In the last post, I explained why social media and an internet presence is so darn important, and what green companies and organizations have to gain from getting online. Now it’s time to dive into the great examples out there and have a look at how sustainability & social media can play together.

 

If you post it, they will come — Sustainability & Social Media are not enemies

 

Besides being a cornucopia of cat pictures and updates about your friends’ kids, your news stream is also an indicator of the world around you. If there’s an earthquake on the other side of the world, it’s in your news stream.

If there’s a local political scandal it’s in your news stream. And, if there’s a big environmental problem, it’s in your news stream.

Sharing is caring, and the things you choose to post about and interact with – and guess who’s paying attention to that. Big companies.

A few years ago I wrote about how Coca-cola serves as a good indicator of social change, but recently, our favorite supplier of oddly named furniture drove home my point.

Goliath awakens – because of 1 billion Davids

I’ve had the privilege of chatting with several people working in IKEA’s sustainability department. The Swedish giant has seen the writing on the wall and is following the demand of the customer, by committing to phase out single-use plastic products by 2020.

What caused it? Well, social media. A wave of videos and photos of plastic pollution, partitions, and articles showed us just how bad oceanic plastic pollution is. As IKEA’s spokesman said:

‘The latest move comes amid growing concern over plastic pollution in the world’s oceans, where it can harm and kill wildlife such as turtles and seabirds.’ 

Social Media holds enormous power and can, when used with a purpose, be a drive for social and environmental change.

 

LEGO, McDonald’s, and IKEA – The cool kids are already doing it

Big companies have heard the roar of social media and are ready to follow their customers. IKEA is not alone in answering the call of social media.

LEGO is joying the field of sustainable heavyweights’ with an aim for 100% sustainable packaging by 2025. Disregarding my love for LEGO, this is impressive.

Finally, the golden arches know that consumers are fed up with the food giants negative impact on the environment. So, in a bold move, McDonald’s decided to promise a global switch to sustainable packaging including an aim to get 100 percent of its packaging from renewable, recycled or certified sources by 2025.

Furthermore, the burger pusher will make recycling available in all of its restaurants by 2025 – Today that number is around 10 percent.

 

All of this is a consequence of Social Media and the power of the internet. It’s easy to share information about the negative impact of big companies. And, for companies, it easy to promote themselves in a green light if they know how to navigate on these platforms.

Let’s look at what actually works on the internet. The answer is crap.

Who gives a crap – interview with founder Simon Griffiths

The internet is full of amazing things and if you can harvest the power of social media, you can bring your green product or cause into the spotlight within weeks. Let’s take a look at company Who Gives a Crap.

In short, the Australian based company sells toilet paper. What makes these guys special is, that company is a cover-up for a do-good organization.

The founders started it with the very basic – and noble – goal in mind:

 

‘We started Who Gives A Crap when we learned that 2.3 billion people across the world don’t have access to a toilet. That’s roughly 40% of the global population and means that around 289,000 children under five die every year from diarrhoeal diseases caused by poor water and sanitation. That’s almost 800 children per day, or one child every two minutes.’

 

Besides being one of the most inspiring companies I’ve ever come across, they also know how to rock the internet.

In July 2012, the founders launched Who Gives A Crap with a crowdfunding campaign on IndieGoGo. The CEO, Simon, sat on a toilet in a warehouse while being live-streamed!

I the final 50 hours of the campaign, they raised over $50,000 (watch the video here), and now had the capital to start the company.

The campaign has been praised in countless media and gathered a crowd of loyal supporters that would stay with them in years to come.

Why it worked — Social Media is fun!

This campaign had it all. It was fun, it was daring, it had an element of urgency, a great cause, a huge share-factor, and toilet humor, literally.

Crowdfunding has a built-in element of share-ready, meaning the entire platform and impact is based on you sharing your campaigns on social media, and then your friends and followers share it. Then, their friends share it, and so on.

The campaigns need to have a creative element, and this one potty-hottie sure did.

It placed itself in the spotlight by using an everyday activity and taking it to the extreme.

“Sitting on a toilet is relatable – sitting on the toilet for 50 hours is something no sane person would do, so obviously, you had to see it for yourself.” – Simon Griffeths, CEO

Who Gives a Crap is set up around (toilet) humor, a happy positive language, and a good cause.

2,3 billion people not having access to a toilet isn’t a fun fact. It’s a depressing fact, that’s so far been portrayed with pictures of sad and sick people. But too much bad news about the state of the world fosters apathy. This is the Backfire effect, which I wrote about previously.

 

Who Gives a Crap took a heavy, and in its nature negative subject, and made it something to care and laugh about — their website’s filled with jokes and perky, bright colors. It just makes you happy.

 

“But I can’t do that? Who’s gonna take us seriously?”

 

This response is common. There is, in general, a fear among green professionals to appear unprofessional if they make their content fun.

Like I said earlier the internet is a different place, and being a green professional is very different now from what it used to be.

The Who Gives a Crap campaign is an example of many business owners worst nightmare. You have to let go of control and let the internet swallow you.

What would the company itself say to this notion? I was lucky to get in touch with one of the founders, Simon Griffiths, and ask him. Simon says:

 

“Being able to use humor/irreverence in the brand depends on the industry you’re in, for example our charity partners probably couldn’t get away with it since the subject matter they’re dealing with is serious, but we sell toilet paper… there’s nothing too serious about toilet where we need to worry about treading lightly.”

 

While this is irrefutable logic, I still want to challenge it.*

Think about it, how many other toilet paper companies have you seen doing funny things? Ever?

I’ve seen none. Toilet paper commercials always feature puppies and babies, and that strange blue liquid to show how absorbent it is. Why do they assume I have blue pee?

 

Your turn — Here’s your 3-step homework

Yes, I’m giving you homework. We need to see your green work out there, so saddle up and let’s ride.

And yes, you can “cheat” and hire someone to do social media and web-presence for you, because what matters is, that you tell the world how you’re changing the world, why you’re doing it, and what your audience can do to get involved.

 

 

Step 1: Find you why

If you haven’t done this yet, now’s the time. Write down WHY you are doing the work you’re doing.

 

Why are you selling organic beauty products? And why are trying to get people to care about ocean pollution? Why do you want to stop climate change?

 

Whatever line of work you’re in, set aside at least 20 minutes to think hard about this. What are your values, why are you doing what you’re doing?

 

Don’t take the easy route. If you’re asking yourself, why do I want to stop climate change, and the only answer you come up with is, ‘because it’s important’ then you need to dig deeper? Why DO YOU think it’s important?

Do we have a moral obligation to future generations? Do you want security when you retire? Are you afraid that global climate change will mess with cocoa bean farming, resulting in shortages of chocolate — I am.

Dig until you get to the core of why you are in this particular niché, in this particular job.

This is, of course, the WHY of your business or organization.

If you’re the CEO of a small business, then it’s likely lines up with your personal WHY. If you’re a communication manager for an organization that deals with recycling (like I was), the WHY has to be formulated by your team and given the green light by upper management. And nope, 20 minutes is not gonna cut it.

Ready? Awesome! You get an A.

 

Step 2: How?

How is YOUR COMPANY making the world better?

It should be an easy question to answer, but often it’s not.

I go through this process with almost all my clients, to really dig out what they do, what sets them apart from conventional products, and where they add value to the lives of their customers.

Basically, you get soooo sucked into your work, that you grow blind to how awesome you really are.

Again, I recommend the Grandma test. If you were to explain what you do to your 80-something-year-old grandma, what would you say?

Got an answer? Great, now explain it again to your grandma’s 90-something-year-old friend.

Don’t get discouraged. This exercise does take some try’s, especially if you’re trying to see your blind spots.

 

Step 3: What now?

Yay, last part of the homework — high-five!

What can your audience do RIGHT NOW, to support your work, and make the world better?

Reuse a plastic bag? Buy your biodegradable cutlery? Sign a petition?

GREAT!

Did you tell them?

Just like any other relationship in your life, you need to tell the audience what you would like them to do. They’re not mind readers.

In fact, we desperately want to be more sustainable, but figuring out how is hard work. Just like you consult your cookbooks when you want to make tasty things, we’re looking for a guide to a greener way on living — help us out

*Hi there, Mr. Troll! Yes, you are absolutely right, of course, Simon’s point is, that their charity partners can’t use the same humor. But Simon is comparing Who Gives a Crap to a charity, not a toilet paper company. They are both, which allows for all the potty-related jokes you can squeeze out.

This is the second post on the subject of Loss Aversion. If you missed the first post about why environmental extremists are both inspirational and scary, read it here. 

 

What if I had nothing?

Turning the question of loss aversion upside down, what would actually happen if you had nothing? Or at least less than you have now? Look around you. How many things would you really miss if you didn’t have them?

A Danish television documentary aired last year about this subject. 4 people in their 20’s, gave up Everything they owned for 30 days –including their clothes. They were allowed to choose one thing each day, to take back. Not surprisingly, they all chose a onezy the first day.

And then it got interesting. When you have to choose everything in your life very carefully, what do you choose first? The bed? Toothbrush? iPad?
And more importantly, what would you actually miss?

When you have covered all your basic needs, clothing, wallet, bed, hygiene products, do you still miss all the other things?

The answer, not surprisingly, was no. It’s a very few things we actually miss once we’ve lost, or given them up. The fear of loss is much greater than the loss itself.

I would like to live like that, but…

When we read about people who seemingly give up a lot to live sustainable, we tell ourselves, that we would like to do the same, but we can’t possibly do it in reality. It’s scary. Those inspirational people have to be a bit crazy in order to give those things up, right? And you’re not crazy, you’re not that extreme. You will make the smart choice -recycle your waste instead.

So the people who started out being an inspiration, have now almost turned into a scare tactic. That’s not to say you shouldn’t read and learn from these people, or even try to copy them.

It has to start somewhere.

Remember when people who ate only organic seemed inspirational and extreme? Or when some people bought an electric car? Or when women started voting? Wow,
those were some extreme changes, right?

The more people who actually adopt an “extreme” behavior, the faster it becomes the new norm. What was radical, extreme, and just too much yesterday, is called progress today. Getting really cheesy for a moment, Gandhi was right.

(Fun fact, Gandhi never said Be the change, though he is often misquoted for it. What he said was: As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him)

 

What to do instead: Focus on the gains

So if you’re planning an environmental campaign, or pushing for environmental legislation, this is what you should do. Focus on the gains.

Do not highlight, or ”sell” all the things you have to give up. We’ve all seen those campaigns.

Do good for the environment! Stop this, cut down on that! Do it for the children!

They don’t work. At best they leave us indifferent, a worst they distance us further for the problem, and hence from acting. Instead, put the focus on the positive derived effects, the things you gain.

More happiness, more time. Better water quality. Fewer droughts. Higher job security. Better cash flow. A more stress-free life, longer life, more smiles in the mirror each morning. Don’t believe me? Here’s a link to an article about how people become happier when they recycle.

Wait a second! Are you selling bulls***?

If you’re thinking, ‘No way man! Doing good for the environment doesn’t have any positive side effects, at least not in my line of business’, I would like to challenge you to a duel, good sir. Or madam.

The hidden costs of pollution and climate change are much, much greater than the current price tag. Hence, the positives effects of minimizing, or eliminating pollution, climate change, and other environmental issues, are greater than publicly debated. Go here for more info on the hidden cost of environmental services.

Here’s your challenge, should you choose to accept it:

For environmental planners and campaign managers:

If you feel your cause isn’t “selling”, take 20-30 min where you turn the situation up-side-down, What is the negative cost of not changing this behavior? What positive benefits are you not seeing?

If you really can’t find any, post the issue in the comments, or mail it to me. I will try to find the highlights. If I can’t do this, I will send a great big gift basket to your office, and dedicate an entire blog post to you and your field.

 

For people who find themselves inspired, and scared when coming across a person who does something extreme for the environment:

Make a list of the 20 things in your life that you could absolutely not go without.

Did you actually make it to 20 without thinking, ‘Hmmm, this is actually a nice to have’?

Now take the 10 things that are the least need on that list. What would be the worst outcome of losing them? And is that a realistic outcome? Would it really be so bad to give up those things?

My guess is, that more than half of the things on your need list, should actually be on the nice list. Comment below on the most surprising finding.

Summing up, you wouldn’t miss it as much as you think

There you have it. Loss aversion keeps us from adopting what we find to be an extreme environmental behavior. Find the positive gains instead, and focus on them.

And now that I’ve overspent my use of the word extreme, here is a treat for sticking around to the end of the post. I give you the Extreme Mix scene from Harrold and Kumar go to White Castle – With a special shout out to Jonhard West.

 

Great news! The Netherlands just did something amazing in terms of climate policy. They sued their government – and won!

I won’t go into details now, but in short, the lawsuit was brought under human rights laws by the sustainability foundation Urgenda, claiming that government need to take actual steps to prevent climate change, in order to protect it’s citizens.

This means: the Dutch government can lo longer make promises about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and not follow through.

This news is groundbreaking in the field of climate policy, seeing as all former promised to reduce greenhouse gas, has been on a volunteer basis, with no consequences if the government failed.

“It is also the first case in the world in which human rights are used as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.” – Urgenda.

We have now entered a new era, in which citizens can prosecute their government for not taking the appropriate measures to combat climate change.

 

The following post argues that there will be no transformation in the energy sector, until there is both a need in society for renewable energy, a willing government, and a public demand*.

Being a sustainability geek, visiting New York City was a dream come true. New York City has one of the most ambitious green infrastructure plans in the world –and they have a lot of green roofs, which I absolutely love. In fact, they plan to put green structure on 10% of NYC’s non permeable surfaces by the year 2030, this being in the form of green roofs, pocket parks and the likes.

Green structure will function as both stormwater management, relieving stress on the sewer system, a rain water purifying filter and, where the green structure is in the form of a green roof, will save energy on both heating and cooling.

The best part; it’s cheaper than fixing up the sewer system. Hurray! So little Miss ecogeek here was thrilled about visiting this magical green structure wonderland. I went there in late December 2010, 2 days before the big blizzard hit (lucky me for not stranding).

If you’ve been to NYC in the winter, or any American city I fear, you will know that it is very draughty. I was shocked! Shocked and very cold. No matter what building I entered, I felt that draught. I started becoming obsessed with it, spotting the single layered windows, and the doors without weather strip, wondering how much, if any, insulation was in the walls.

My green wonderland had turned out to be one big waste of energy. Not mine, but the inhabitant’s of New York. I kept thinking about all that heat and hence all the money slipping through the endless cracks, and unsealed doors in the buildings.

To make matter worse, the buildings are heated by a local furnace or electrical heathers which are very energy inefficient compared to a heat- and power plant, where waste is burnt to create heating and electricity. Instead the NYC waste is going to landfill, and the buildings are being heated with non-renewable, and costly oil. My eco heart was broken. How could this be?

I was fortunate to have lunch with a journalist one day, and we had a talk about it. I told him about the conditions in Denmark where we, as mentioned in a previous post, have fairly good insulation in our buildings. He said to me, “Yeah, but we didn’t have any wars, so we didn’t need to rebuild our city, and therefore didn’t put in more insulation, or double layered windows.” Then the lunch ended and so did the conversation. I couldn’t let it go, because well, Denmark didn’t have wars either.
In Denmark, land of the cozy, we haven’t seen wars for 70 years. We’re a comfy crowd, and even in World War II when we were occupied by Germany, nothing got bombed. So why aren’t our buildings draughty?

What caused Denmark to rethink and redo its energy system, was the oil crises of the 70’s, combined with a government with high focus on the environment, and a public demand for cheaper, safer energy.

It’s a 3 point system, the tripod if you will.

There must be a need in society, that pressures for action. There must to be a government who is willing to execute elaborate plans. And there must to be a public that voices and influences in which direction the plans should move.

The 70’s oil crises shock the global notion that we will always have enough affordable oil. Let’s compare situations. Was the US affected by the 70’s oil crisis? Yes, but back then they had a rising oil production, so their outlook was that they could be almost self sufficient. Denmark on the other hand was in trouble. We needed something to free us from the dependence on forging oil (since we had none back then), and fast.

Seeing as the public was not keen on the idea of nuclear power, and voiced it loud and clear, there were two things left to do; find alternative ways of producing heat and electricity, and simply use less heat and electricity. So in other words..;

The Danes got to work.

We build and integrated heat and power plants, and then exported the knowledge and technology to other countries. We invested hugely in windpower, paving way for the Danish windpower company Vestas, the leading in its field. We gave subsidies to home improvement, such as double layered windows and insulation, thus enabling regular folks to make the necessary improvements. The demand for insulation also made the Danish company Rockwool, the leading insulation company in the world. When life hands you lemons…

Government investments and subsidies, created leading companies in the field of renewable energy and energy savings.  Now you might say “Oh, but this is obviously the makings of a socialist state”. Well no, the government initiatives came as a response to the public demand for cheaper, safer energy, and of the public discourse that renewable energy was good, and nuclear power was bad.

The public had a strong voice, rooted in strong, organized, cooperating environmental NGO’s. If you wanna keep being the elected official, you listen to that public voice, and you give them what they want. Of course by doing so you always risk losing voters that would rather have tax cuts than cheaper energy, so as an elected official, you must have the will to act. It’s common sense really, but 30 years later we forget why or how this change happened.

To sum up, in order to achieve change in the energy sector there must be a need in society, a government that is up for a lot of policy making, and a public demand for change.

Eventually a need in society will come by itself. We have a lot of potential scarcity crises waiting around the corner. It’s gonna hurt, but at least we will have one of the 3 pillars to push for change. Now all we need is a Government with willpower, and a public with a voice.

Oh, by the way, I was writing notes for this in a draughty NYC apartment in lower Manhattan.

*End note:

I’ve separated need and demand in this post. You could ague that a need will trigger a demand, but this mostly goes for urgent needs. Once we, as a global society, are in urgent need of a more sustainable energy supply, it will be to late to efficiently, and smoothly make the transition. And on the other hand, you can have a public demand, that doesn’t necessarily have a matching need – like the public demand for a death star.