|
||||
  
 
 |
Making peace with the Greens: USU professor studies green alliances By
Will Bettmann Why would a business professor at USU have anything to do with Greenpeace, the environmental organization best known for its dramatic protests, like blocking whaling boats with tiny rowboats, or unfurling giant banners opposing nuclear power on the sides of skyscapers? Edwin Stafford, along with fellow USU marketing professor, Cathy Hartman, have studied green alliances - partnerships between businesses and environmentalists - since arround 1995. "When Cathy first suggested we study green alliances, I said, 'What the heck is that?'," said Stafford. One area Stafford has paid particular attention to is the efforts made by Greenpeace as part of its "Solutions" campaign, which seeks to pressure large corporations into adopting less environmentlly-destructive practices. Stafford said that Greenpeace's focus on coming up with solutions to environmental problems was an evolution from earlier environmentalism that was based more on protest. "The problem is that these solutions aren't easily implemented - that's where I come in," he said. Stafford has examined the Sydney Olympics, which were widely touted as the "green games," and Greenpeace's role in pushing companies to live up to the environmental standards established by the Sydney Olympics Committee. Unlike some environmental organizations, which were simply opposed to the Olympics for their large impact on the environment, Greenpeace hoped to make the Olympic Village a showcase for green technology, such as refrigerators which use gases that are not destructive to the environment. During the lead-up to the Sydney Games, Greenpeace put political pressure on the Coca Cola company to stop using Hydro-flouro-carbons (HFCs) in refrigerator systems. HFCs have been widely used since ozone-damaging Chloro-flouro-carbons (CFCs) were banned by an international treaty in 1987, but HFCs have been found to cause global warming when released into the environment, causing many to believe they are little improvement over CFCs. Stafford said Greenpeace's efforts to pressure Coke included ads mocking the polar bears widely used in Coke ads at the time. The bears were shown drifting on a tiny piece of ice, and the words "Climate Change," written to resemble the red, cursive writing on Coke cans, were displayed on top of the ad. Stafford said after just 27 days of the campaign, Coke capitulated and agreed to convert all its refrigerators to a more environmentally-safe Hydro-carbon system by the year 2004. Sometimes, Stafford said, he comes under fire from both sides. Environmentalists often view him as just another businessman, who is one of the enemy, and fellow business professors wonder what on earth he is doing with organizations like Greenpeace, and Environmental Defense. Last year, Stafford invited a couple of members of Greenpeace to give a presentation at a marketing conference in San Diego. "The other conference people thought that I was a wacko," he said. But he went on to say that the Greenpeace presentation on environmental collaborations with businesses was well-attended, and many came away impressed. Part of the stategy involved in Greenpeace's work with Coke (and others) is to create broad change in the marketplace by getting one of the dominant figures in the market to adopt greener policies. Stafford's research examines the market forces that drive this green technology. Stafford said many people believed that environmental issues would receive less attention and public support after September 11, but in a recent article (not yet published), he states his belief that energy conservation will become increasingly significant due to its "triple bottom line" - cost savings, greater energy security, and a healthier environment. In his article, Stafford also noted the results of research into marketing of green products, such as hybrid automobiles or environmentally-friendly household products. The research showed that the products must function as effectively as "non-green" products, with the environmental benfits positioned as a "secondary" selling point. Also, the products tend to sell better if they are touted to be "personally beneficial" (e.g. safe, non-toxic, etc.) as opposed to being marketed on broader principles like "biodegradable" or "ozone-friendly."
|
Archived Months:
January
1999 January
2000 January
2001 |
||