Author: Shel Horowitz—Green/Ethical Business Expert

A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com

By Posted on Posted in Business-general, Corporate Social Responsibility, Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , ,

Why do businesses (and governments or nonprofits acting like businesses) worldwide continue to squander and pollute natural resources, even when we all know better?

Because it’s in their economic interest.

And why is wrecking the planet in their economic interest?

One simple reason: they’ve externalized the true cost. In plain language, they’ve passed on the true costs of their destructive behavior to us, as taxpayers, consumers, breathers of air, and drinkers of water. Often, they even get tax advantages for doing so (ever hear the phrase “oil depletion allowance”?).

This MUST change.

If every organization had to incorporate true costs over the entire lifecycle, including environmental degradation, resource depletion, and disposal of waste at the end of the cycle, our economy would turn toward deep sustainability in a very short time—maybe even just a year or two.

Green business expert Joel Makower, of GreenBiz.com, is among those calling to change this. He’s quoted in this article about converting the business world to true-cost accounting. It’s not overly technical, and certainly educational.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Web 2.0/Social Media

I posted the following on a LinkedIn discussion list called “Step Into the Spotlight, ” regarding the appropriateness of the new LinkedIn endorsement tool, and whether to endorse back. The consensus, which I agree with, is not to endorse people you don’t know. I thought you’d enjoy the discussion, so I’m sharing my post with you. The above link goes to the entire discussion.

I invite you to comment below about your own policies about whom you choose to connect with on social media.

The whole crazy thing about the new LinkedIn endorsement tool makes no sense to me. I don’t even click on them anymore because I know I’m going to be greeted with a screen asking me to endorse back, for something where I have no clue if they’re qualified. If it’s someone I know well, I will click over, and endorse if I feel I can. And I agree, it completely devalues the endorsement.

I feel badly that the tool does not have an easy way to send a message back (like “thank you”). It is too many steps and I don’t have the time. I’d love to see a button to click that would thank people for their endorsement and let it go at that. But sometimes I have 10 or more coming in, and I have a business to run.

And yes, I have been asked a few times to do a real endorsement and said no because I don’t know their work–and because I have made my reputation on the basis of business ethics and green principles as success principles and won’t violate that. The answer is always greeted with respect, and often with an apology.

However…on whom to connect with…my policy, as a somewhat public figure, is to say yes to all connection requests on both LI and FB unless I have a reason not to. It’s easy enough to sever the connection if the person is inappropriate, but I’ve only had to do that about five times in six years–and I refused one connection request from one person I know personally and who is nothing but trouble.

I find there are a small handful of people who have friended me and then actually built a relationship, and I think that’s great. Actually, Tsufit [the founder of this particular discussion group] is in that category; I didn’t know or even know of her before she invited me here. We had a very nice phone visit last week, in fact.

Now with Twitter, I’m fussier. I do feel guilty that I don’t have time to visit every one of my 6000+ followers’ profiles and decide whether to follow back. I won’t use the automated tools, though; I want to be in control of my Twitter stream. It keeps a lot of spam out and enables Twitter to still be useful. So what I do is once every week or two I look at the new-follower notices and open up anyone I actually know, and anyone whose screen handle catches my attention, and follow back those I like. A lot of them have unfollowed by then but Twitter is not a numbers game for me. The others–if they retweet or engage me, I’ll check them out.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Energy & Sustainability, Politics Tagged with , ,

Last night’s State of the Union address laid out a strong progressive agenda, including a green jobs program.

It’s not new for President Obama to say the right things, but he tends to back down when it’s time to follow through. So we, the environmentalists, have to not just “have his back,” but apply some pressure. Obama moved to the right numerous times over the past four years, to mollify Republicans. It’s time for him to return to the left in order to mollify his progressive/environmentalist constituents.

And that will only happen if we create a political climate where he has to listen to us and act for us. So let’s get out there and create that climate.

If you can attend Sunday’s massive climate change rally in Washington, DC, that’s a great first step. If you can’t—thee are several solidarity actions around the country. Check this list to see if there’s a rally about catastrophic climate change near you.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Energy & Sustainability, Greenwashing, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Fascinating profile of Peter Brabeck, Chair of Nestlé, and his crusade for world-wide water conservation and water sustainability. Especially fascinating since Nestlé’s water bottling approach has often gotten the company in trouble with water rights and environmental activists, and has occasionally brought it to court. (In my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, I discuss Nestlé being hauled into court in Canada by green activists, on greenwashing/misleading advertising charges.)

These days, Brabeck is saying that 5 liters of water to drink, and 25 for other personal needs, should be the daily right of every human being. But he also says that direct human consumption is the smallest portion of water consumed by humans—just 1.5 percent. The energy and agriculture sectors use far more (and he didn’t even discuss industry in general). He is particularly troubled by “unconventional oil” (such as tar sands), which he says consumes up to 6 liters of water for every liter of fuel, compared with just a tenth of a liter to produce a liter of oil conventionally. Water conservation, he says, is essential—and thus we shouldn’t be using those water-hogging technologies. Of course, there are MANY other environmental arguments against tar-sands oil, in addition to water conservation!

And he notes that when he was born 68 years ago, the world had 2.7 billion people and stayed well within its water budget, using only 40 percent of the renewable water. But now, with 7 billion people on the planet, we’re already exceeding what the planet can renew—and we’re heading to 10 billion.

Note: just because in our daily lives our water consumption far less than what industry and agriculture use, please don’t take that as a license to squander. As individuals, we still have a responsibility to be frugal with the world’s water. Even something as simple as brushing our teeth can be done with about 95 percent less water, just by not letting the water run the whole time—voila, instant water conservation. Wet the brush, turn off the water, repeat as necessary. Use the same principle when washing hands, washing dishes, etc. And when it makes sense (as it does in most of the US, Canada, and Europe), use filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Many people don’t realize how much water consumption is involved in the bottling process—wasting,often, up to three times as much water as actually goes in the bottle.

Go ahead and read the interview. If you’re skeptical about Nestlé, that’s OK. So am I. But I think there’s a lot of wisdom in Brabeck’s thinking, and a wake-up call to the world.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Green Marketing, Innovation, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

In the 1990s, the US had a 40 percent share of the world-wide solar market. According to widely respected sustainability consultant Gil Friend of Natural Logic (@gfriend), the current US share of the global solar market is a pathetic 5 percent, while China now has more than half the global market: 54 percent. And that’s 10 times as much solar as the US is producing.

Friend’s article doesn’t discuss such solar leaders as Germany, Brazil, and Israel, but I’d expect all of those are currently making more solar than the US is.

It’s really hard to take US government claims that they care about creating jobs and greening the economy very seriously when they let a plum like this slip away. Solarizing the US housing and commercial stock would create tens of thousands of jobs, lower carbon footprint immensely, and also reduce dependence on imported oil (while lowering oil bills too, of course) A trifecta win, and we let it get away! Earth to Congress: Get with the program, for goodness sakes! Erth to Obama: Press your agenda on this!

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , ,

There was a note on my contact form today that I was 98% sure was junk mail…but it touted a legitimate product (NOT sex, drugs, or casinos), was hand-posted to my contact form, and had a gmail address—so in case it fell into the other two percent, this is what I wrote:

Are you asking for help with marketing this product, or simply spamming my contact form? If the latter, I strongly suggest you NEED help with your marketing, as spam makes enemies, not sales.

Let me know if you want information on my marketing services.
Not that I really expect to hear back from her (or necessarily even want her as a marketing client)—but it was an interesting exercise that took under 1 minute. Of course, now I’m spending ten minutes blogging about it–but I get new content out of the deal.
Yes, spammers are potentially a target audience for legitimate and ethical marketing consultants like me. But in most cases, they would be difficult clients to attract, totally clueless, not likely to pay real money, and not necessarily the best clients to work with. And I’ve got plenty of clients I enjoy working with.
So why did I bother? I don’t know; something about this particular note called out for a response. Maybe this is the one in ten million who is educatable? Anyway, it felt soooo good to write that second sentence.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , ,

Several big, big brands were able to think and act like nimble small businesses and seize the moment when the Superbowl went dark yesterday:

Oreo, with a picture of an Oreo on a dark background and a teaser that said:

Power out? No problem. pic.twitter.com/dnQ7pOgC

Lowe’s and Walgreen’s both went directly to their own product lines:

Hey dome operators at the ‘Big Game’, there are a few Lowe’s nearby if you need some generators.

We do carry candles. 

We can’t get your , but we can get your stains out.   pic.twitter.com/JpQBRvjf

Several nonprofits and PBS also jumped in. Here’s one I particularly like, for its higher-message consciousness raising—and for the smart way it draws traffic to its own website:

half a billion people in Africa NEVER have power. Learn more at https://www.one.org/us/2012/11/13/what-makes-you-angry/ …

Social media marketing maven David Meerman Scott commented on the instant chatter using the hashtag #blackoutbowl. Scott liked the Oreo ad a lot, but noted that Lowe’s lost an opportunity for vastly higher readership by not using a hashtag. Umm, neither did Oreo, actually, yet that got retweeted thousands of times. I wonder if it got so much play because Oreo had actually run a Superbowl commercial earlier in the game? This is something worth investigating: whether traditional advertising can build social media participation, and thus engage the prospect at a much deeper and longer lasting level. It would be fascinating to know how many new followers Oreo got between the time of its original ad and the time it tweeted about the blackout—especially considering the exorbitant price of Superbowl advertising.

What I find most interesting about the whole thing is that the people who run these big corporate Twitter accounts had the freedom to respond instantly. Nobody convened a meeting (good luck with THAT on a Sunday and during the Superbowl). Boom, the Tweets went out. I don’t normally associate that sort of amazingly nimble behavior with the likes of Audi, Procter & Gamble, and Nabisco, especially since there have been many instances of companies taking big flak for Tweets that did not help their brand (Johnson & Johnson’s Motrin baby-wearers fiasco comes to mind).

I’ve been advocating pegging pitches and messages to current events for about 35 years—but social media gives us an instancy that we didn’t have in the 1970s, or even the 1990s. We can expect to see this sort of “newsjacking” (Meerman-Scott’s term) more and more often.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, propaganda Tagged with , , , , , ,

In a discussion on the merits or nonmerits of nuclear power plants, with particular emphasis on nuclear power plant safety, someone sent me an article by Gregory Clark. Clark argues that because another nuclear plant down the road from Fukushima had a higher seawall and was not damaged by the tsunami, nuclear power should be considered a good alternative.

This one really had me scratching my head; it’s one of the most bizarre arguments for nuclear power I’ve ever seen. Just because one plant managed to avoid a problem that brought several plants at Fukushima to collapse, how is that any kind of justification for the technology?

Here’s what I wrote in response:

I find Dr. Clark’s argument particularly puzzling: that a different nuke didn’t not fail during the earthquake/tsunami that clobbered Fukushima s not even relevant. I don’t know of ANYONE who would argue that every nuclear power plant will have a catastrophic failure. The argument against nukes boils down to two areas:

1. ROUTINE nuclear power plant operation is unhealthy, inefficient, does NOT solve the carbon problem (because the fuel cycle has many carbon-intensive and environmentally destructive components, starting with mining the uranium and continuing through milling, processing, transportation, creating the fuel rods, transporting again, actually running the fuel through the reactor, aging of the waste, transportation of the waste, etc.), causes thermal pollution, and releases radiation into the environment.

2. The potential for CATASTROPHIC FALURE is constant, and the industry’s safety record is abysmal. Although there are a relatively small number of nuclear plants operating in the world, at least a dozen have had major failures (including, ironically, the Fukushima plant the summer before the tsunami–as well as others you never heard of, like Windscale, Enrico Fermi, and Browns Ferry), and hundreds have had serious safety issues).

Here’s a very brief and far-from-complete list of the problems: Huge creation of carbon, huge safety risk, chance of wiping out a large area, need to store the waste completely isolated from the environment for a QUARTER OF A MILLION YEARS–which we have no clue how to accomplish, btw–risk of sabotage, risk of structural failure (especially on older nukes that have been embrittled by decades of high-intensity radiation, uranium mining that’s just as destructive to the environment as oil drilling etc., centralized power generation with all its problems, risks, and wastage…

I applaud the bureaucrat who built the higher seawall at Onagawa–that was a good decision. But I fail to see how that in any way justifies this corrupt and very dangerous industry that does nothing to solve our environmental problems and could make them quite a bit worse.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , ,

Yesterday, I heard a RepubliPundit on All Things Considered, decrying Obama’s inauguration speech because he felt it was confrontative and didn’t offer any “olive branches.”

Seems to me, Obama has spent the last four years offering olive branches to the right—and having 98 percent of them snapped off, chewed up, and spat back in his face. The Republicans have been incredibly unwilling to compromise, or even make any substantive proposals. Meanwhile, Obama’s base rightfully feels like a whole lot of areas where there should have been progress have stagnated. I personally I’m glad he is finally stepping up and saying he was elected to make change, and he’s going to make change. If he can at least bring us back to the economic stability and human rights approaches of the Clinton era (and yes, he’s better than Clinton on gay rights), that will be a big step in reversing the Rogue State government of George W. Bush.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics: General, General Commentary, Other, Shel's Personal Life, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

I listened to a call with Debra Poneman, and she shared one of the most astonishing and moving stories I’ve ever heard.

During the Truth and Reconciliation hearings in South Africa following the fall of the apartheid government, an elderly South African woman listened to a soldier confess the brutal murder of her husband and son. The jude asked her what she wanted from this man, and she had three requests.

1. To take her to the murder site to gather some ashes and give it a proper burial

2. To “become her family”: to be her surrogate son and absorb some of the love she still had, by visiting her every two weeks

3. To accept her complete forgiveness for him, starting with the powerful hug she wanted to give him right then and there.

If this woman can find the strength of love in her heart to not just forgive her enemy but to make him a part of her family, is there anything the rest of us have experienced that could not be forgiven? I took this to heart—and when Debra led us on a forgiveness exercise after recounting this story, I took on a deep challenge: forgiving the stranger who had grabbed me off the streets of my West Bronx neighborhood and raped me when I was about 11 years old.

This was not easy for me. I don’t know if I fully succeeded. But I definitely got through at least some of my “stuff” about this man, who I never saw before or since. And quite frankly, I felt better afterward. I was reminded that forgiveness is not for the benefit of the person who transgressed; we forgive, and we heal ourselves.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail