Is this the right Method?

This week we reported on the latest marketing campaign by Method, the environmentally-friendly cleaning product company. While I like Method's brand and ethos, its latest activity makes me feel slightly queasy.

It is running an initiative through schools called ‘Toxic Turn-Ins’ which involves parents and children trading in their current household cleaners for Method products.

In the story Gavin Hayes, the general secretary of think-tank Compass, calls for schools to be commercial-free zones and while I don’t wholly agree with him, in my opinion this campaign oversteps the mark.

There really is something about this activity that smacks of a sense of entitlement. Yes Method is a wonderful company and it may be driven by higher ideals but it's still just that - a company, ultimately out to flog its wares.

I wish the good folks at Method all the luck in the world in chipping away at the market share of FMCG behemoths like Unilever and Procter & Gamble but not if they pull stunts like this.

Business with soul

Last week’s Marketing Society Forum question asks whether corporate social responsibility is replacing traditional campaign marketing. The resounding answer from the four respondents was 'No'.

Of particular interest to me were the thoughts of Mike Welsh, the chief executive of Publicis Dialogue. ‘Most of the world's big corporations undertake CSR projects because they have to not because they want to,' he argued. He may well be on the money but what a depressing state of affairs.

If Welsh is right this suggests that senior management - or shareholders - are solely driven by profits and would only approve of CSR for the sake presentational issues. Do you get to a certain level and automatically lose your humanity? I'd like to think that if I were a chief executive of multi-national I would give something back to society but then maybe that's why I wouldn't make a good one.

Business and social responsibility were not always seen as mutually exclusive. Kraft's rejected bid for Cadbury put the story of philanthropist John Cadbury back in the spotlight.

Yes it is true that his brand of paternalism would not work in today's world where people resist being told how to lead their lives. But nonetheless the example he set shows that CSR, although it was not called that back then, can be embedded in a business and not just an add-on.

CO2 rising up the agenda

I'm just putting the finishing touches to a feature on the Carbon Trust's Carbon Reduction Label. For the piece I spoke to commentators with some concerns about consumers' understanding of carbon emissions as a metric. However a few events in the last week or so could change this.

Today a government advisory committee on climate change said the cost of air travel has to rise to deter people from flying. This is to ensure the target of reducing CO2 emissions to 2005 levels is met. If the government accepts this then you can bet the airlines will kick up an almighty stink. Consumers won't like this idea but it will certainly raise awareness on carbon emissions.Likewise a report published by the think-tank IPPR again raise the unpopular issue of personal carbon trading.

Another issue is the 10:10 initiative which aims to get individuals, companies and institutions to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% during 2010. PR overlords Freud Communications are involved so you can bet it is going to be big. Watch out for the funky metal tags appearing on celebrities and high-profile figures soon.

Are those that want a shift away from carbon fighting a losing battle?

Carbon emissions: What's your number?

Marketing is entering the final stages of its carbon footprinting exercise. Readers of the magazine and this blog may remember that last month we revealed that Marketing is having its carbon emissions certified to enable us to carry the Carbon Trust's Carbon Reduction Label.

Yesterday I attended a meeting on this with our environmental consultants, senior figures from Haymarket, Marketing's publisher, and representatives from the Carbon Trust. As it got quite technical at times I was mostly in listening mode. One issue that I did contribute on was whether we should incorporate our carbon footprint number as part of the logo which will go on the cover.

As I reported last month the Carbon Trust has made this optional. Given that no other weekly magazine has been certified, to a certain extent I take the view that the number is meaningless because there is no direct comparison that can be made on whether we are good, bad or average.  

But then again does this make us look like we have something to hide - which we don't? Our sister title, the environmental monthly journal The ENDS Report, which is also going through the same process plans to display its number - even though, ironically, it is on course to be higher than ours - because they believe their readers would like this detail.

Brands so far have split on this issue with Tesco asserting that it will persevere with displaying the number but others like Morphy Richards and Kingsmill going ahead without it. If the Carbon Reduction Label does gain critical mass this will surely be when these debates become relevant. At present I feel that communicating a commitment to reduce carbon emissions, which users of the mark must do, is a potent symbol in itself.