This morning, the iconic brand has taken the responsible agenda to the next level by declaring the ambition to be the world’s most sustainable retailer within the next 5 years.  This is a huge and stretching self-imposed challenge, and one that cynics may suggest will not be paid back in consumer support. Particularly with the failure of Copenhagen, and the circulating doubts of some parties of the severity, causes and consequences of climate change.

However, Stuart Rose is no blunt tool, and having seen the success across the business that Plan A has delivered, he knows that the strive for sustainability will deliver far more than brand messaging. We blogged last year about how sustainability is the only real source of competitive advantage, and Rose knows this. With this as a focus, they will find efficiencies in the supply chain, manufacturing, storage, communications and training. They will be become a leaner company with a better product, one that not only has the trust of its consumers and suppliers, but is able to deliver on promises at both end of the business. BD Believe thinks we should scrape our pennies together and buy a couple of M&S shares to enjoy what we believe will be a distinct success.

The apparent brains behind the proposition is the ever-so-shy Ivan Massow, who does have an admirable track record of creating financial propositions that have both helped communities, and made some good money along the way. A genuine entrepreneur, he seems to have the spirit and drive to make Compare for Good successful. With Oxfam’s hugely credible backing, it appears that Compare for Good is an idea that embodies the very spirit of BD Believe – e.g. satisfying a consumer need, making action easy, and delivering a solution to a social problem with believability.

However, with our marketing heads on… there’s just something wholly unnerving about both the proposition and the way it has been put together. Firstly, they talk aggressively about the competition as if they are doing something ethically wrong by trying to run profitable businesses: “It is estimated that the commissions received by price comparison sites in the UK is £700,000,000 every year. Compare for Good has been designed to go head-to-head with MoneySupermarket.com, GoCompare.com, ComparetheMarket.com, Confused.com etc. Our aim is to take their profits and put it in the hands of the people who really need it.”  Errr… Right-On, Brother? Is the charity Oxfam or the Mayday rioters? This undermines the spirit of capital business that drives economy, and also leads us on to our second concern…

Exactly what do you mean by “2/3rd of the money we make”.  Erm, are we talking commission? Profit? If profit, what type of profit? Pre or post tax? And why 2/3rds? Who gets the rest?

Despite the earnest appeals from Massow on the front page of the site (hmmm, video on the web, there’s another marketing debate), there seems to be a real absence of transparency about the whole thing. The best ethical businesses are almost always very clear about who gets what and how. The Co-Op is a great example of this, as is Good Energy.

The other thing that needs addressing is the quality of the site itself. Clunky, cobbled together - it really isn’t offering the same user experience that their mainstream competitors have worked hard on delivering. They don’t have the same range of products, and they don’t have the same portfolio tools that are available at sites like Confused.  In essence, it doesn’t feel ‘finished’, which I think is true of the whole proposition.

Finally, possibly the most bizarre thing about CompareforGood is the endorsement from Joan Collins on the front page. Nothing against every 40 yr old man’s favourite stud-buster, but… Joan Collins? What next, moral and ethical guidance from Anton Du Beke? A word sense from Abi Titmuss?

We genuinely hope CompareforGood is an unbridled success, shaping the way that businesses can address both consumer and social needs. We think there’s a lot of work to do first, so let’s hope Massow and friends can find the spark to make it happen.

With the same mentality that inspires some of us to contribute our time and knowledge to a cause through volunteering in a way that puts attributes and education to good use, it’s great that organisations are starting to think in the same way.   If Coca-Cola’s core competency is logistics, can anyone suggest other companies that have other core competencies that could be used for positive social change? Please let us know (and thanks to Colin for sharing Sarah’s original blog).

The 20th century was the most exciting (and devastating) in the history of the modern world – and much of this is down to the rapid development of the motor car. Although railroads spanned America, it was the combustion engine that made mass transit, production and farming possible.  The genius of Henry Ford created the production-line, which meant that a family vehicle started to become common. In the space of a generation, cars went from engineering curios to a fundamental part of daily life.

The Mercedes-Benz museum in Stuttgart refers to a quote from Kaiser Wilhelm II who suggested in 1905 that he thought the car was a passing fad – and it couldn’t replace the horse. At this point in history, most would claim he was a little myopic. However, he had an argument… Cars were slow, loud, dangerous, expensive and uncomfortable. There was no infrastructure to support the motorist, no petrol pump, no car parks, no roundabouts! The horse was a pretty self-perpetuating mode of transport.

Also, by the beginning of the 20th century, there had already been nearly 100 years of abject failure to create a combustion engine and carriage that worked at all. For all the Benz and Ford names that remain in our households today, there were dozens of pioneers who’s visions did not succeed. However, for all those challenges, the demand of the market inspired technological progress.

So, for those of you who remain committed to petrol, regard Kaiser Wilhelm. We know that cars reliant on other fuels have been impractical at best so far, and some have been questionable in terms of their impact on the environment. However, the next 25 years will see huge, fast and fundamental change.

The debate has been raging this week about controlling how alcohol brands are able to promote themselves on television, with the call from the Health Select Committee for far more stringent controls on how booze Marketeers spend their budgets. This follows the agenda in Scotland driven by the SNP to put a substantial levy on all alcohol sold in order to price out those people motivated by over-drinking, and to off-set the massive costs to the health service created by alcohol abuse.

Of course, the drinks industry is comprehensively self-regulated by the Portman Group. Part of their remit is to ”pioneer initiatives, promote best practice and challenge companies to be socially responsible”. For years, those of us who have worked with drinks clients have been acutely aware of the Portman guidelines, and we all understand and comply in the knowledge that drinks marketing is regulated for good reason.  It looks as though the tide is turning, however. Self-regulation is not enough for some draconians, and there is a real fear in the industry that Alcohol will soon become a social taboo like smoking. Indeed, smoking is not a great case study – as it remains a huge affliction on those people who can afford it the least, and affects the health of those people statistically the worst diets and the lowest levels of exercise.

So, regulation is not the answer to everything. It can’t be. Regular visitors to this blog will understand our passion for INSPIRING change, not IMPOSING it.  Also, we don’t want to see a Britain without booze. Frankly, we love drinking (as those of you who have visited BD Network will well know), and we will use everything in our power to make this happen.

So how can BD Believe halt the inevitable outlawing of a cheeky pint, a drop of plonk or a nudge of whisky? Not sure yet, but we do know the following:

1) Some people will always abuse alcohol, regardless of how much it costs or how available it is. Drinks companies, AND OTHER CONSUMERS can take responsibility for tackling both the causes and consequences of this abuse. Brands can make this real by giving actual opportunities for consumers to volunteer for support clubs, raise funds for clinics and support health centres. You can even help them understand the importance of detoxing and exercise, and working together to make the most of this.

2) Focus communication away from broadcast. How many 15 year olds do you know who are in bed before 9pm? So even if there was a Watershed ban on drink ads, it would have little consequence in terms of protecting under-age consumers.  Talk to people where they can be regulated by their own community – e.g. in pubs, bars and clubs. Either through events, interactive displays or POP design, there are huge opportunities to connect with an audience that is more likely to be a legal consumer of your product.

3) Develop your products to avoid use in bingeing. High strength, big volume, quick consumption products are correctly seen as being designed to get people drunk. Rather than that, focus on quality and taste. Good wine is a brilliant partner with food, Whisky is facinating and there is NOTHING like a cold beer on a hot day. Educate, inspire, encourage – get people to understand all that is brilliant about alcohol and why there is more to it than simply the consequences of having too much.

We concede that cavity wall insulation, home generation, boiler replacement etc. are bigger and more effective carbon-cutting measures that firms like NPower can facilitate. However, consumers need to be taken on a journey, of which ESLBs can be the first steps. Again, it would be better for every household in Britain to change their consumption by 5%, than for 5% of the population to change their consumption by 25%. To borrow from David Brailsford, BD Believe is a huge supporter of the aggregation of marginal gains when it comes to changing consumer behaviour. When trying to inspire the masses, a ‘greener than thou’ debate is nothing but counter productive.

However, all the way through the interview, being the pro that she is, she consistently mentioned Avon cosmetics – which just felt a little odd. Those of us around in the early 90′s remember the Planet Hollywood/Michael Aspel debacle, and will always ALWAYS cringe away from blatant promotion-over-information. We felt obligated to investigate – in our self appointed roles of bastions of credibility… and we were actually surprised what we found!

The AVON campaign is comprehensive, earnest and international. They have a genuine involvement in the UK with Refuge, the Women’s charity – and a global agenda that is executed through the United Nations Development Fund for Women. In addition, rather than stand back as brand sponsors, they have a special Empowerment Necklace that can be purchased a sign of support from consumers, with a proportion of profit going to the charity.

Ah, but people will say this is still a cynical attempt from a brand to drive a PR agenda for the sake of brand awareness. Well, it clearly puts the Avon brand into mass-broadcast media, and gives it talkability. However, strategically, you can see why it is important for AVON to help women feel safe and empowered in their own homes. That’s where their brand experience happens; it’s their shop-floor – and they want to make sure they are a natural partner for a healthy and happy household. Even if they can’t affect the lives of every woman suffering from Domestic Violence, then they can at least let people know that people out there care and are trying to help them.

So as much as Witherspoon & Avon’s message may have sat uncomfortably with the usual Friday night frippery with J-Ro, but a lot of people watch his show, and a number will remember the message. However, let’s hope that their good work was not undone by getting the platform just a little wrong. There are a load of cynics out there who will not have reacted in the same way as us.

Nike: Red Partner

For those of you (like us) who take more than a passing interest in The Beautiful Game, you might have seen the post-match interviews following Chelsea’s ominous victory over a rather blunt Arsenal side at the weekend. Didier Drogba, having scored a couple of netbusters during the game, was asked about his red laces – to which the Ivorian Colossus stated that his red laces were to highlight the issue of Aids in Africa.

This week the announcement has come of the launch of “Lace Up. Save Lives“. The concept is very simple: buy a pair of special red laces from Nike Town and participating stores, and 100% of profits go to related charities focused on both HIV/AIDS and other major diseases.  The idea is very simple, and it’s an expression of support and commitment that could almost be described as ‘Live Strong’, but for the football world. Of course, the reason this is a focus is the uniqueness of next year’s FIFA World Cup – the first time the tournament has been held in Africa.

BD Believe loves the simplicity of the message, the commitment from Nike to provide authenticity, and the fact that, given the work they already do with the likes of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and African Projects, Nike are clearly the right consumer brand to drive this agenda.  From a commercial perspective, it also encourages footfall and brand awareness – delivering on all fronts and ensuring that ‘magic’ combination of benefits for all involved. Finally, having seen a suite of the creative work, the idea is brought to life magnificently throughout their channels.

The Wave Campaign

Both are great ideas in their own way, one a collective social media campaign, the other a sweetly made viral film featuring some celeb talking heads.  We like them in different ways, and appreciate the sentiments of the originators.

However, at Believe’s core is the principle that collective action is not about passing the buck to governments or international organisations. As important as Copenhagen is, the focus should still be on what we, as individuals, can do every day to change our own consumption and action.  Governments are more than aware of the consequences of failure. However, elected officials will always be looking ahead to the next polling day, rather than the next generation – it’s the nature of democratic systems. Consumers and Voters are the driving force behind any change. The CBI know this, and in December will be hosting a conference on how to engage consumers in Carbon Reduction? It’s all very well Governments regulating Business, but Business need to engage consumers in ways that don’t damage profitability. Likewise, Governments need to change the behaviour of the millions of people in their electorate, but will always stay clear of anything that will make them feel worse off and switch allegiances.  So, as much as Copenhagen is a focus for commitment from the top, the real change needs to come from those people who make up the base.

The first of those is the weight of transporting the packages around, consuming more fuel. Even though the difference between, say, a glass jar and a plastic pouch like Kenco’s refill pack, is relatively small, it all adds up. Behind every major FMCG brand is a huge end-to-end logistics effort to ensure they are on the shelf in a retailer near you. So when you consider the number of packs that will be stocked and sold over the course of a year, this can equate to saving 1000s of tonnes of haulage and have a major impact on carbon emissions associated with it.  Another example of this is how Coors have reduced the weight of Grolsch bottles from nearly 300g to under 200g. Yes, no more iconic pop-tops, hundreds of delivery journeys were saved as a result. Of course, as is always the right incentive for business, this can also improve profitability by reducing the cost of transportation.

The second reason is more tangible and about a lasting legacy.  A number of packaging materials used over the last 50 years have not been biodegradable, and to that extent have been piling up in our environment in land-fill or being incinerated releasing huge amounts of carbon. This is clearly a bad thing, but even with recycling becoming a mainstream activity, the technology has not existed to allow brand owners to benefit themselves from the recycling process.  Recently, we’ve met companies that can now turn plastic bottles into t-shirts, mobile phones into furniture and of course create packaging-grade plastic! This means that the brand-owners themselves can create a virtuous circle of recycling and production, giving them control over dependence on raw materials; which has been a major risk factor in the past. With the consumer demand for recycled and sustainable packaging, there is now a whole industry geared at making a profit from this opportunity – and the innovation that this has inspired is remarkable.

Of course, the next step is to create packaging that is both recyclable AND biodegradable. The guys at Greener by Design have covered the ambitions of crisp manufacturer to have a bag on the shelves by April 2010 that is made out of 100% renewable material and can be completely composted. It’s amazing what can be achieved through science and technology, as long as the demand is there from the consumers. That’s our job…