solution to reducing the use of oil. GM is currently scrambling to unload its gas guzzlers and is working on selling its Hummer division. The company executives I've talked to are simultaneously humbled and hopeful about their future and are changing direction. I can assure you that no one at GM, from their chairman down, has claimed that they are green, or even close.

* I checked the website of Procter & Gamble's Pure Essentials and didn't see any green claims. Yes, calling it "natural" is dubious at best, but it's hardly hardcore greenwash. Meanwhile, P&G has set a goal of selling $20 billion in sales of products with what it calls a "significantly reduced environmental footprint version of previous alternative products." (More on that here.) This may not fit your standard of "good enough," but it's hardly disingenuous.

Now, I'm not for a second claiming that either company is "green" — or even "good." Both have a long, long way to go, in my book. But both represent sea changes for companies with mega-billion-dollar worldwide impact. And my sense is that it is just the beginning, not the end, of their efforts in this regard.

(Full disclosure: GM is a client of GreenOrder, a sustainability strategy firm with which I am affiliated; I have no business relationship with P&G.)

It's not just GM and P&G, of course. There are dozens of other big companies trying to navigate similar paths — making changes while maintaining their market share and brand images, and doing it under the watchful eye of Wall Street, which has been anything but supportive of these efforts.

So, how should we view these companies? As polluting scam artists who should be scolded for deigning to talk about their efforts? Or as companies trying to shift directions, even if it's slower and more incremental than most of us would like? Do we beat them up or cheer them on?

I vote for the latter — always, of course, remaining watchful to make sure that their rhetoric doesn't get too far ahead of reality. In short, I think you — all of us — should loosen up a bit and give these companies some room to move — some rope on which to hang themselves, if you prefer. Transparency, as you point out, is key. I couldn't agree more.

Yes, there are more than a few companies that just don't get it — that are trying to put green lipstick on a pig by making environmental marketing claims that far outweigh the size of their efforts. (This includes many smaller companies, who all too frequently claim that we can "save the earth" by buying their organic socks, hemp soaps, or whatever. They're all good people making quality products, but their green marketing claims are sometimes outlandish, to say the least.) But for every company that doesn't get it, there are many more that are moving forward, however imperfectly. To dismiss every big company effort and statement as a "corporate disinformation campaign" needlessly tars both the leaders and the laggards with the same brush — and insults every earnest environmental professional in those companies who are trying — often against significant odds — to move the needle inside his or her company.

Like you, I'm concerned about the pace of change. I wish it were faster, and we need to keep the heat on companies to take bolder, more audacious actions. This is no time to celebrate small, symbolic measures.

But like it or not, we can't make the societal changes we need without the big guys. Seventh Generation is an admirable company, a true leader, but it alone can't address the significant environmental challenges we face. If the world's largest companies don't join in — well, your two decades of leadership will be all for naught.

Finally, since you brought it up — gratuitously, I might add — let me raise the Clorox issue, about which you've criticized me privately several times over the past few months. But since you've raised it publicly, I feel compelled to respond in kind. I did a small consulting project for Clorox for three months during 2007, acting as a sounding board for their outreach efforts in the run-up to the release of their Green Works cleaning line. My engagement, as I understood it, was to ensure that their messages were authentic and wouldn't overreach. I have done no work for them for nearly a year, and have disclosed my brief involvement with them whenever I've written about them.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to reveal to you offline the exact amount of money I received for these efforts, but to put it in perspective, it's a small fraction of the amount of money Seventh Generation paid me during the 1990s, when you were licensing a version of my green consumer newsletter.

Were all the laudatory things I wrote over the years about you and Seventh Generation (or were quoted as saying in the press) genuine, or just a symptom of my "clouded judgment"? You make the call.

Respectfully,

Joel

Joel—

Thanks for your thoughtful response. We can’t resolve here the question of how to balance praise with criticism. But I do encourage you to reconsider some of your thinking.

You write, “Should we beat up [big companies] or cheer them on? I vote for the latter… .”

That’s where you and I differ. I vote for both.

When it comes to instilling a sustainable ethos at the very core of their DNA, all companies (including Seventh Generation) are works in progress. So we would be wise to keep the carrot and the stick close at hand. That means acknowledging companies when they genuinely do right by the environment and quickly calling them out when they do wrong.

If we don’t expect more from big companies, they won’t achieve more. Both Al Gore (in his recent speech on the energy crisis) and James Gustave Speth (in his excellent new book, The Bridge at the Edge of the World) make it very clear: incremental change is a woefully inadequate response to the challenges we face. The stakes are too high and the time is too short to cut any company some slack.

To put a twist on that old saying, some companies change when they see the light. But recent history shows that more change when they feel the heat.

I look forward to continuing this conversation when we next cross paths.

--Jeffrey

All:

Regarding the pace of change and the sustainability performance of organizations, the incremental approach that Joel supports would be defensible if it were accompanied by good metrics that tell us (and the companies involved) how far away they are from sustainable performance. But to practice incrementalism without so much as a single metric aimed at determining how far away actual performance is from sustainable is to reveal a kind of disingenuous commitment to sustainability that really calls incrementalism itself into question.

What I would find more persuasive from folks like Joel would be a brand of incremental advocacy that is accompanied by a sincere commitment to measuring performance in a way that discloses at the same time how far away a company is from the sustainability finish line, as it were. Absent that, incrementalism is dead on arrival, so far as I'm concerned. Nothing more than UNsustainability in slow motion.

Regards,

Mark

I'm one of those 'environmental professional in those companies who are trying' that Joel spoke of. We are under enormous pressure to report on every tiny green aspect that we can find then get beat up by self appointed 'experts' for not being green enough. My question to Jeffrey is this: Who appointed you GOD to determine which companies have earned the right to claim to be green?

Why don't you define for me 'fully embedding sustainability'? The problem is that there are no universal industry standards or certifications for sustainability. In the absence of standards, the companies are doing the best they can trying to move in the right direction. Sort of like the old west, a little wild. On the other hand, the environmentalists keep moving the target, sort of like Lucy moving the football then calling Charlie Brown a blockhead for missing it.

Joel is being pragmatic and shows an understanding of the challenges facing public companies. Unfortunately, you think that is 'selling out'. When you set an unreachable goal (Al Gore) and nothing but reaching the goal is acceptable (Jeffrey) you have marginalized your message and made yourself irrelevant.

I think the debate is instructive. Big companies need to move faster without demanding a celebration for things they are doing that small business has pioneered for years. (Like Clorox touting its new green line on which Seventh Generation founded its business. I'd be a bit ticked if I were Seventh Gen.)

The GM example is worth reviewing. The Chevrolet "Gas Friendly to Gas Free" ad campaign is pure greenwashing with a total budget I estimate to be more than the total investment of Tesla Motors and its already in-production no compromises all-electric sports car using available lithium ion battery technology. (GM says its gating item to starting production by 2010 is the battery. Hmmmm.) GM has systematically fought fuel economy standards and are only now doing so because the viability of the entire company is at stake. Makower's conflict of interest, full disclosed, means Seventh Gen wins on this point.

On others, the jury is out. I agree with Joel. The good news is that transparency and citizen watchdogs and web-based social networking will force more action, innovation, and honesty dealing. Timberland gets this. They share the good and the bad. And consumers appreciate it.

Dear Insulted:

With due respect (and deference to Jeffrey), let me just say this and then I'll get out of the way: You said, "The problem is that there are no universal industry standards or certifications for sustainability."

Wrong! The "problem" is that you seem to think there must be "universal industry standards or certifications" before you (or any of us) should be expected to take action -- and until there is, you (and the rest of us) are entitled to lay back. What an irresponsible position to take. Kind of like free-riding on the irresponsible inaction of others, even as you fail to take action yourself.

Is there some reason why you can't just form opinions for yourself as to what your impacts on society and the environment ought to be in order to ensure human well-being, and then manage your behaviors accordingly? Indeed, I don't recall being asked what any given business's financial performance ought to be, but that doesn't seem to have stopped any of them/us from proceeding on the basis of what own views happen to be. Why should non-financial performance management be any different?

Regards,

Mark

Mark,

Who said we were sitting back doing nothing while waiting for a standard? The discussion here is that companies are doing things and trying to take credit for those things while Jeffrey and others are bashing companies for taking any credit since they have not reached the pinnacle of sustainability.

My question is: How can you bash companies for greenwashing when there is no standard to measure them against?

"Why should non-financial performance management be any different?" Its not and we do it everyday. We just don't tell the world about it because we don't want to be bashed by Jeffrey and his friends. As a result, they (and you) assume that we don't do anything.

I recently saw an article from our city pr department about how our city continues to go green...because they planted a tree. Wow. That to me is the ultimate in ridiculous self promoting tripe. Do they have any alternative fuel vehicles? No. Do they recycle the reams and reams of paper generated by city workers? No. Do they encourage recycling? No. Do they have any local farmers market for organic produce? No. Bike lanes? No. You name it our city does not have it. It's pathetic. Sad thing is...I work for the city. I go around pulling aluminum cans out of the trash, I haul paper, plastic and aluminum recycling by myself to the local recycling center. I am sick to death of these people who are not doing a damn thing acting like they do.
I am all for pushing the green agenda but I agree that there are far too many people, companies, cities, towns, states shrouding their products and habits in a false green.

The president of the company I work for wants to leave a legacy of "green" when he retires. In the 10 years he's been with the company, we have yet to see one environmentally responsible decision. There is no recycling system, the a/c is on constantly (while we do live in the desert, we certainly don't need it to be 70 degrees inside -- which is sometimes a 45 degree difference), etc, etc. Although, he has negotiated a contract and secured funding for a solar field to be installed in the next 2 years.

I think that this is the frustrating part of this discussion. Too many companies are too ready to do one or two things (whether they are small or big) without any plan to continue. It seems that those who are truly interested in making real change would revise their mission first. Isn't that how business ideally works? From the mission down? It seems that this is a marketing ploy to see how much mileage they can get out of doing one green thing (or two, or a line of "green"). With so many "fakes" out there, it makes everyone who subscribes to the cause suspect. How can consumers really trust anyone's claims?

Socially the impact is enormous. The reality in my community is that environmental issues are a luxury to think about -- a huge percentage of the region is impoverished and living in hard conditions, and we have one of the highest cancer rates per capita in our state. With the residual effects of gas sky-rocketing, the general state of the economy, and health costs, they are having difficulty buying even the basics - let alone figure out whether Tide is "green" or not.

My concern is for these people (and those like them around the world). Inevitably, it is their immediate world that is ravaged by the harmful side-effects (pesticides (from crop-dusters), contaminated ground water (from power plants), etc. Those who have the luxury to avoid it, can and do. Those who have the luxury to avoid it, excuse it.

This is why it is essential for there to be a calling out on companies who greenwash. If there is no consequence felt for dubious behavior or products or claims, then what motivation is there for change? For transparency? For an authentic and genuine shift in company mission, practices, and goals?

Ditch Rat:

You asked, "How can you bash companies for greenwashing when there is no standard to measure them against?"

The fact that some standards-setting organization like ISO, ANSI or what have you has not yet set standards for sustainability performance is not to say that we cannot set standards for ourselves at an organizational level of analysis. The state of the world, from a social and ecological perspective, is what it is, and is readily apparent, despite the absence of the kind of consensus-based formal standards you refer to. All you need to do is observe the world, form some standards of your own in terms of what your proportionate impacts on it ought to be (in order to achieve and maintain human well-being), and then measure your impacts accordingly. We are doing this with several clients of ours which I'd be happy to tell you more about.

Last, my point about greenwashing seems to have escaped you. If a company lowers its greenhouse gas emissions by, say, 10 percent this year versus last, is it "more sustainable" this year than last? Or somehow "greener"? My point is you have no way of knowing. What if the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere declined at 3 times the rate? In that case, your ostensible improvement in performance would actually have been a giant step backwards. Of course, if you were to incorporate some understanding of what was happening at an atmospheric level in your metrics (despite your apparent desire to wait for standards to arrive), your measurements would be more informative and intelligent. That kind of social and ecological contextual information is readily available. So use it! And stop relying on metrics that tell us nothing about your actual sustainability performance, even as you carry on as though they do. It is your refusal to formulate standards of your own that CAN be formulated given readily available data about conditions in the world that makes your context-free reporting greenwashing. You CAN measure and report your impacts in the world against social and environmental standards of performance -- you've just decided not to!

Regards,

Mark

This blog is very illustrative for someone like me who is "light green" and striving to be darker. Both sides have merit and I really appreciate all the points of view. It does seem that the real issue is that many corporations don't want to offer full disclosure on what they are doing and not doing. They want to crow about the good stuff and ignore the bad and have us do the same. And we just can't afford to. The time for facing facts and full disclosure has come for private and corporate citizens alike.

But this kind of discussion is very necessary to our progress. It has taught me so much about what I should monitor in the communications I read from the corporate world that I think this blog should be on the front page of the Wall Street Journal!

Thank you!

Susie

All of these tit-for-tat responses seem pointless and stressing to each person. Man has been on this earth for over six thousand years (Biblically) and we will be here for however much longer GOD allows us to be. Yes, we were given the responsibilty for taking care of the earth, but not to the point where we need to resort to name bashing and finger pointing. The only way to go completely green, would to resort to living like they did back in the 1800's before all the chemicals to clean, polluting cars, and engineered/chemically enhanced foods were created. If America, as well as the world was more concerned about the quality of life (and of this planet) then all would have to give up the fancy cars, clothes, electronics, and creature comforts we all have become spoiled with. Also all of this "going green" or not "going green" has one goal in common, making a profit. And that is where the concern lies for all companies, their concern is truly not for the quality of the life or for the enivornment of the earth. These billions of dollars for new product research, testing, and patenting should be used for better things....education, food for the poor (in our own Country), etc. We should just stop trying to make ourselves feel better for the destruction we've already done to the planet (all in the name of earning bigger bucks).

Mark,

If the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere increased at 3 times the rate and my emissions stayed the same, does that mean that I improved?

I agree with magikladee. In a time where people need to become more aware, these companies are only making it more confusing! Thus leaving only the truly dedicated to pore over the consumer labels trying to decipher whether these chemicals are bad or acceptable. The average person does not have the time or money it takes to study the impact of all those products on our bodies and our planet, and since it is all so confusing and expensive they just give up. Stick your head back in the sand, because its too hard! If the smaller companies can use less chemicals, so can the big ones. If the smaller companies can be honest in their labeling, so can the big ones. The only reason I as a consumer can see for trying to paste a "green" appearance on a product is to fool the average Joe into buying it because they care a little bit about the environment. I can see nothing honorable about fooling the general public while still harming the environment. And "what difference does it make?" pollokd says? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? There is NO higher power out there that is going to save us sweetie! We made this mess, the humans, and we have an obligation to our children and the poor animals that are suffering, dying and going extinct because of our industrialization. No, nothing is going to return things to the way they were hundreds of years from now but that doesn't mean we just give up and leave it to someone else to clean up!

It seems to me, in this world, you have to question everything.

Most big companies don't care about the consumer, they care about the bottom line. People need to start becoming more educated and stop buying products from companies that don't have strict environmental standards. Yes, that may mean living without every nik-nak or gadget, but if we don't start making big changes fast, our children will be living (or not living) without them anyway.

Thank you to Seventh Generation for your efforts in educating the public and for caring about your consumer, may other companies follow suit in full-disclosure.

Give us, the consumer, all the information, and let us decide.

well said Lizjane

Ditch Rat:

Strictly speaking, the assimilative capacity of the earth to absorb greenhouse gas emissions is finite at some level. The ecological sustainability of your emissions would be determined by generalizing them for all humans on earth, and then determining whether or not that generalized level exceeds the finite capacity of the earth to absorb such emissions.

Of course in the present situation, we are already well beyond the earth's capacity to safely absorb greenhouse gas emissions. So any level of emissions today is unsustainable. That's why trotting out and trumpeting annual incremental reductions qualifies as greenwashing. The only emissions today that are sustainable are zero emissions, or negative emissions. Simple reductions that still result in net positive emissions are all unsustainable, and they should be labeled as such. Not "green", "more sustainable", or what have you.

Regards,

Mark

Dear Ditch Rat -

Thanks for your thoughts. I truly appreciate your work.

To varying degrees, all companies harm the environment. No company is fully "green."

Though it might well be unattainable, sustainability -- "a dynamic process...that simultaneously protects and enhances the Earth's life-support systems" (Forum for the Future) -- is clearly an urgent, critical endeavor. After twenty years of trying, I can attest that it's a tough journey. But the path is pretty straightforward, and it doesn't always require certifications or standards.

A company that's doing its best to be green is what it says it is; its actions align with its words. It reveals its flaws and its missteps as well as its successes, because it turns out there is a green God after all, and it's not you or I. It's all of us.

Thanks to the Web, blogs, and YouTube, all of us can watch a company's every move. The company that genuinely seeks to be green invites us to do so. By acting with clarity and candor, such a company kick-starts the process of enlisting even its critics in the effort to improve it environmental record. Along the way, its critics
might well become its allies (eg, Wal-Mart).

Yes, we absolutely need the bellwether companies of old capitalism to help fuel the shift to a new era of "responsible" capitalism. And most of us in the green-business arena are more than willing to help the GMs and the P&Gs of the world succeed. All we're asking is that they put aside the greenwash and give us an honest chance.

Jeffrey:

If I may add to what you say, one can ask: How do we operationalize the 'honest chance' that you, and many others of us, are calling for? The answer, I suggest, is by exhorting companies to disclose their actual sustainability performance, not just their trend lines or even their GRI indicators. None of that tells us anything about actual sustainability performance.

Like you, we do not expect perfection, only sincere efforts. But obfuscation -- intentionally or otherwise -- is intolerable. Every company has the means at its disposal to rigorously measure and report its social and environmental impacts in the world. The failure to do so on such a widespreads scale is outrageous.

Now then, Jeffrey...why, may I ask, doesn't Seventh Generation itself do so?

Regards,

Mark

"A company that's doing its best to be green is what it says it is; its actions align with its words. It reveals its flaws and its missteps as well as its successes, because it turns out there is a green God after all, and it's not you or I. It's all of us."

This is what Jeffrey says above. And to take it another step, what are we all doing personally in the green effort? All we all doing everything possible? We all live in the real world within the existing infrastructure. If you are like me, you are making progress in becoming more and more green, especially as options to do so become more available. But, to expect total "greeness" NOW from a business, or a person, is not realistic. As skjell puts so well, s/he is "light green" trying to become darker. That is the reasonable thing to expect from business as well. This is a process.

Being honest is another expectation. Business must be honest, and I appreciate that Jeffrey says his business is not perfect, but working on it. That's good enough for now. Greenwashing is deliberate deceit about greenness, not failure to be green. If you aren't, admit it, but show what you're doing about it. GM really is doing something with the Volt. They are betting the farm. They can't walk completely away from exisiting sources of capital and still pull it off. Inconvenient reality for them. Let's see what else they do though. I'm not a fan of them either, but could become one if they can change.

And to become as jaded and hopeless as pollockd is counterproductive. We can educate and feed people all we want, but it is pointless if we don't save the environment.

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the dialog. Many times disagreements are precipitated by false assumptions on both sides. Unfortunately, I fear we have done more to reinforce those assumptions than to dispel them.

Mark,

Thank you for the standard. GHG <= 0
I'll stop breathing tomorrow.

Jeffrey,

I think the point of Joel's article was to say 'put aside the greenwash name calling and give the companies an honest chance.'

Ditch Rat:

So first you critique me for adocating for standards. Then when I give you a scientifically grounded one, you ridicule me because you can't meet it. May I suggest that you start thinking in terms of a standard for how you/we should be taking steps to mitigate climate change? Our ecological impacts on climate are clearly unsustainable, but that doesn't mean our course cannot be reversed. How about we set some standards for reversing our course, Ditch Rat? That way you can breathe tomorrow, even as you take steps to change your behaviors in accordance with a standard for returning greenhouse gas concentrations to safe levels. Is that somethng you think you could do, Ditch Rat, without resorting to cynicism?

Regards,

Mark

I just want to make one thing clear GaryE, I am not jaded about the state of environment. I do my part to be as green as I possibly can for my family. I just think that it is not anybody's place to be taking on the accountability of the big companies who have caused all the destruction to the environment. Apparently the big companies have seen the error of their ways and are doing what they can to change their pratice. Yes, some are saying that they are going green just to sell more products and some are making a whole-hearted effort, but it is not our place to make them change. Our part is to support companies that are making the whole-hearted effort.

And other reason I may seem "jaded", is even though I participate in "going green" in my own household, I have the mindset that God will take care of His planet in His way. And by previous comments made by other I can tell a lot of you have no faith in what God can do with the planet He created. We are all here by the grace of God. What we should be cleaning up is the societal views and morals of our country. We are living in a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Thanks for responding to my comment, Pollockd. I am very happy to hear you engage in green practices. Everyone needs to, and a surprising number do not.

I do appreciate your faith-based position. I have to suggest, however, that God does not routinely engage in bailing us out of our jams, and there are many examples to prove that. If you really do believe this, why engage at all in green practices?

As an example, there are people of faith who refuse medical care for their children based on their belief that God will intervene. We have seen that play out badly in many cases. As a person of faith, do you not believe that God gives us wisdom and talents we must utilize to intervene when we are faced with challenges? If we always sit idley waiting on God to save us, I am reasonably certain we would be doomed. Some may say, then, that was God's will. Fact is, we can and should do something. God will not "take care of His planet in His way". He gave it to us, and set it free. We are not puppets. It IS our place to put pressure on "companies who have caused all the destruction to the environment." We are the soldiers of God, are we not?

And I completely agree with the need for moral/ethical reform in our society. You and I may have a different idea as to what that means. And, an entirely different subject.

My best to you and your family.

Please see and comment here regarding our Corporate Consciousness Report.

Internal use only

Aug 15, 2008

Memo: From
CSR manager
Green Widgets Inc

To All Departments Managers,

As you all know we pride ourselves in the way we operate our business. We lead most peers in every initiative: energy use and reclamation, workforce fair wages and partner benefit programs, on site auditing of supply chains, recycling efforts and trash reclamations projects: we are models in the industry for all these efforts. We have also worked hard to find ways that can increase the scope of our sustainable business model and decrease our total footprint. Still, every year we come across Ah-Ha moments when we uncover areas that have been overlooked.

Recently we did a search for a new 401(k) provider. Our existing plan, a SIMPLE 401(k) is no longer appropriate. We narrowed the decision down to two candidates: Fidelity and Social(k). Fidelity was picked over Social(k) despite the very public campaign by Fidelity Out of Sudan indicating Fidelity’s unfortunate position on ESG screens.

• "Fidelity portfolio managers make their investment decisions based on business and financial considerations, and take into account other issues only if they materially impact these considerations or conflict with applicable legal standards."
- Fidelity letter of October 5, 2006
• "We believe the resolution of complex social and political issues must be left to the appropriate authorities of the world that have the responsibility, and capability, to address important matters of this type. And we would sincerely hope that they would do so wisely on behalf of all of the citizens of the globe."
- Fidelity statement to CNN Money, published January 29, 2007
• Fidelity's proxy statement in opposition to genocide-free investing was consistent with its earlier statements. It did not attempt to deny the connection between PetroChina and genocide, nor argue that investing in genocide is somehow better. Instead, it simply noted that “this proposal would limit investments by the Fund that would be lawful under the laws of the United States.”

Click here for the text in the SEC filing by Fidelity.

We have always asked our vendors to adhere to the same standards we do in the way they do business. That said, we do understand the effort to secure a provider that is not only ethically competent, but also performs in a cost appropriate way. With the understanding that not every industry offers choices with as deep a commitment to ESG issues as we do – we always pick the best available.

To that end we’ve found that Fidelity, for the stances it has publicly taken, is no longer a choice we can live with.

If this story were to be told we would have to defend our choice and, inevitably, find that position is indefensible.

This is a learning process and we tell this story as a tool for you advancement.

Next year we will offer an award to the next department head who manages to miss the boat in the most glaring way. The prize will be a free T shirt, possible slogans include: “I sold Rush my oxycontin,” “I went head huntin’ with Blackwater,” or “I was hanging out in an airport bathroom stall tapping my foot in all the right ways;” all slogans end with “…and all I got was this lousy T shirt.

Please be advised, the T shirts will be right wing down to the very fabric, as they will be from Lands End/Sears, a company with an extraordinarily poor track record with fair wages, especially when outsourcing overseas. Lands End/Sears is a company we’d been using for our annual trade show. We have only recently realized the irony of this situation.

Chris:

Regarding 7th Gen's sustainability, I asked Jeffrey why his/your company doesn't report its actual sustainability performance (above on 7/23). He didn't respond. Now you send us your '07 report and I see such information is still missing. What's up with that?

Mark

mmcelroy@vermontel.net

Hi Mark. Jeffrey is on vacation and will respond to your post shortly.
Thanks,
The Team at Seventh Generation

Dear Mark:
Jeffrey asked me to respond to you. You and I spoke two years ago when you called to propose that Seventh Generation use your methodology for sustainability services. I would be happy to have a more meaningful dialogue on this subject, and will email you to schedule a time that we can talk.
Thanks,
Gregor Barnum
Director of Corporate Consciousness
Seventh Generation

Hello Gregor:

Looking forward to visiting with you. Before we take things completely off line, though, I want to be clear that I am not talking about "my methodology" as you suggested, but rather am advocating for true sustainability reporting as developed and articulated by many others before me. There is nothing proprietary or self-serving in what I suggest.

I am simply saying that if a company wishes to measure and report its sustainability performance, it must include consideration of actual social and environmental conditions (in the world) in its metrics. Otherwise, its reports are effectively context-free, as it were. So you can either argue against this perspective, or you can demonstrate to us all that 7th Gen. has, in fact, included consideration of sustainability context. Or maybe you are not purporting to be talking about sustainability at all; I don't know. Again, I look forward to speaking with you further about this.

Regards,

Mark

mmcelroy@vermontel.net

I work in a rapidly growing business that is growing faster than we can change to keep up. I would like to be able to suggest some ideas to the heads of the departments of what they can do, or what they can look for as far as changing their business to go green. Unfortunately at this stage in our business I don't think they would be receptive to something that wasn't cost effective. I'm thinking that if I can get the ball rolling with green solutions that save money, I can change the mentality of my fellow employee's into realizing the benefits of being a green company. It would bring an aspect of solutions into the equation that I don't think previously existed. Because we are still small and growing changes we make know could predict behavior in the future. I think providing simple, cost effective solutions to small businesses is the key. They don't have the time or the money to invest in hiring a professional to help them go green, but someday they will become the next wall-mart. If we can start them out green it can have a permanent impact on the mentality and standards of the business. What is needed are simple tips and guidelines that I can take to my superiors. We can change one company at a time. ;]

Often I think we want so much to change the big picture that we forget how important each step we take and every cent we spend toward encouraging green initiatives is. That is how change happens. From the bottom up.

People are not always smart, but they can see reason if it is in their face. Sometimes, with a little help, they can make leaps that even surprise themselves.

Thank you.

Feel free to email me, we don't need to drag out the discussion.
alexis@cerberustamed.com

Alexis,

Thanks for such a great question. In most situations, for large companies and small, there needs to be a business case that rationalizes any investment in environmental business practices. While there are exceptions, the general variant is the time it takes to recoup a return on the investment and the level of sophistication required to measure the value created. The key is being able to make a clear and effective business case. Here are some specific examples:

Short Term ROI:
- switching to recycled, non-chlorine bleached office paper, can be done with virtually no incremental cost
- encourage employees to use data electronically and not print them out, saves money immediately
- green cleaning supplies, while harder to measure generates immediate health benefits for employees, reduces absenteeism, improves productivity.
- Installing solar power, this can be done today with a third party financing 100% of the cost at no incremental expense.

Medium term ROI
- purchasing a company hybrid vehicle, depends on the number of miles driven, if you’re a taxi cab driver, you save $6,000 on gas in the first year.

Longer Term
- Installing a windmill for energy

Best,
Jeffrey Hollender
Chief Inspired Protagonist
Seventh Generation