The article in the url below analyses the recently announced partnership between Clorox and the Sierra Club that places the Sierra Club’s logo on all of the products in Clorox’s new line of cleaning products—Green Works (Issues: NGO and Corporate Cooperation, p192). In exchange, the Sierra Club will receive a percentage of the profits from sales. Although Clorox has benefited handsomely from “one of the most successful launches of a new cleaning brand in recent memory”:
“… within the Sierra Club, the reaction to the deal has been contentious, with emails flying back and forth and charges that Pope's executive committee has sold out … the awkward pairing with Clorox underlines both the huge potential upside for major brands discovering green and the danger for nonprofit environmental groups plunging headlong into the for-profit world.”
On the face of it, the Sierra Club seems to have the most at risk in forming this relationship with a firm whose core product many environmentalists believe to be fundamentally opposed to their conception of ‘sustainability.’ The article notes that Clorox had been working on sustainable ingredients “for nearly a decade.” Even after improvements in cost and availability, however, the firm still faces a difficult challenge:
“… how to get people to believe that Clorox could really be green. … "there were a lot of greenwashing reports starting to surface," … "Consumers were a little bit skeptical."”
While difficult, I believe the Sierra Club’s attitude when approached by Clorox is the attitude that many NGOs need to have if they are truly invested in realizable change. While there will always be a role for antagonists and idealism is fine, reality inevitably means incremental progress:
“When Clorox approached him, Pope had already been pushing for a shift in mind-set at the 116-year-old Sierra Club for some time … "Instead of just saying, Let's boycott somebody who's making a toxic product," Pope explains from his San Francisco office one recent summer day, "let's find a good product and help people who are trying to help consumers."”
That is not to say, however, that the Sierra Club is handling everything as well as it should:
“With no independent scientific assessment of Green Works products, and with an undisclosed amount of money changing hands, what does that Sierra Club seal on the back of the bottle really mean?”
Ultimately:
“For Clorox, it's nothing but upside. For the Sierra Club, it's risking -- if not undermining -- its most valuable asset: its independent reputation.”
This skeptical tone is continued in the article in the second url below:
“Transparency and accountability are double-edged. Embedded in an organisation’s culture they can burnish credibility and encourage progressive innovation. But if the promise does not match the practice, the greenwashing backlash can cause considerable brand damage.”
Have a good weekend.
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther
Cleaning Solution
Since Clorox enlisted the Sierra Club to hype a new green product line, sales are booming. But the club is dealing with a nasty little stain.
Fast Company Magazine
From: Issue 128 | September 2008 | Pages 120-125 | By: Anya Kamenetz
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/128/cleaning-solution.html
The contrarian – Sell-out at the Sierra Club
The Clorox partnership fiasco demonstrates poor levels of transparency and weak corporate governance at the Sierra Club
Jon Entine
September 1, 2008
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6055
