June 14, 2007
Corporate Climate Change Attitudes Confound Consumers
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Director, Fine Food Network
Despite the clamor from consumers and even corporate marketing staffs themselves around eco-issues, a recent study ranked “climate change” at the bottom of priority lists for Britain’s largest companies.
More than half of the 73 companies surveyed by YouGov for KPMG said there were more urgent issues, such as brand awareness, marketing strategies and overall corporate social responsibility. Just 14 percent of them had a clear strategy for tackling climate change.
Only half the top executives at the companies surveyed, according to the Financial Times, claimed to fully understand the implications of climate change and the business consequences. Two-thirds believed their company gave the issue the attention it deserved.
Another survey of 19 U.K. fund managers found that although some had launched green funds for consumers with special interests in issues such as climate change, others saw industry’s efforts to demonstrate environmental credentials as an attempt by companies to get “the green fraternity off their backs.” Headland, a communications consultancy, found most pension fund managers remained reluctant to incorporate climate change into their mainstream investment decisions, given their primary fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns.
During the very same week the surveys arrived, however, the London Guardian produced diametrically opposite conclusions based on a conference whose subject was one that has “raced up the corporate agenda – climate change.”
At the event, organized by a newsletter publisher, Ethical Corporation, the corporate world was out in full force, including many with titles alone indicating their eco-commitment. BT (mobile service provider) had its “head of climate change” present; Barclays Bank, its “head of environmental management”, and the Association of British Insurers, its “climate change leader.”
Charles Allison, partner with conference sponsor ERM (an environmental consultancy), said that while insurers and energy companies have shown interest in climate change for some time, consumer-based companies have become much move involved over the last six to nine months.
“Different sectors have different drivers for taking this issue seriously. For instance, for companies like BT it’s all about their reputation with customers. The media are giving increasing emphasis to climate change and now the public wants the supermarkets and others it buys goods and services from to offer solutions that help them lead a better life,” he told the Guardian.
The article noted that retailers are “some of the biggest new green evangelists” as barely a week goes by without some new “green” initiative.
The increasing interest by corporations comes as consumers’ consciousness of climate change has grown dramatically. Marks & Spencer claims the proportion of its customers saying responsibility matters has gone up from 50 percent to 97 percent in the past four years while a new study by advertising agency MPG reveals that almost three in four British families would boycott firms that do not take real steps to cut their environmental impact.
Skeptics wonder if many of these eco-friendly initiatives are only superficial publicity stunts to appease consumers rather than real solutions for climate change.
But founder and director of charity Forum for the Future, Jonathan Porritt, believes that as long as companies genuinely change, their reasons don’t really matter.
Discussion Questions: Do you think companies have learned lessons and are recognizing their obligation to help deal with climate change? Or are they using climate change initiatives to wave a flag of apparent acknowledgement of consumer concerns? Does it really matter as long as they do the right thing?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Great Link Silverstone! There are two sides to every story. My kids all had to watch Al Gore’s documentary at school. I think I’ll forward your link to their teacher.
Both the UK and the USA are mature economies. If sustainability (ecological awareness, climate change, however it’s called) changes market share only a few percentage points, that’s huge. Most mature companies would go great lengths to protect a 3% comp sales shift, for example. That’s 3 out of 100 customers. A majority isn’t needed.
I’m reminded of a study I once read about (please don’t ask me to cite the source) wherein some psychologists asked people to go through certain tasks using their normal facial expressions and then asked them to do the same things but raise the corners of their mouths slightly. Even though most didn’t realize they appeared to be smiling, they reported feeling happier at the end of the second session.
Is there an analogy here? Perhaps even by feigning good deeds, company officers will begin to feel like do-gooders and, eventually wake up one day to the realization that they are indeed good. Ya’ never know.
Not all business owners are concerned strictly with profit. Most of America’s businesses are small companies, run by individuals who care about more than money. There are many issues to be concerned about, the environment is only one of them. Companies prioritize issues. Profit and growth are certainly a necessity if a company is to stay alive. But I believe that most business owners actually care about other things besides profit. Keeping people employed and happy is just as important to the success of business. There are always more things that can be done for the environment, but all companies have limited time and resources. Health care for employees is important, providing value to customers is important, improving products is important, supporting your local community is important. There are many responsibilities that companies have, how they balance those responsibilities and how much they do will vary depending on each company culture.
Businesses are more concerned about making a profit for their owners and probably have no sense of obligation towards the environment. The only time they do give the appearance of having concerns is when there is something in it for them and they can get some PR out of it. Does it matter? If indeed there is something we can do about climate change, then perhaps so. If climate change is going to take place regardless of our best efforts, then “does it matter?” would be a debatable issue.
With regard to climate change, there is no “consensus” despite what the government or the media-industrial complex will tell you. Many of these same alarmists warned of a new ice age in the 1970’s.
It may very well be that the earth’s temperature has risen 1-1.5 degrees, within the margin of error. However, new evidence points to warming on Mars and other planets, hinting at solar activity as the cause of warmer average global temperatures. (In other words, it would be foolish to blame the US, the UK, or other industrialized countries as the cause of warming on Mars.)
In the end, I think the corporate officers interviewed who placed global warming way down on the priority list were on the right track. The new strain of environmentalism is nothing short of government control over individual lives.
As a pragmatist, I have little concern about apocalypticism, whether secular or otherwise. Apocalyptics seem to be totally unwilling to accept responsibility for their past failures and inflicted damage. The death of millions of women and children around the world from malaria over the past 30 years is a direct consequence of the banning of DDT. Fortunately, Norman Borlaug who is responsible for the saving of more lives than any other person over the same time period, has not been stopped by opposition from many of the same apocalyptics.
On the other hand, one doesn’t have to be an apocalyptic to recognize that the developed world is not reproducing at a sustainable level, with profound societal implications that are revolutionizing Europe now. But not to worry, those who produce replacement children WILL control the future. Is that bad? I don’t think so. But it doesn’t bode well for the legacy of those who do not produce children. It’s simple biology, economics and the continuing benefit of applying human intelligence and creativity.
Regarding the ‘documentary’ SILVERSTONE mentions, two things: 1. Google has removed the program from its video archives. 2. Check out the Wikipedia listing for the film, which is called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and you will find the film is full of factual errors, erroneus citations, etc.
But, I’m sure some will argue that the Wikipedia article is the result of some vast pro-environment conspiracy. Pretty soon, the way it’s going, we’ll be back to arguing over whether the Earth is flat, rather than fixing our environmental problems.
Herb, I don’t think the lack of population growth in some European countries is going to be a big problem. The U.N. projects that global population, which was 2.5 billion in 1950 and is 6.7 billion now, will be 9.2 billion in 2050. I imagine there will be plenty of volunteers from overpopulated developing countries to handle those European jobs that need doing.
Climate change might be human influenced at least in part or it might be a naturally occurring force that so powerful no human influence could ever affect it. Nonetheless, I applaud the shift toward developing sustainable, renewable, clean energy sources and new energy-saving consumer products.
Global warming or not, less is more, cleaner is better, and energy independence moving away from fossil fuels and foreign oil has made sense for a long, long time. For a different perspective from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” here’s a link to a new documentary that tells a different story. Both sides of any important argument should be studied.
Thanks Al.
I don’t endorse either documentary, but I am concerned about those who take either side of the debate as the gospel.
…and the world IS flat if you never leave Kansas….
Perceptions are, unfortunately, realities.
The amount of change needed in our civilization in order to slow and/or eventually stop climate change, is so enormous, that there is almost no way any government, or corporation, or organization is going to force that amount of change onto people. In order to get that much movement it must come from the people; from the bottom up and not forced on us from the top down by government.
An excellent way to unite the world’s people against a common problem, like the climate change associated with global warming, is to unite them with a program like EARTH-SHIP. Corporations who chose to become involved with the EARTH-SHIP program can have their cake and eat it to; they can invest money, enjoy the leveraged write-off and still get to use the ship for advertising and public relations. For more information please feel free to call 877-765-5722
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Great Link Silverstone! There are two sides to every story. My kids all had to watch Al Gore’s documentary at school. I think I’ll forward your link to their teacher.
Both the UK and the USA are mature economies. If sustainability (ecological awareness, climate change, however it’s called) changes market share only a few percentage points, that’s huge. Most mature companies would go great lengths to protect a 3% comp sales shift, for example. That’s 3 out of 100 customers. A majority isn’t needed.
I’m reminded of a study I once read about (please don’t ask me to cite the source) wherein some psychologists asked people to go through certain tasks using their normal facial expressions and then asked them to do the same things but raise the corners of their mouths slightly. Even though most didn’t realize they appeared to be smiling, they reported feeling happier at the end of the second session.
Is there an analogy here? Perhaps even by feigning good deeds, company officers will begin to feel like do-gooders and, eventually wake up one day to the realization that they are indeed good. Ya’ never know.
Not all business owners are concerned strictly with profit. Most of America’s businesses are small companies, run by individuals who care about more than money. There are many issues to be concerned about, the environment is only one of them. Companies prioritize issues. Profit and growth are certainly a necessity if a company is to stay alive. But I believe that most business owners actually care about other things besides profit. Keeping people employed and happy is just as important to the success of business. There are always more things that can be done for the environment, but all companies have limited time and resources. Health care for employees is important, providing value to customers is important, improving products is important, supporting your local community is important. There are many responsibilities that companies have, how they balance those responsibilities and how much they do will vary depending on each company culture.
Businesses are more concerned about making a profit for their owners and probably have no sense of obligation towards the environment. The only time they do give the appearance of having concerns is when there is something in it for them and they can get some PR out of it. Does it matter? If indeed there is something we can do about climate change, then perhaps so. If climate change is going to take place regardless of our best efforts, then “does it matter?” would be a debatable issue.
With regard to climate change, there is no “consensus” despite what the government or the media-industrial complex will tell you. Many of these same alarmists warned of a new ice age in the 1970’s.
It may very well be that the earth’s temperature has risen 1-1.5 degrees, within the margin of error. However, new evidence points to warming on Mars and other planets, hinting at solar activity as the cause of warmer average global temperatures. (In other words, it would be foolish to blame the US, the UK, or other industrialized countries as the cause of warming on Mars.)
In the end, I think the corporate officers interviewed who placed global warming way down on the priority list were on the right track. The new strain of environmentalism is nothing short of government control over individual lives.
As a pragmatist, I have little concern about apocalypticism, whether secular or otherwise. Apocalyptics seem to be totally unwilling to accept responsibility for their past failures and inflicted damage. The death of millions of women and children around the world from malaria over the past 30 years is a direct consequence of the banning of DDT. Fortunately, Norman Borlaug who is responsible for the saving of more lives than any other person over the same time period, has not been stopped by opposition from many of the same apocalyptics.
On the other hand, one doesn’t have to be an apocalyptic to recognize that the developed world is not reproducing at a sustainable level, with profound societal implications that are revolutionizing Europe now. But not to worry, those who produce replacement children WILL control the future. Is that bad? I don’t think so. But it doesn’t bode well for the legacy of those who do not produce children. It’s simple biology, economics and the continuing benefit of applying human intelligence and creativity.
Regarding the ‘documentary’ SILVERSTONE mentions, two things: 1. Google has removed the program from its video archives. 2. Check out the Wikipedia listing for the film, which is called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and you will find the film is full of factual errors, erroneus citations, etc.
But, I’m sure some will argue that the Wikipedia article is the result of some vast pro-environment conspiracy. Pretty soon, the way it’s going, we’ll be back to arguing over whether the Earth is flat, rather than fixing our environmental problems.
Herb, I don’t think the lack of population growth in some European countries is going to be a big problem. The U.N. projects that global population, which was 2.5 billion in 1950 and is 6.7 billion now, will be 9.2 billion in 2050. I imagine there will be plenty of volunteers from overpopulated developing countries to handle those European jobs that need doing.
Climate change might be human influenced at least in part or it might be a naturally occurring force that so powerful no human influence could ever affect it. Nonetheless, I applaud the shift toward developing sustainable, renewable, clean energy sources and new energy-saving consumer products.
Global warming or not, less is more, cleaner is better, and energy independence moving away from fossil fuels and foreign oil has made sense for a long, long time. For a different perspective from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” here’s a link to a new documentary that tells a different story. Both sides of any important argument should be studied.
Thanks Al.
I don’t endorse either documentary, but I am concerned about those who take either side of the debate as the gospel.
…and the world IS flat if you never leave Kansas….
Perceptions are, unfortunately, realities.
The amount of change needed in our civilization in order to slow and/or eventually stop climate change, is so enormous, that there is almost no way any government, or corporation, or organization is going to force that amount of change onto people. In order to get that much movement it must come from the people; from the bottom up and not forced on us from the top down by government.
An excellent way to unite the world’s people against a common problem, like the climate change associated with global warming, is to unite them with a program like EARTH-SHIP. Corporations who chose to become involved with the EARTH-SHIP program can have their cake and eat it to; they can invest money, enjoy the leveraged write-off and still get to use the ship for advertising and public relations. For more information please feel free to call 877-765-5722