5 hurtige til Jodi Olson, Senior Account Director hos Text 100, USA
Herhjemme er klima i fokus i mange virksomheders kommunikationsafdelinger, og klimaet er også på den politiske dagsorden. Men hvordan står det til i USA? Hvorfor stritter de amerikanske politikere imod, når klimaaftaler er på tale - og hvordan står det til med det grønne fokus blandt virksomheder og forbrugere 'Over There'? Det er nogle af de ting, Jodi Olson, som rådgiver Text 100s amerikanske kunder i god klimakommunikation, svarer på her.
According to a report presented at the climate change conference in Bali, the USA has produced 28 pct of the greenhouse gasses that have been led out into the atmosphere in the past 250 years. Still, the USA is the only industrial country not participating in the Kyoto-agreement to reduce CO2. Why does the USA refuse to be a part of this agreement?
The Bush administration’s decision not to participate in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change comes down to competition—there’s a fear among conservatives that if the United States agrees to the Kyoto Protocol, U.S. companies and manufacturers will not be able to compete cost-wise against developing countries that did not sign the agreement.
Ironically, a good number of Fortune 500 leaders in the U.S. like GE, Wal-Mart and DuPont are taking steps to keep up with their Japanese and European peers by systematically reducing their carbon dioxide emissions anyway—even without governmental requirements to do so. These organizations believe that while the U.S. may be soft on climate change issues now, government regulation of emissions is eventually inevitable. These companies are trying to stay ahead of the game—and remain globally competitive—by taking a proactive approach to sustainability.
Are American companies more conscious about the environment than American politicians?
It’s difficult to generalize because the U.S. is so big. There’s no doubt that the U.S. federal government hasn’t been as proactive in supporting clean tech and environmental initiatives as European governments or Japan. We’re way behind other nations like Denmark in this regard.
That said, state and local governments across the U.S. have been making significant investment to develop clean technologies and incentive people to opt for renewable choices. New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and California are all passing state regulations to protect the environment more actively.
In California where I live, for example, Governor Schwarzenegger founded a Climate Action Team that has helped push through some ground-breaking greenhouse gas reduction legislation. As a state, we’ve committed to
1) increasing our renewable portfolio standard to 20% by 2010,
2) ensuring that 33% of our state electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and
3) reducing our industrial emissions by 25% by 2020. It’s a good start, and one that’s been heavily supported by venture capitalists and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley.
It’s my prediction that when significant economies like California demonstrate that it’s possible to make these kinds of environmental changes and still remain competitive in the global marketplace, the U.S. government won’t be far behind in legislating for climate change.
Do American consumers demand climate awareness from companies? Is there an unexploited potential for companies to brand themselves as environmentally conscious?
American consumers more and more are starting to push for cleaner products and services, and companies are reacting in kind. In the U.S.,’Green’ is the undisputed marketing buzzword for 2008.
It’s everywhere you look: appliance makers are differentiating themselves along the lines of energy efficiency, household cleaning brands are introducing all natural versions of their signature products, clothing companies are sourcing from organic cotton and bamboo fabrics. Even my local gym in San Francisco suddenly has signs up that say, “We’re going green!” It’s a sustainability frenzy.
Consumer demand is the primary driver that will push sustainable products and services forward. The concern, however, is that so many companies are jumping on the “green” bandwagon purely from a marketing perspective—rather than making meaningful changes to their product lines or core business.
How can communication contribute to bringing the climate debate into focus, and what are the main topics?
Climate change is already very much in the spotlight right now. A recent Nielsen report, for example, found that, as a media and community topic, public concern about global warming doubled in only six months. All this noise about climate change issues has people very confused, so one role communicators can play is to help educate folks about real issues. So many marketers are claiming that their companies, products and services are green, that it’s hard for people to make informed choices. If a soft drink bottle has been redesigned to use less plastic, does that make it green?
On the corporate side, companies often have a hard time determining what their environmental footprint is, and what they need to do to be more sustainable. Communicators can help these organizations
1) understand what questions to ask themselves about their environmental strengths and weaknesses,
2) show how to communicate realistic commitments about reducing their environmental impact,
3) strike the right tone, and
4) articulate a roadmap that addresses both sustainability and real business value.
At Text 100, for example, we offer programs like corporate sustainability audits and green messaging workshops to help our clients navigate these kinds of issues.
Is it even possible for Americans to change their lifestyle and become more environmentally friendly?
Absolutely—provided we work within American cultural expectations instead of against them. In my opinion, America is a society built on consumerism. We’re a fast food nation that has grown up on speed, choice, affordability and instant gratification. Studies show that while the overwhelming majority of American consumers would be happy to choose a cleaner product over an unsustainable similar one, we won’t pay much more for it and we won’t go out of our way to get it.
Sustainable offerings need to be easier and significantly more appealing than their unsustainable counterparts if they are to help change the American lifestyle.
The all-organic Whole Foods Market, for example, is the fastest growing grocery store chain in the U.S. People shop there — and pay more for their groceries, incidentally, not only because the food is sustainably produced but also because the stores themselves are beautiful, the produce is perfectly displayed, entire aisles offer gorgeous pre-prepared meals, and there are even café tables out front to encourage people to lounge outside and eat their lunches in the sun. It’s a totally different shopping experience than you’d find at your typical local supermarket. And it’s changing the way many Americans eat. The lesson here is that green can’t just be good—it has to be even better than the status quo.
Læs mere om konferencen 'Grøn virksomhedsprofil', som blev afholdt den 26. maj 2008
Se artikel, billeder og præsentationer fra DKFs gå-hjem-møde 'Klima på dagsordenen' 21. april 2008
Læs 5 hurtige til Birgitte Mogensen, klimarådgiver hos PricewaterhouseCoopers