LIFE MOVES PRETTY FAST...

Climate Change at the SouthBank

I promised Asi from Poke that I would go down to the SouthBank to see the WWF climate change project that they are working on. I love the idea of people physically putting their names onto a (creative) petition. The origami boat and plane are being delivered to Parliament on Monday I believe.

One of the many things that I like about this idea is that the petition becomes a talking point in and of itself. It moves what would otherwise have stayed in the virtual world out into the physical world.

Freecycling Trainers

Toby Tanser was my running coach in New York. Not only was he an incredible coach who taught me how to run competitively, he was also a highly passionate and principled person. One of the initiatives that he set up was Shoes4Africa: Shoes4Africa facilitates the "freecycling" of used trainers and other running gear, it also provides scholarships for school fees and HIV/AIDS testing at their race days. It's a real example of grassroots action that is making a real difference. It's not a widely known charity which is one of the reasons that I wanted to blog about it.

I was inspired yesterday at the PSFK Conference in London, in particular by Tamara and John on the "Green Marketing" panel. The idea of passing stuff along instead of throwing stuff away is such a simple idea, but such a powerful one (BTW, will blog the conference when the sun is less enticing...)

If you do run and have trainers, maybe you would consider contacting Toby and donating your Shoes4Africa.

Why would you say that?

"Apologies for the rubbish tea and coffee, we've sadly done the right thing and started using Fair Trade."

I guess it's meant to be a joke, but it put me off having a cup of tea during my meeting.

Is it ironic? Is it funny? Or is it a bit rubbish?

Innocent McDonalds, a study in Radical Transparency

The announcement last week that Innocent were launching a trial of their kids smoothies in McDonald's seems to have provoked moral outrage. Comments on their blog are for the most part vehemently against the move: "if you jump into bed with the enemy, you're going to get screwed', "either you are stupid or you have sold out big time', "You are tarnishing what you stand for as a brand by associating yourself with a brand that stands for obesity and exploitation. Shame on you."

This is a fascinating brand story for a number of reasons.

Firstly in this era of Radical Transparency, the fact that Innocent are blogging about this and getting into a discussion with their consumers is admirable. It's interesting to see the way in which this debate is moving online - and there is a genuine sense of a debate taking place, with both sides of the argument expressing their opinions lucidly. In a post about the move, Richard one of the co-founders says that they talked to Innocent drinkers who supported the trial, however to be truly Radically Transparent maybe this debate taken place before the trial started rather than after the announcement was made.

The second reason why I think that this is such an important story is to do with environmental ethics. Richard coined the phrase Fast Moving Sustainable Goods to describe the Innocent business model, "we're not perfect but we're trying to do the right thing." Given the fact that a large proportion of the UK kid population do eat at McDonald's, is Innocent simply living up to their FMSG philosophy? If kids are there anyway, surely they should be allowed the choice between ordering a Coke or something like an Innocent Smoothie? Innocent have never said that are a charity, they are in business to make smoothies and to make money. Isn't this just another way of opening up their market and doing a bit of good to UK kids?

Finally I wonder if there is an element of Middle Class snobbery occurring? Innocent being the ultimate warm and friendly, Middle Class brand and McDonald's being the supposed antithesis. Kind of a double standard - after all it's fine for Innocent Smoothies to be stocked in Shell petrol stations, Tescos or Starbucks.

It's tricky. If I am honest I do worry that this could have a negative impact on an incredibly popular brand who have in the past said that they were against "the dubious tactics of Enron-style conglomerates."

But I admire Innocent for trying (and let's remember it is just a trial) this. It's a great example of Radical Transparency in action.

UPDATE: Email from Richard Reid, co-founder, received on Monday 7th.

Richard at innocent wrote:

       Yes, it was a bit of a tough decision, in that we knew we would get a bit of a kicking from some of our drinkers, but when a company slated for selling unhealthy food asks to sell food that is good for people it seemed more irresponsible of us to say no than yes, even though I knew to some it would come across as the antithesis of innocent.
      
        When it comes down to it, we've got to where we are today by doing what we think is right, rather than by doing what we think sounds right, if you know what I mean. And this decision was no different.
      
        I also sought the counsel of the MD of Greenpeace, who said that over the last five years mcdonalds have changed from being their number one enemy to their number one global partner in reducing deforstation in the amazonian
     rainforest, and if McD's wanted to sell healthy food we should definitely engage with them. A surprising input, and one which was important for us.

 
        Over time we'll find out whether going in was the right decision or not, but irrespective of how it turns out I'll know we made the decision for the right reasons.
      Plus we might now get some free cheeseburgers, which was the main factor for going for the trial.
      
Hope you're well and thanks for your support on the blog

Rich

Talking Green Bananas

I have read about this new initiative from Dole on a couple of sites (via Chromainc, Rohit)

I think that it's a really smart piece of creative thinking.

As consumers we are all starting to increasingly care about the provenance of our food. One of the many reasons I believe that farmers markets are so huge at the moment, we love the idea that we can speak to the farmer who grows the carrots, makes the jams, juices the apples...But then you get to the tricky issue of food that we cannot grow in the UK, like bananas.

Once we get over the tricky issue of the carbon footprint that results from the air-freighting of fruit and veg like this, I still think that educated consumers are still looking for "the story behind..." In the same way that I want to know that there is a real story behind the food I buy from Riverford Farm (see Urban Greenies post), I want to know the back story of other food that I buy. I want to know that the power of my pound has been used to good effect.

Each banana that Dole sell have a sticker on it. That sticker has a number on it which indicates which farm that specific banana came from. When you go to Dole Organic and type in the code, you learn more about the farm and the people who work there, you can also see the farm on Google Earth.

I wonder if you could do the same thing with bar codes that tell "the story behind..." You could scan them using a smart phone and learn more about the working conditions and the people who created the product.

Anyway today I learnt that bananas that come from "100" are from:
Manabi -
"Our organic farm in Ecuador was established on land formerly used as pasture without any agrochemical use history. Manabí Province, the region where the farm is located has the ideal climate for cultivating organic bananas: warm and dry, but with sufficient water supply year-round. The farm created 120 new jobs, 40% women, during a time when the region was heavily affected by the El Niño phenomenon and an economic crisis in Ecuador. All farm workers come from the immediate vicinity of the farm and the project has had a very positive social and economic effect on the community"

Urban Greenies: 70% of Londoners want organic produce

Being a bit of a foodie, my weekly delivery from Riverford Farm is a personal culinary highlight. I've only
been ordering from them for a few months but it has changed the way that we eat at home. As the weeks go by and the seaons change, so do the contents of the box.
You can add on additional fruit, veg, dairy products, jam and chutney orders which all come from the Farm Shop.
Guy Watson who started up the Riverford Farm collective did so after a particularly awful conversation with one of the large supermarket chains about 15 years ago. Watson felt that the way the supermarkets were squeezing every last penny out of their farming suppliers was appalling. The Riverford box scheme was started in 1993 to loosen the supermarkets' stranglehold. They now deliver over 16,000 boxes a week and do not supply supermarkets anymore.
The quality is great, the prices are cheaper than the big supermarkets and (if I am forced to be honest) you get to feel a bit warm and smug about being a decent "ethical consumer." Apparently I am not alone in wanting organic, locally sourced produce. A recent IDG report showed that 70% of Londoners want to buy organic fruit and veg (interestingly Vs only 34% of people who live in the country, what do they know that we don't?) Every-time I go to the one of the London farmers markets I am amazed and thrilled by how busy they are. There seem to be new markets opening all the time, the latest being the Friday and Saturday market at Exmouth Market in Clerkenwell.

The report by Jules Peck , Let Them Eat Cake , is required reading on the subject of ethical consumerism and the opportunities it presents for brands and marketers.

Anyway, if Riverford deliver to your area, check on the site, I would really recommend giving them a go. You do not need to set up a weekly standing order you can just go on-line and order one box. It may just become a habit.