“Most consumers don’t know where the gold in their products comes from, or how it is mined,” says NoDirtyGold.org, a group that encourages retailers to cease carrying gold that comes from illegal sources.  “Gold mining is a dirty industry: it can displace communities, contaminate drinking water, hurt workers, and destroy pristine environments.”

Dirty gold is no marginal issue. According to a recent 60 Minutes report, dirty gold mining is rather pervasive, and is also responsible for “the deadliest war since WWII.” Five million people have reportedly died in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a war primarily funded by gold mined in the country by warlords, and then smuggled out to be sold in retail stores around the world. Could that bracelet you just bought at Wal-Mart have come from illegal gold originated in Congo? According to 60 Minute’s findings, it is a vague possibility.

As part of an in-depth investigative research process, 60 Minutes talked to some of the Nation’s premier gold retailers in order to determine which companies could trace their gold back to a particular mine. One retailer, Tiffany & Co., said it could trace nearly all of its gold back to a particular mine in Utah. On the other hand, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest purveyor of gold, was far less certain about the origin of its products. The company said it plans to trace the source of 10 percent of its gold products by 2010. But given the scope of the tragedy in Congo, critics say Wal-Mart’s plan leaves much to be desired.

“Wal-Mart has moved so dramatically and impressively on its sustainability initiatives, that it’s surprising, and disappointing, to see them moving so tentatively on dirty gold,” says Gil Friend, author of The Truth About Green Business and CEO of sustainability consulting firm Natural Logic. “Their goal is too low, and their pace is too slow.”

As Friend and 60 Minutes point out, if Wal-Mart were to demand traceability all the way back to the mine on all the gold that it sells, it could have tremendous commercial implications for the industry – not to mention help put an end to a tragic war. In appreciation of this fact, Wal-Mart just signed on to support NoDirtyGold’s “Golden Rules” of gold mining, along with retailers Kmart, JCPenny, Blue Nile, Van Cleef & Arpels and many others.

Grassroots campaign support is at least an optimistic sign. It represents a first step toward ethical gold sourcing and sends a message to the market that will hopefully help to kick off the process of purging illegal gold from the global supply chain. But as gold industry insiders point out, in order to successfully shift to a socially just and truly sustainable industry “gold standard,” there is still quite a distance to travel and also, systemic issues to consider. For instance, to what extent are communities around the world affected by gold mining? And what about the industry’s overall ecological footprint?

“Customers need to understand that the environmental impact of gold mining in our own country is quite devastating, even though the US is a developed country with strong environmental policies,” says Meghan Connolly Haupt, founder of San Franciso-based sustainable fine jewelry company C5. “The largest mine on earth is actually in Utah and measures 2.5 miles wide and one mile deep. It is visible from outer space. This is an important piece of information for consumers because it helps shatter the perception that the issues associated with mining are exclusive to developing countries.”

Haupt explains that no matter where it occurs, gold mining is associated with the destruction of habitats and volumes of waste. One gold ring results in more than 30 tons of mine waste, she says. And that’s a quantity that continues to go almost completely unchecked. Where are the industry standards and safeguards?

“The industry as a whole has operated in almost the same way for many decades with little regard for the environmental and social impact,” says Haupt. “Lack of customer demand is often quoted as the reason the industry has been slow to change. But mining is a global industry and there are no universally accepted standards or industry certifications at this time. Those companies with the resources to devote to promoting change are often those that are the most stifled by existing operations.”

Perhaps that’s why large retailers lag behind pure-play, sustainable jewelers like C5 in terms of sustainable performance. In C5’s case, the supply chain is miniscule by comparison, so clearly there is a built-in advantage. Innovative, sensible and sensitive methodologies are a lot easier to implement and achieve.

Haupt crafts jewelry made with either recycled or fair-trade metal, using processes with minimal social and environmental impact. As her company reminds consumers, every piece of jewelry purchased from C5 versus a mainstream jeweler is one less that contributes to pollution, destruction of habitats, forced labor, displacement of communities and other negative impacts.

“I started C5 company to help create a systemic change in the jewelry sector,” says Haupt. “By leading the sustainable jewelry movement, we are helping to raise the standard of business, which translates into positive economic development in some of the world’s most impoverished countries.”

C5 is just now launching its first two collections of finished jewelry, and according to Haupt the company will be expanding those lines in 2010. Though as a start-up C5’s financial future is somewhat uncertain, its value proposition is abundantly clear. Talk about your statement pieces.

A whopping 65 to 70 percent of New York City’s carbon emissions are projected to come from buildings, whereas very few examples of pre-war commercial building energy retrofits exist anywhere in the United States. That means the Empire State Building is literally clearing a path for thousands of other buildings to follow. It happens to be doing so with a visible commitment to the principles behind the sustainability movement – people, planet and profit.

In an effort to build stakeholder advocacy and encourage more commercial buildings to initiate similar energy retrofit initiatives, owner Anthony Malkin of Empire State Building Company has made a remarkable commitment to transparency.  He has decided that the company will share all of the new processes and technologies it develops and lessons it learns during the retrofit with the public. “It is my hope that people will be able to take a look at what we did here and be able to replicate the process,” he says.

During the course of the retrofit, stakeholders can gain access to behind-the-scenes information, including the models and decision-making tools used to make the Empire State Building’s green retrofit possible. An interactive retrofit puzzle demonstrates how taking the right steps, in the right order – from refurbishing the building’s 6,500 windows for maximum overall energy use, to installing energy management systems that allow tenants to access energy use data, obtain online tips and benchmark themselves against other tenants – makes all the difference when it comes to increasing efficiency. The company even updates key learning obtained during the process of the retrofit, as well as its ongoing engagements with thought partners Rocky Mountain Institute, the Clinton Climate Initiative, Johnson Controls, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle.

Thus far, the project takeaways are quite compelling. For one thing, there is the importance of taking a “whole building” approach to design. “The good work which has been done to date [in green building retrofit] has focused on individual elements – a lighting system, a cooling tower,” Malkin explains. “You have to look at how all the elements – the lights, the cooling tower, the insulation – work together. You then look for the combination of measures which creates the greatest savings with the shortest payback period.”

Taking a whole-building approach to the retrofit design was beneficial in that it allowed Malkin’s team to stay within budgetary parameters. The team started by identifying baseline budgets for 23 existing retrofit-related projects and then examined how sustainable alternatives could affect costs. For instance, the team found big-ticket cost-savings items on six projects, including a multi-year cooling and air handling replacement system, central cooling plant replacement, exterior tower lighting and mid-pressure steam riser replacement. [For an interactive model of how these technologies work cohesively together to save energy,click here.]

The Value of Green

While each one of these technologies improves the building’s environmental performance – reducing greenhouse gas emissions, chemicals and pollutants while increasing air quality and recycling – a principle motive behind the energy retrofit is long-term value. Malkin envisions green buildings as higher quality buildings – buildings that produce superior cash flow resulting from reduced energy costs and tenant’s desire for a better way of living. If only sustainability were marketed that way.

“I am so tired of the directional and qualitative nature of the sustainability effort,” says Malkin. “We need to get away from this idea of ‘doing the right thing’ without quantifying what the right thing is. There is way too much dogma and what we need to get to is dollars and cents. Watts and BTUs.”

Dollars and cents wise, Malkin expects to gain a lot more than saved energy from his retrofit project. In addition to driving down utility, maintenance and repair costs, improvements on The Empire State Building are projected to result in increases in rent and occupancy rates due to enhanced value on updated services. Further income is also expected from new tenant offerings such as chilled water.

To achieve such financial upsides in green building, one has to think holistically. Malkin swears by his systemic approach: “Green to me is a set of practices,” he explains. “It’s recycling tenant waste, it’s recycling construction debris, it’s green pest control, it’s green cleaning solutions, it’s using recycled materials in your build-outs and in your common areas. These things can be done at a similar cost in dollars and they are definitely less painful to the environment.  Quantifiable energy efficiency retrofits are different…they are energy saving and money making for the landlord and tenants.”

Malkin’s perspective is that ultimately, there is nothing “ungreen” about the idea of urban living. But in the mainstream environmental movement, green is rarely associated with towering steel skyscrapers. Changing the population’s mental imagery is a core objective of Malkin’s. That is why, as part of the Empire State Observatory visit, the company is putting together a walk-through explanation of the retrofit program, to give people a sense of how the environment they are in works in harmony with what supports and surrounds it.

“I had a series of museum installation designers come and present some ideas for the walk-through,” Malkin explains. “One of the elements suggested was visually projecting a “canopy of trees” on the top of the elevators, so there’s an image of green as you’re looking up. I said, “get rid of the trees!” One of the biggest problems is that people think of the environment as someplace you go to visit, and then you come back to your life.”

The refurbished Empire State Building represents a new way of urban life – a new American ideal. As President Bill Clinton recently said in a video describing the retrofit: “This project is not only good for the earth, it also makes real financial sense. If even a fraction of the buildings in the United States or our world were to carry out similar ones, the impact would be profound. More projects like this will continue to create incredible opportunities for change across America, and across the world.”

In the midst of Hollender’s widely publicized transition (and on his way to holiday in Greece, in fact), I managed to catch a few moments of his time – along with a welcome burst of inspiration.

Q: You’ve lead Seventh Generation for more than 20 years, growing the brand from a fledging start-up to a household name. What prompted your decision to step down as CEO – and what’s next for you?

A: I decided to step down for two reasons. First, to continue to lead the business to its greatest potential in a highly competitive marketplace requires a depth of experience that I simply don’t have. A business of $150 million requires more than my intuition. Second, my passion for fulfilling Seventh Generation mission “to inspire a more conscious and sustainable world by being an authentic force for positive change,” can best be fulfilled if I now focus all of my time in it’s direct pursuit through speaking, writing, educating and influencing other business. I have two books in progress, a TV show (Big Green Lies) and a significant corporate educational program that we will announce in the next 30 days – so I won’t have trouble keeping busy.

Q: Seventh Generation has set a goal to grow its annual business from its current level of about $150 million per year to over $1 billion in the coming years. That’s aggressive. What are the keys to achieving this?

A: Remain radically transparent, stay true to who we are, pursue our mission with passion, hire the most talented people we can find, listen carefully to our customers and make sure we always have more capital than we think we need.

Q: Are you concerned that, with rapid growth, any aspect of the brand will become diluted? How will the company ensure that this doesn’t happen?

A: That will always be a critical concern. So far we strengthened our culture as we have grown by investing time and resources to ensure our community remains deeply connected to our mission. Personally, I will remain directly involved in ensuring that our purpose isn’t compromised as we grow. We have also developed some powerful institutions and rituals that help ensure we stay on course, from our annual all-company retreat to frequent meetings with senior management where staff members are encouraged to ask tough questions. The success and vibrancy of our brand in the marketplace and its impact and relationship with consumers is directly tied to the investment by the very people who drive, mold, invent and reinvent Seventh Generation day in and day out – their passion and authenticity is Seventh Generation’s vitality and this directly extends to our consumers. They relate to it.

Q: What do you say to those who those who worry that by bringing in Mr. Maniscalo, a Quaker/PepsiCo executive, Seventh Generation is “selling out?”

A: Chuck is here precisely so we won’t have to sell out. Most successful mission driven companies have been sold to large CPG companies because they couldn’t scale up independently. We’re acquiring the talent to ensure our independence and commitment to our mission.

Q: You’ve had an inspiring career and are credited not only for pioneering green cleaning products, but green business practices in general. What’s the greatest lesson you’ve learned — and if you could, is there anything that you would do differently?

A: I spend no time ever thinking about reinventing the past. There is much to much work to do that lies ahead of us. But the greatest lessons I’ve learned are that we need revolutionary, not incremental change. Businesses and NGO’s must cooperate more effectively. We need to move from being less bad to being truly good, and we need to recognize that the goal of sustainability is not enough. We must regenerate our planet. Human development represents unlimited potential, and anything is possible.

Amen to that.

To date, many advertising agencies have chosen to respond to the widespread disruption by tightening their belts, laying people off, and regressing to the safe harbor of shallow prose, banal imagery, and gimmicky campaigns. On the environmental and social front, certain elements have gone boilerplate. Reference Monsanto’s latest “sustainable agriculture” campaign:

“Producing More. Conserving More. Improving Farmer’s Lives. That’s Sustainable Agriculture. And That’s What Monsanto is All About.”

Evidence suggests that most people aren’t buying Monsanto’s planetary message. After the campaign launched this past June, hundreds of negative articles circulated the web, such as this one from Grist:

“The Monsanto ads are quite simply false. The premise of the ad is more or less that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. All while the corporation made more than 11 billion dollars in 2008 amidst a world food crisis….The reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have nothing to do with producing more or conserving more.”

Despite Monsanto’s recent marketing misstep, the interesting news in advertising isn’t the growing trend toward greenwash. Rather, it’s how fervently certain ad agencies are resistinggreenwash – pulling, sometimes pushing, clients in a more meaningful direction.

World-Changing Agencies

The advertising world is undergoing a considerable transformation. About five years ago, many large agencies began investing in environmental, social and cause-related practices areas to capture what they perceived as a growing niche market and to complement their existing core services. Today more agencies (albeit just the smarter ones) recognize that such moves are limiting. What’s really needed is a sophisticated new worldview that incorporates essential social, cultural and environmental intelligence into the core organizational capacity. World-Changing Agencies possess this worldview, and it shows up in most everything they do.

World-Changing Agencies exist for a purpose: to assist clients in reaching positive social and environmental outcomes, thereby helping to create a better future for all. Through groundbreaking creative work, such agencies offer people new ways of seeing the world, and new ways of defining themselves within that world. That’s what the term “World-Changing,” originally coined by Alex Steffen on his environmental website WorldChanging.com, essentially means.

To fully appreciate the world-changing concept as it relates to advertising, please take a moment to view this ad from Saatchi Pakistan (click on the link below). Here, Saatchi uses an eye-opening blend of imagery, music and fact to address the issues of political, social and cultural prejudice:

Saatchi Pakistan True Blue

Rather than allowing Pakistan to be equated with fear and terror, Saatchi tells another story: “the one you don’t see on the evening news.” The end result? The ad encourages us to reconsider our old perspective, appreciate a new culture, identify with our universal selves and want to call our travel agents.  That’s World-Changing.

The reality is that good agencies are a dime a dozen. But great agencies – the kind that transform the way we see, buy and experience things – are few and far between. The World-Changing Agencies described below deserve credit, because what they do each and every day moves the market and improves people’s lives for the better. Their passion and purpose, their goals and strategies, their mediums and messages, encourage each of us to step back and see the bigger picture.

World-Changing Agencies encourage people to think twice before they buy. Through their work, we can redefine ourselves:

Saatchi S

When it comes to creating campaigns that move people, help shift planetary conditions and make companies money at the same time, Saatchi S is the master. “Imagine a billion people changing how they live, changing the things they buy,” the company says. “Imagine being a part of that.” That’s Saatchi S’s goal, and the company is well on its way toward reaching it. Though an unmatched blend of sustainable insights, spot-on brand strategy, thought-provoking creative (check out the new Prius campaign from Saatchi LA), and global reach, Saatchi S takes its clients to a leaner, cleaner, “bluer” future.

Some people have balked at the company’s decision to work with mega-corporations Wal-Mart, General Mills, Proctor & Gamble and Frito Lay, but Saatchi regards these clients as an important asset. “We work with some of the most influential companies in the world  a because we care about scale,” says Saatchi S CEO Adam Werbach. “Only through their success will we reach our north star goal of supporting one billion people in creating and maintaining their personal sustainability practices.” Werbach, who is indisputably one of the sharpest minds in the sustainability field (see his latest book), carefully placed Saatchi S at the epicenter of a budding trend. “The future is coming fast now,” he says. “The recession has caused every business to open up its business plan – and sustainability is showing up in every one.” Going forward, Werbach predicts that all of Saatchi, not just the ‘S’ division will “go blue.” He and and his worldwide team are working on making this a reality, through a new initiative called True Blue. Further announcements are expected later this year.

Cone

Cone’s original “cause branding” approach has spawned an industry of imitators, but agency founder and chairman Carol Cone welcomes the competition: “Imitation is the highest form of flattery,” she says. For over twenty years Cone has engineered public-private alliances that serve worthy causes, from Avon’s Breast Cancer Crusade to Reebok’s Human Rights Awards, The American Heart Association’s Go Red for Women Movement, PNC Grow Up Great and Western Union Our World, Our Family. While Cone’s signature cause branding programs have raised more than $1.2 billion for worthy crusades, each and every relationship has been built on a foundation that Cone describes as: “Better Business: Greater Good.”

“We never want any of our clients to be the cause du jour,” says Cone. “It’s crucial that everything we do is authentic and sustainable – that we make a real and measurable difference in people’s lives, the social issue and our efforts have a positive impact on the business and the brand.” Blending social justice with business opportunity and personal passion comes naturally to Cone, which is exactly how she got her business of the ground in the 1980’s. “It all started with Rockport. We tried to do traditional marketing, using the usual mediums and messages, but it just didn’t work,” says Cone. “Then we realized the essence of this company’s shoes  –  they were great for walking. So we linked them to walking for health and fitness in authentic and novel ways. They grew from $20 million to $150 on that positioning. And America embraced a new fitness regime.  Sometimes the solutions are right there in front of you, but you have to look through a certain lens to see them.” At present Cone publishes original research and offers a full suite of strategic services including cause branding, corporate responsibility, brand marketing and crisis management to clients including Timberland, Ben & Jerry’s, Starbucks and eBay.

Global Change Network

“Global change is a tall order,” the agency acknowledges. “But our clients are doing just that by addressing poverty, creating energy out of garbage, and empowering women.” Comprised of some of the most passionate and  politically astute communications experts in business, the Global Change Network (GCN) works with organizations and corporations for whom social and environmental issues are core to their identities. Recently GCN has waged such world-changing efforts as encouraging G8 leaders to invest in extreme poverty; promoting recycling by branding waste as a valuable renewable resource; raising awareness of HIV/AIDS as a preventable and treatable disease; and repositioning reproductive rights as a fundamental human right.

“Our mission is to help our clients make positive change – for their companies, communities, and the environment,” says Global Change Network Principal Arlene Fairfield. “We do that by telling stories that combine human insight and creativity with astute policy and political acumen.” What separates GCN from the pack is the team’s unparalleled depth and breadth of expertise – over two decades of experience assembling groundbreaking campaigns for clients including The ONE Campaign, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and Energy Star.  “It’s our understanding of brand value and audience motivation that makes us different,” says Fairfield. “By combining consumer insight and creativity with astute policy and political acumen, we’ve been able to move the needle on some of the most important issues of the day.”

Emotive Brand

This San Francisco start-up was recently founded on a revelation. “Branding efforts that ignore trust and reputation are waste of money,” says company co-founder Tracy Lloyd. “That’s why we’ve pulled together an award-winning team of designers, strategists, and experts on everything from sustainability to social media to help companies build foundations that people can rely on.” Lloyd draws an important distinction between brand and reputation. “Think about it this way, branding is what you tell people to feel about you,” she says. “Reputation is what people actually feel about you.” Emotive Brand’s services, which include a cathartic strategic process called “Reputation Lab” as well as social media, interactive, advertising and corporate communications services, are offered up to clients including UPS, TED, VMware.

“In order to help clients shift their reputations, you need to stop the PR spin cycle and start to advocate behaving in the right ways,” says Lloyd. “Our goal is to help clients face the truth about themselves and then focus strategic and creative efforts on the areas most in need of attention.” Want to put a band aid on that environmental catastrophe and walk away? Then perhaps Emotive is not for you. “If clients are willing to openly work through the rough spots, then stakeholders will most likely be supportive. Proactively engaging people in the right way is a huge strategic advantage,” says Lloyd. “The bottom line is that we’ve got our client’s backs, whether or not they face challenges in the reputation arena.”

Frog Design

“We are fanatical about improving the world,” says Frog Design. “We choreograph cultural change through design. We strive to change minds, touch hearts and move markets.” As one of the world’s leading global innovation firms, Frog Design’s “humanizing solutions” emerge from a globally diverse team of more than 400 designers, technologists, strategists, and analysts from around the world. The company’s multidisciplinary process –  which over the years has grown to include research,  industrial design, digital media design, and brand strategy –  reaches such clients as Disney, GE, HP, Logitech, Microsoft, MTV, Seagate, Yahoo! and others.

“Improving the world is the key motivation for every creative person and should be the main mission of every business,” says Tim Leberecht, vice president of marketing and communications at Frog Design. According to  Leberecht,  “green thinking” is now central to every design project at Frog, and something the firm’s designers think about on a daily basis. “For us, innovation means imagining the ideal and making it real. We consider it to be our responsibility to see ideas through, from insight to market. We’re seeking to find design-driven, unorthodox, and holistic solutions to key challenges of our time – from sustainable mobility to rich communications to human-centric health care.” Recently, Frog teamed up with Intel in order to rethink the future of the traditional cash register. The result? A 70 percent reduction in energy use with just a few repurposed chips. That’s good thinking.

GreenOrder

Stonyfield Farm’s Gary Hirshberg calls them “remarkable, knowledgeable and dedicated.” Office Depot’s Yalmaz Siddiqui considers them “true partners.” GreenOrder offers business strategy, environmental science and policy, and marketing and design services to clients including GE, GM, BP, DuPont, Ralph Lauren and Hines. As with Saatchi S, the general viewpoint is that mega-corporations are our friends, and that such companies should profit from their sustainable endeavors. “GreenOrder helps companies build a culture of environmental innovation that creates long-term competitive advantage and business value,” says GreenOrder associate Ted Grozier. “We don’t believe in going green for green’s sake, nor do we believe companies should limit green initiatives to one-offs like carbon footprinting or marketing, for to do so misses key opportunities to capture value.”

GreenOrder doesn’t really consider itself an “agency,” per se. “We’re more of a management consulting firm,” says Grozier. “First and foremost, we are strategists.” Apparently, the company’s marketing-related services are viewed as more of a side dish. What GreenOrder is most proud of is the broader impact that its strategic offerings have had on the marketplace as a whole. “A decade ago when GreenOrder was founded, sustainability was not part of the corporate discourse,” says Grozier. “Through the efforts of our team and other experts in our growing field, sustainability has now become a path to business value – and a key part of a larger cultural conversation.”

DiMassimo Goldstein

According to the New York Times, the recent ads spun out of DiMassimo Goldstein (DIGO) might be doing to the bottled water industry what antismoking ads did to the tobacco industry back in the 1990’s – causing major headaches. In case you’ve missed the unfolding “Tappening” campaign, the interactive and print ads are designed to encourage consumers to drink tap water whenever possible. They are deliberately outlandish, poking fun at the bottled water industry’s environmentally wasteful and often misleading nature. One poster claims: “Bottled Water Causes Blindness in Puppies.” Another reads: “Bottled Water: 98% Melted Ice Caps. 2% Polar Bear Tears.” All the ads are supported by an informative website,Tappening.com, where people can learn about the hazards of bottled water and what they can potentially do about them.

“We’ve spent these two years using our marketing and public relations abilities to un-sell bottled-water hype,” agency head Mark DiMassimo recently told Brandweek. “But I still see cascading waterfalls on labels that do not list the source of that water.” The agency is on a mission to help reverse the tides, and is using its arsenal of social media, web and advertising tools to do just that. In addition to promoting unbottled water, DIGO also helps organizations like Memorial-Sloan Kettering and ThinkorSwim to reach people with messages that resonate at the deepest levels.

Little Big Brands

In the world that is social and environmental marketing, Little Big Brands has the secret sauce: temperance. “Our work is insightful, inspired, never frivolous,” the company says. This non-frivolous attitude translates marvelously on the company’s blog, which simply reads: “If we have time to blog, then you shouldn’t hire us.” Evidently, LBB (which is what their friends call them) has been busy at work, drumming up eco-friendly packaging and clever advertising for clients including Born Free eggs, Yardley Natural soaps and Vitamin Water.

“It’s really exciting for us when we have the opportunity to work on a project where we can be a true partner, adding value every step of the way,” says Pamela Long, Director of Client Services. One recent LBB project entailed a facelift for Pennsylvania-based brewery, Lionshead. “They asked for a step up in quality, but a step down in cost,” says Long. “We went a step further by bringing substantial environmental savings to the table.” What stands out through most of LBB’s design and advertising solutions, including the Lionshead work, is that less can often be more. While the new Lionshead packaging uses 40 percent less material, it sends a motivating message to consumers about the importance of environmental conservation and recycling. “It would be pompous to suggest that we’re out there doing something that other agencies can’t or don’t,” says Long. “What I would say is we really care about what we do and what our clients do. We may be a little design firm, but we work for some of the largest companies in the world, and by helping them use resources as responsibly as possible, we can really make a positive difference.”

While brands are important corporate assets, the value they create for stakeholders tends to be largely intangible in nature. Brands themselves do not physically pollute, clean-up, employ, invent, invest, engineer, design, reach out, assist, collaborate and singlehandedly, they cannot save the world. Corporations and the networks, innovations and people inside them, on the other hand, can – and often do.Irrespective of how catchy the phrase ‘sustainable brand’ is, the fundamental issue remains: either a company is sustainable, or it’s not.

Some companies approach sustainability with an unparalleled level of innovation and fearlessness. I have written about such companies numerous times in books, essays and articles, which is why I am so disappointed to see many of them continuously omitted from the surveys, articles, and highly-touted lists pulled together and promoted by the corporate social responsibility (CSR) industry – particularly those citing the “greenest,” “most ethical” or “most sustainable” citizens or brands.

In March, CRO Magazine chose Merck, Monsanto, Chevron, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Smithfield Foods and other questionable choices as “Best Corporate Citizens of 2009” (read my response here).

Last week, a survey released by Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associates,  Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates; and, Esty Environmental Partners indicated that Clorox Green Works, not Seventh Generation, was the “Top Green Brand.”

Perhaps this result was to be expected given that Clorox Green Works now owns over 40 percent of the green cleaning category. But I found the result disappointing, since Seventh Generation is a 20-year old pioneer in the green cleaning market, a leader in green business practices, and is well on its way to becoming a truly sustainable company. Clorox Green Works was recently introduced and has basically relied on its marketing muscle and existing distribution infrastructure to achieve success with Green Works. Although the Green Works product line is a step in the right direction for Clorox, the company also markets highly profitable toxic products like Formula 409, Tilex, and Armor All.

As frustrating as Seventh Generation’s pass over was, the icing on last week’s faux ‘sustainable brand’ cake had to be Forbes’ lead story: “ExxonMobil: Green Company of the Year.”

Exxon’s latest marketing campaign sends a message to stakeholders: “Taking on the world’s toughest energy challenges” while “preserving and protecting the environment.” Some people might buy that message, along with the company’s pitch that, despite its past and allegedly present efforts to fund global warming skeptics, a sizable investment in natural gas equals a genuine commitment to “going green.” But judging from the reader commentary posted on the Forbes website, not everyone is easily persuaded:

What are you smoking Forbes?? Besides Natural Gas?? Or did Exxon just buy a lot of advertising from you? Calling the company that denies global warming is real “green” is akin to calling the Mob a bunch of nice guys. Burning natural gas is not green, period. Cleaner, yes. But not green. Do some real investigative journalism and not just regurgitate some PR hack’s false truths!

As this reader commentary correctly points out, by calling an unsustainable company like ExxonMobil “green,” Forbes crosses the line between journalism and public relations. In the same way, by labeling other unsustainable and ethically dubious companies “Best Citizens,” “Greenest Brands,” “Sustainable Brands,” or what have you, the CSR industry is effectively perpetuating a standard of greenwash.

Greenwash is dangerous to our economy because it runs the risk of breeding consumer and investor cynicism toward genuinely sustainable companies that create environmental, social and financial value through the products they sell, the investments they make and the issues they relentlessly fight for. All of this ‘information greenwash’ being spun out of research groups, media companies and the CSR industry accumulates on the web over a period of months and years. In time, consumers and investors will be left with a data trove of incomplete and arguably inaccurate information with which to make investment and purchasing decisions. That means their money could end up in the wrong places – in companies and investment funds that, if they knew better, they would not support.

That problem is as serious as it is unjust.

Reference Mark and Nick, two emerging Generation Y change agents who started a London grassroots effort called Project Dirt. Project dirt is an interactive “ecommunity” that serves as a catalyst for Londoners wanting to volunteer in local neighborhood projects, but not knowing where to start. As part of Timberland’s ongoing campaign, the “Earthkeeper Hero” series, the company recently provided Mark and Nick with a forum to show the world that there’s plenty to be optimistic about in the environmental change arena:

Project Dirt – Green Reasons to Be Happy

According to Timberland, Mark and Nick are just one small piece of a widespread recruiting effort. The company is currently “calling all people who do small things for the environment, like recycling, biking instead of driving and using energy-efficient light bulbs.”  Through an international campaign called “Earthkeepers” – which is cleverly targeted towards environmentalists, consumers (Timberland has 30 million of them), employees, suppliers and even competing businesses around the world – the company intends to recruit over one million people through the ‘revolution’, as Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz calls it, of social networking, including Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, as well a strategic partnership with Changents.com and a website, www.earthkeeper.com.

The point of the Earthkeepers campaign is to inspire passionate stakeholders to become their own agents of change in their communities, using Timberland as the primary mechanism. That places Timberland in a unique position, one where the participating community relies on the company’s unique values and strengths, and where the company depends on social networking tools more than ever before.

“At the heart of the Earthkeepers campaign is the idea of becoming a sustainable brand and creating collaborative and value-creating relationships,” Swartz told stakeholders on a Tuesday conference call, facilitated through the JustMeans.com online network. “Earthkeeping demands networking on a level we have never imagined before. If we’re going to transform Timberland from a company that does green to a company that is sustainable, we need to assemble a wider network of citizens, consumers, suppliers, partners, NGOs, even other businesses. We don’t see how any one business, no matter how principled or passionate, can become an Earthkeeping business and brand on its own.”

Swartz defines “Earthkeeping” businesses as those that care about their impact on the environment, and that openly and honestly communicate their efforts in order to better manage that impact. These business, he says, are becoming forces for change in the new social media world order. Through its Earthkeepers campaign, Timberland hopes to not only to interact with a new generation of accomplished environmental heroes, but to also encourage other businesses to become more open, candid and engaged with stakeholders – particularly when it comes to environmental issues. However, Swartz acknowledges that this latter goal is perhaps an overshot.

“I think there are too many CEOs that aren’t going to get this,” says Swartz. “I don’t mean that disrespectfully. It’s just that this conversation of ‘should we or shouldn’t we be transparent?’ is a moot point because in today’s social media climate, every success is getting shared as quickly as every failure. We can pretend like we have a choice about transparency, or we can recognize the fact that almost everything that is being done is being exposed.”

With respect to what Timberland itself has to expose, the company has made significant progress of late. As of 2009, nearly eighty percent of the company’s footwear styles feature recycled content. The Earthkeepers™ product line, which debuted in 2008, contains fully organic and renewable material content, as well as solvent-free adhesives and is designed for reduced climate impact. In the crowded world of consumer retail, Timberland is one of the few businesses that sticks to the guiding principle that what you sell is every bit as important as what you say. After all, how many other pairs of shoes come in a box with a ‘nutritional type label’ about their construction?

Jeff Swartz is a visionary yet grounded CEO leading a family business that has grown into a highly successful global brand since its inception the 1950’s. His pragmatism, accessibility and personal openness are obvious to most who meet him. These traits were evident during last week’s stakeholder call, as well as during the social media interactions facilitated through Timberland’s Earthkeeper campaigns. In both cases, the dialog is kept authentic. Swartz and his team tend to speak off script. If they don’t know the answer to a question, they will say. If they miss something, they will apologize. There’s no rhetoric, no spin. This straightforward attitude melds into corporate philosophy – encouraging the business to face its challenges head-on. You can see this reflected across many of the company’s current initiatives.

For instance, Timberland’s response to the recent Greenpeace campaign to protect the Amazon from deforestation caused by cattle farming (i.e. the leather industry) wasn’t to deny culpability or ignore the problem and walk away. On the contrary, following in Nike’s footsteps in mitigating a potential media disaster, Swartz decided to admit that he didn’t fully appreciate the extent to which Timberland was having a material impact on the Amazon through its supply chain, as suitable ‘traceabilty’ mechanisms in the leather industry were not in place yet. Currently the company is working in collaboration with Greenpeace to settle this issue, and to help improve industry standards. Timberland’s willingness to work in conjunction with Greenpeace demonstrates how candor can help to diffuse difficult situations, and establish leadership positions for the companies involved.

Dozens of similar examples abound. Swartz is presently working on a quest to rid the company of bottled water, and despite backlash from the all-mighty bottled water industry, he presses on. He is also having the roof of Timberland headquarters painted white instead of black, cutting energy costs by an estimated 20 percent. And through Timberland’s Path of Service program, the company is offering its employees paid time off to volunteer on environmental projects across the country.

“These are concrete things that we’re working on, but we can’t simply cobble them together,” says Swartz. “We’ve got to make them a vibrant and integrated network of engaged consumers and stakeholders. We’ve got to get to this goal of becoming a sustainable for-profit business.”

Call us crazy, but it seems like Timberland might be further along than Swartz himself acknowledges.

This article was co-authored with David Connor, a corporate responsibility and sustainability consultant based in Liverpool. E-mail David at david.connor@coethica.com

Bottled water activists point to plastic waste, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental effects of water extraction, water privatization issues and a range of social problemsgenerated by the industry. Could such “road blocks” deter long-term growth for corporate bottled water empires? Nestlé thinks not.

According to a 2009 document entitled “The Future of Bottled Water” authored by Nestlé CEO Kim Jeffery, the company’s broad portfolio of bottled water products, including Poland Spring, Perrier, Arrowhead, Deer Park and Zephyrhills, are well-positioned to recover from the present economic slump. “Bottled water is perfect as it is,” the company says. “[There are] limited opportunities to innovate.”

This company is clearly not of a world-changing mindset. Nestlé takes the position that the bottled water industry is unfairly portrayed as a “villain” by environmental activists and an angry public, and that “environmental facts do not support this.” Really, Nestlé?

In a press release and video web site launched last week, Nestlé attempted to express to the public the environmental virtues of bottled water. “Bottled water is actually the most efficient choice of any packaged beverage available to consumers,” the company insists. “Bottled water is a very small user of our water resources…Plastic represents less than one percent of solid waste. While water bottles can be recycled, not all Americans have access to curbside recycling…To sum it all up, bottled water is a healthful choice, can cost less than 20 cents per bottle, and has a lighter environmental impact.”

Of course, not everyone sees things through the corporation’s rose colored lens. Take the 5,400 local citizens of Salida, Colorado who recently banded together in order to fight Nestlé off and protect its local water resources and land. Or what about the residents of McCould, California, who claim their town was torn apart by Nestlé’s operations in the area? Nestlé makes no mention of such stakeholder concerns in its press release or video web site, both which set forth to “set the record straight.”

Nestlé has a public relations problem. The problem isn’t just that Americans around the country are hanging signs in their windows and entryways reading: “Stop Nestlé” or “Nest-Leave.” Nestle’s public relations problem is its sterile, detached response. The company seems to be under the impression that people will read its communications in an isolation chamber, devoid of context, clue, cultural condition, and (yes, Nestlé) fact.

Let’s start with the hard data. According to Food and Water Watch, bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. That plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil annually to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and is demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles end up in land fills. That’s why the Pacific Rim Garbage Patch, the floating vortex of waste that’s twice the size of Texas, is comprised mainly of plastic. It’s also why so many sea creatures die every day from ingesting plastic, and why plastic waste has become one of the chief concerns of our Nation’s top environmental groups.

On the cost side of things, consumers pay a huge markup on a product even though as much as 40 percent of it comes from a tap in the first place. Stakeholder communities also pay. Food and Water Watch says Nestléhas an unfortunate reputation for moving into communities, taking water for next to nothing, selling it for a hefty profit, then leaving the locals to deal with the residual environmental and social externalities, and moving on. “Next!”

None of these issues are substantively addressed in Nestlé’s press release or on its video website. Through bullet points, select interviews and clip art snippets, the company only superficially confronts the environmental impacts of bottled water. Nestlé avoids all controversial content, including details related to ongoing rifts with local communities around the country. The company’s corporate tone of voice, detached message and superficial approach to “issues outreach” demonstrates an indifference to the wider public’s ardent support for environmental reform and social justice. The pitch is all wrong.

Nestlé broke every cardinal rule in social media, stakeholder engagement and transparency with it’s one-sided, “set the record straight” public relations effort. There is no meaningful opportunity to interact with the company, no way to leave a comment. My bet is, the only folks convinced by Nestle’s “bottled water is good” message will be those who manufactured it.

Patagonia. The Body Shop. CREDO Mobile. Seventh Generation. Equal Exchange.

At first glance, these might seem like quintessential examples of the corporate left-wing. From human rights to environmental conservation and animal protection, each supports a worthy cause in a radical way. But take a closer look, because irrespective of the particular issues these companies take on, their impact is undeniable and their business formula is highly relevant to today.

Most businesses now support a philanthropic cause. But at Patagonia, The Body Shop, CREDO Mobile, Seventh Generation and Equal Exchange, cause transforms into forceful crusade. These game-changing companies give people something worth fighting for.

“Someone needs to be the loud voice out there, banging the gong. We want to be that,” says Eve Bould, Patagonia’s director of communications. “We can’t be taking the traditional corporate stance when we’re trying to give voice and legitimacy to vital environmental issues that deserve attention.”

As Patagonia rightly points out, there is no business to be done on a dead planet. “We believe we have no choice but to take strong positions,” Bould says. Nevertheless, certain people would clearly prefer that activist voices remain muffled, and many have grown incensed by Patagonia’s determination to be a loudspeaker for issues like forestry protection, corporate pollution, marine conservation and species extinction. In response to one of the company’s recent ads, an irate citizen sent this letter:

Patagonia –
Greetings from Grants Pass, Oregon. Saw your ad in The Daily Center. I have a suggestion: Why don’t you bastards keep your nose out of our business. And our lives!! Come around here and we will take care of pukes like you! YOU LIE AND YOU WILL BE STOPPED. STAY OUT AND STAY HOME. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

According to Patagonia, for its support of various environmental causes, the company received thousands of similar letters along with boxes of customer’s returned Patagonia gear. One retailer in California reportedly stopped carrying Patagonia merchandise after heavy pressure from a lumber company, while another in Maine cancelled its order after Patagonia supported the creation of a national park in the New England state. But like all the companies featured here, Patagonia never stood down.

Over the past 10 years, Patagonia’s environmental positions have only grown more extreme, articulate and impassioned. At the same time, sales have increased, creativity within the company has flourished (see eco-fabrics lline), environmental impact has diminished (see The Footprint Chronicles),and stakeholders have become fiercely loyal to the brand (see The Cleanest Line).

“We’re not out to make everyone like Patagonia,” says Bould. “Our founder, Yvon Chouinard, often says that he’s perfectly happy if half the people hate us, as long as the right people love us.”

What Bould describes amounts to a critical leadership trait that is somewhat lacking in the vanilla world of corporate philanthropy: fearlessness. The companies that fight fearlessly for worthy causes break through barriers and ignite people’s inner fire.

“You have to be vigilant and brave,” the late Dame Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, told me back in 2004 when I interviewed her for my first book. “There are risks involved in taking a stand, but unless more companies do, we have little hope of evolving.”

Like Patagonia, The Body Shop realized early on that one of the most effective ways to get people emotionally invested was to outrage them, so many of the company’s campaigns have called attention to the awful truths about business. The most pivotal of these unfolded during the mid 1990’s, when The Body Shop shed light on the plight of the Niger Delta’s Ogoni people, whose way of life had been been ravaged by social repression and environmental degradation. US corporations, including Shell, were part of the problem. After protests broke out near a Shell refinery, a group of local Ogoni tribespeople, including Ken Saro-Wiwa,

Mass Movement

As Bould and Roddick make clear, the challenges the world faces now require bold actions and loud voices – not political correctness, temperance or candor. Alongside the public’s mounting intolerance for injustice, there is a heightened sense of urgency for finding answers to looming social and environmental problems, and a great attraction towards companies that can offer such things. The mass change movement is broader in scope and deeper in consequence than most people realize. It is global, classless, unquenchable and tireless. Paul Hawken calls it Blessed Unrest.

By its nature, Blessed Unrest gives rise to High-Purpose Companies.

Clorox brags about helping people lead “healthier lives,” even as it deploys its scientists and marketing mavens to develop a chemical-laden product that is just this side of legal…Clorox can still claim that it’s a responsible company, if you define “responsible” as reluctantly complying with the letter of the law. But an authentically good company is one where all of its works live up to its (good) words. Selling natural-based products (Green Works™) with the one hand while contributing to indoor-air pollution with the other shows that Clorox is neither completely good nor completely bad. It’s just a poseur.

As with the previous examples, Hollender’s emphatic post demonstrates the importance of standing for something concrete and unwavering. Seventh Generation stands for human health and environmental integrity. The company fights for these things on a regular basis – through everything it says, does and especially sells. But as Hollender points out, not all companies use the same approach. Clorox, it would seem, stands for human health and environmental integrity only partially.

Half-hearted approaches to corporate responsibility are prevalent in many industries, and only serve to bait protagonist leaders on. Take the coffee industry, for instance: “Many large corporations claim to be committed to Fair Trade when they’re only offering 5, 10 or 20 percent Fair Trade product. They are trying to sell to everyone, and therefore can’t take a strong stance in any portion of the market,” says Equal Exchange ‘Answer Man’ Rodney North. In contrast with larger corporations, 100 percent of Equal Exchange’s line of coffees, teas and chocolates are organic and Fair Trade certified. “We take the position that small farmers are the heart of Fair Trade. We get push-back from the agri-business crowd, and also from others in the Fair Trade category, but that only makes us think that we’re on to something.”

Since its inception in 1986, Equal Exchange has plunged full-force into the task of challenging industry convention and changing a broken food system. As North explains, what started as a political statement has steadily grown into a thriving business. “We launched our company by challenging the US government’s embargo on Nicaragua. (Seehttp://www.equalexchange.coop/story). As the US was by far the number one market for Nicaraguan exports, this had devastating consequences for Nicaraguan farmers and farm workers,” explains North. “To challenge the embargo and to launch our fledging company, we introduced “Café Nica: the Forbidden Coffee.” We got around the embargo by exploiting a loophole. In 1988 the Bush administration closed the loophole and would have bankrupted Equal Exchange, but we fought a PR and legislative battle and – just barely – came out victorious and with a stronger following than we would have without it.”

Like all brave brands, Equal Exchange never wastes time or money trying to woo everyone. “Of course not all customers are equally excited by our work. Some simply like the taste of our dark chocolate, or want an affordable organic coffee,” says North. “But a healthy number do care deeply about what we’re trying to do.”

By taking an unwavering stance and a targeted approach, Equal Exchange has literally incited a religious following. The company has established partnerships with eleven faith-based organizations, through which it generates about 20 percent of its annual revenues. “We are sometimes asked to address congregations from the pulpit, and are regularly endorsed by the local priest, pastor or rabbi,” says North. “When people tell one another “this is the coffee Jesus would drink,” that’s about as enthusiastic as it gets.”

If brand enthusiasm is the goal of any worthy corporate initiative, then Patagonia, The Body Shop, CREDO Mobile, Seventh Generation and Equal Exchange should give marketers pause. Brave brands like these demonstrate an important business truth: unless a company’s social and environmental positions present a worthy fight and cause some backlash, then they are probably not worth taking (let alone promoting) in the first place.

Nobody cares when companies say they are “committed to behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner” because nearly every company in the world says the same thing. To be truly meaningful to people, to win people’s hearts and loyalty, more businesses need to answer the pressing question: “So what?”

To this day many meat companies hide their operations behind glossy marketing campaigns. Slick photos of beautiful rolling hills, fluffy chickens and healthy cows grazing out of doors are often a two-dimensional front for feedlots and suffering animals that are force-fed high carbohydrate diets and that rarely see the light of day.

Increasingly, that two-dimensional strategy backfires. People discover the truth, and the company ends up spending millions of dollars trying to repair the damage done. Some companies never manage to bounce back. For instance, after people discovered the inhumane treatment its cows were suffering and the health implications of its deplorable factory conditions, Westland/Hallmark Meat Company faced the largest meat recall in history and eventually shut its doors. Smithfield Foods still struggles with the negative presssurrounding its Mexico operations, while Niman Ranch is losing market share, perhaps in part owing to founder Bill Niman’s own admission that the that company is not a ranch at all, but rather a factory, and that he himself no longer eats Niman Ranch products.

In the current age of social media, where truth rules, trust agents are king, and online videos spread like wildfire, reputations can’t be managed via press release. Meat companies are having to publicly explain their way out of tight spots, while activists are waging war, and more meat eaters are thinking twice before ordering their next meal. The climate has changed dramatically, and smart companies will face the music.

There is absolutely no question that the public demands radical change from the meat industry. The signs are everywhere: in award-winning films like Food,Inc., best-selling books like the Omnivore’s Dilemma – along with numerous web sites, activist movements and purchasing trends. You’d be remiss to dispute the evidence. The real question is: What is the change worth? If meat companies elevated their quality standards, would people be willing to pay more for the change?

A few weeks ago I decided to try and find out. I reasoned that it was impossible to answer questions like these without seeing and experiencing the desired change first-hand. I visited Hearst Ranch, the most humane, environmentally sustainable and high-quality meat operation that I could find in the United States.

Keep in mind, the overwhelming majority of meat produced in the United states and sold in stores comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The core objective of CAFOs is to cram as many animals into as small a space as possible in order to produce the highest output at the lowest cost. That’s how meat companies like Cargill, Tyson and Hormel Foods make so much money. CAFOs also produce significant environmental problems and help to spread diseases such as swine flu, avian flu, West Nile virus andbluetongue.

Hearst Ranch is the furthest thing from a CAFO that you could possibly imagine. Founded in 1865 by George Hearst, Hearst Ranch’s working cattle ranch sprawls over 80,000 acres, making it one of the largest working cattle ranches on the California coast. Though the photos displayed on the company’s web site are of the ranch itself – portraying its natural existence, biodiverse ecosystem and cowboy staff – they left me completely unprepared for what I experienced roaming the landscape, meeting the people and seeing the animals up close.

Like the flavor of its beef, Hearst Ranch is spectacular. Absolutely, pricelessly, indescribably beautiful. Thanks to one of the largest land conservation easements in California history, the Ranch will be forever preserved. Driving up and down its rolling hills, smelling the native grasses and taking in the majestic views, all I could think was, they should have sent a poet. Seriously, it might sound cheesy, but how many meat operations can you say that about?

Owing to the vastness of the Ranch, it took us 26 minutes before we could even find a cow. When we did finally come upon a small pack of eight animals at the top of a hill, we approached them slowly and respectfully. Cliff Garrison, Ranch Manager and my tour guide, turned the engine off. Rather than scatter, the animals remained completely calm, and a few even approached us.

They were beautiful creatures. Not long and thin like Angus cattle, but rounded and muscular with shiny coats and clear eyes. “Angus cattle were bred long and thin so that they could fit more animals into pens,” Garrison said. Just like seats on an airplane, I thought. Ah, the almighty dollar.

Hearst’s cattle are a breed apart. It doesn’t take an expert to identify healthy, happy animals living a low-stress life. The cows let Cliff handle them and seemed to like the attention. “Fast or excitement is usually not good with animals,” Garrison said.

Later that evening it was explained to me that, in addition to Hearst’s commitment to animal welfare, Garrison is himself rumored to have special powers. “We call him the cow whisperer,” joked another cowboy.

The staff at Hearst Ranch feels strongly that letting animals graze freely out of doors is the key to a healthy working landscape, to the quality of the beef produced, and to many of the problems now plaguing the meat industry. “This is the way that nature intended,” Garrison said. “This is how cowboys have been doing it for a hundred years.”

As Hearst Ranch points out on its web site, well-managed grazing increases the biodiversity of the grassland by fostering competition amongst a wide grange of grass species, thus sustaining both its herd and precious land resources.

While not every business will have the desire or foresight to invest in adequate land in order to take animals out of CAFOs, it is worth spelling out some of the benefits that models like Hearst’s offer to consumers:

Far Less Waste

The 238,000 CAFOs operating in the US produce an estimated 500 million tons of waste each year. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. The European Union says that CAFOs are responsible for 18 percent of global warming. In contrast, the vast grasslands of Hearst Ranch host an unusually complex mosaic of vegetation. By rotating the animals through various pastures through the seasons, Hearst sustains that complexity, a practice that supports biodiversity, improves soil fertility, and eliminates the waste-management problems associated with CAFOs.

Much More Humane

There is probably no better life for an animal to live than the natural life that nature intended. Hearst cattle are living the dream, with free access to natural forages, fresh air and clean water – and very little human intervention. They have visibly lower stress levels and are humanely treated. They are never fed sub-therapeutic antibiotics and are never given growth hormones. All their lives, they have the freedom to roam. There’s an old cowboy saying at Hearst Ranch, which is: “go slow, get there faster.” This means that if you treat the cows gently and don’t push too hard, but rather allow them to find their natural way at their natural pace, you’ll be more successful. It would be great if more businesses thought this way.

Better Nutrition

Most beef cows in America are shot-up with medicine and raised on diets of grain, which boosts levels of E. coli in their guts and encourages the spread of disease. Grass-fed beef cows eat grass their entire lives, so they are healthier and the nutritional value they provide is significantly different. Grass-fed beef contains 10 times more beta-carotene, three times more vitamin E, and has three times the healthy omega-3 fatty acids than traditional beef. Grass-fed beef also contains three times more CLA, or conjugated linoleic acid, which is another of the healthy fats that has been shown to be good at lowering so-called “bad” cholesterol, lowering the risk of diabetes, heart disease and various forms of cancer.

Superior Quality and Flavor

If you live near or visit San Francisco and crave a burger, I highly recommend heading over to Cafe Americano and ordering one of chef Paul Arenstam’s famous Hearst Burgers. No joke, this is the best burger that I’ve ever eaten. The flavor of Hearst’s beef is rich, robust and pure, with no fatty or greasy aftertaste. As one customer recently put it: “This is how beef is supposed to taste.” In the wine industry, the word “terroir” refers to the flavor imparted to the wine by the entirety of the property upon which the grapes are grown. The same principle applies to beef. The rich and robust flavor of Hearst’s beef comes from the nutrients that are themselves derived from the purity and diversity of the grasses that the cows eat their whole lives.

The bottom line is that Hearst Ranch beef, and high-quality grass fed beef in general, is worth more. Not just a little more – a lot more.

Personally, I am willing to pay 50 to 80 percent over the commodity prices coming from the big meat companies, but be much more selective about which companies I buy my meat from, and eat meat less often. But maybe that’s just me. My sense is that if the benefits of sustainably and humanely raised meat were communicated properly – if more people could see and experience what I did a few weeks ago – then perhaps others would pay more too, and would take steps to do business with select companies like Hearst Ranch.

Then, just maybe, the meat industry would elevate its standards.