A Corporation's Warm Glow

A few different things I've read recently have me wondering about the direct and indirect consequences of doing good. Just as people experience indirect benefits from benevolence, it turns out so too can corporations.

When it comes to the personal benefits of doing good, studies have actually shown that we almost universally display a positive emotional "high" after we've made a charitable contribution. As the New York Time shares in an article on "What Makes People Give", an economic theorist referred to this as the "warm glow" theory: "In the warm-glow view of philanthropy, people aren’t giving money merely to save the whales; they’re also giving money to feel the glow that comes with being the kind of person who’s helping to save the whales." (My mother likes to call it a Helper's High. Either way, you get the idea.) Daniel Goleman points out that the emotional halo works in reverse; If I do something bad that makes me feel like a lousy person, or get yelled at by someone, I carry the icky emotional residue of that encounter around with me.

So, there's an indirect, latent effect of charitable giving. For people, it's an emotional high.

It comes as no surprise that a corporation gets to bask in it's own "warm glow", of sorts. And this positive halo effect is visible in both financial and human factors. Take 'green' corporations as an example: In theory, they sell more product ($$$) and directly benefit the environment. But, one piece of research points out that it's the human factors - the indirect benefits - that are also incredibly powerful. This study conducted by the UK-based researchers Ipsos MORI showcases that people feel even more strongly about working for a "green" company than they do about buying green products. In fact, there's a significant discrepancy between the two.

















(This comes from people saying “agree” to the questions “I would prefer to work for a company that has a good reputation for environmental responsibility” and “I would be more likely to purchase products of services from a company with a good reputation for environmental responsibility” Study: “Corporate Environmental Behavior and the Impact on Brand Values”, Tangberg and Ipsos MORI survey, October 2007; n = 16,823)

This begs the question - what other indirect benefits are there of being green? I could envision a study measuring whether people are willing to take a paycut to work for a 'greener' company. And what about looking at the reverse; Do we need a pay increase in order to work for a company that we find morally repugnant or environmentally damaging? And just how much will we sell out for?

Green Goodness at Apple; A Chink in the Armor?

So, I read this article that appeared in Wired related to Apple's "walled garden" and the company's development practices as a reflection of the "values" of Steve Jobs. For Apple enthusiasts and those who work in the tech field, it's commonly known that they're a remarkably secretive, inward-looking organization that closely guards their vertically integrated offerings. It makes for a very different kind of technology company. As Wired shares: "When Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, he ignored everyone's advice and tied his company's proprietary software to its proprietary hardware. He has held to that strategy over the years, even as his Silicon Valley cohorts have embraced the values of openness and interoperability."

Part of the reason the walled garden has survived is Apple's ability to make forward-looking, aesthetically appealing products that anticipate the yet to be realized needs of their users. "No other company has proven as adept at giving customers what they want before they know they want it."

Ok, true enough when it come to products, but the article got me wondering - what good does Apple do in this world? If they're so prescient, what behavior and attitudinal shifts have they anticipated that go beyond just the way we interact with technology? Do they understand the increasing importance of social and environmental responsibility to consumers? In the interest of unearthing any signs of Apple's benevolence, I dug around a bit. I found this press-release-like announcement (undated) on the Apple site, referring to a Greener Apple. Steve Jobs shares with us: "It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener." He goes on to reveal their efforts to remove toxic chemicals from their products and recycle more. Other areas of the site also talk about the energy efficiency of their products.

AHA. It looks like a single stone has been pried lose from the walled garden. They're admitting that when it comes to their values their customers and shareholders are demanding more transparency. And Apple is trying to deliver it, absent any flash. But it also makes me think: That's it? That's all you got? Jobs refers to a desire to be an "environmental leader", but it feels as though they're only embracing the most basic of environmental practices. Um, what about the fact that my iPod doesn't have a replaceable battery? Nor does the new Air. Well at least I can rest easy knowing they're recyclable, given that when they die I have no choice but to throw them away.

Innovative environmentalists? Not so much. I'm underwhelmed, Steve.

Greenwashing - a Need for Boundaries?

Hardly a new idea, greenwashing refers to the exaggeration or misrepresentation of corporate environmental efforts, including erroneously touting the environmental 'friendliness' of products, sustainable manufacturing, and other misleading practices that aren't coming to mind.... A recent Nielsen study, mentioned by Adage, reveals the limited success corporations can expect from greenwashing efforts, due to all those handy muckrakers, concerned joes and environmental watchdogs out in the blogosphere who have a voice thanks to places like greenwashingindex.com. With so many eyes keeping watch, the truth will out! Eventually, all those green bloggers, will render all corporate deeds (and misdeeds) transparent to the consuming public.

Perhaps they're betting they'll ride out discovery with their brand equity intact, or never be discovered at all. Or, more likely, they simply don't feel they're doing anything wrong. For many, I think it's a matter of "positioning"- a loaded word for marketers who navigate the murky waters somewhere between a real desire and need to sell, and the need to be credible. Perhaps, marketers, advertisers and corporations just need more boundaries. With certain products, one might imagine a need for FDA or government intervention. The now widely known Energy Star labels come to mind, but those really only apply to appliances. Then again, how the hell do you place parameters around a word like "green" or "environmentally-friendly"? Similar to the food labeling controversies and loose definitions for phrases like "organic" were exposed by Michael Pollen in the The Omnivore's Dilemma. Perhaps we need more Energy Star-like labels? Icons that represent credible greenness? No answers here, just questions.