Vogue joins the fashion police

The fashion industry may be admired around the world, but historically it’s not been seen as one of the ‘nice guys’. Constantly criticised for fuelling eating disorders and encouraging the sexulisation of children, it doesn’t paint the prettiest of pictures.


Cast your mind back to last summer, when you might remember the storm over the French edition of Vogue publishing a 15 page spread of ten year old model, Thylane Lena-Rose Blondeau. The pictures show Tylane wearing heavy makeup and, in one shot, a dress with a neckline plunging down to her waist. The backlash to these images was intense, with strongest criticism coming from across the channel, where parent groups and UK MPs expressed outrage and PM David Cameron called for more stringent rules on the depiction of children in advertising.


But this week, Vogue is making the headlines for all the right reasons. 19 editors of Vogue from around the world have come together to sign a 'health pact', to be published in their June editions. The pact outlines that they will only work with models who, in their view, "are healthy and help to promote a healthy body image". This means they’ll no longer use models under the age of 16 or those who they think may have an eating disorder. 


This step up in responsibility has impacts in the supply chain, too. Vogue is asking modelling agencies not to send them underage girls, requesting casting directors to check models' ages when casting shoots, and calling for healthier backstage working conditions at shows and shoots. This is unprecedented – and incredibly significant for the sector. We can only hope that Vogue’s bold stand will create a ripple affect throughout an industry that for too long has flustered over how to show style with substance.

A few months ago Boston Consulting Group and MIT Sloan Management Review published a report Sustainability Nears a Tipping Point. It’s the results of a survey completed by managers and executives from companies around the world, asking them how they’re developing and implementing sustainable business practices. There’s lots of interesting stuff here so definitely worth a read. What I found interesting was the insight into ‘Harvesters’ – no not the buffet restaurant that always featured criss-cross chips in its adverts, but the report’s term for companies that say that their sustainability activities are contributing to their profits. The survey results show clear differences between the ‘Harvesters’ and companies who are further behind in their responsible business/sustainability efforts. Harvesters are:

• Three times more likely to have a business case for sustainability
• 50% more likely to have a CEO commitment to sustainability
• Twice as likely to have a separate function for sustainability
• 50% more likely to have a person responsible for sustainability within each business unit
• More than 2.5 times more likely to have a Chief Sustainability Officer

None of these points particularly surprising apart from the middle one about having a separate function for sustainability – from our experience this is the last thing a company needs if it is aiming to fully integrate sustainability into its strategy and operations. In actual fact, the wording here is a bit misleading... Whilst there are specific roles and functions to manage responsible business activities on a day to day basis, these have strong backing from CEOs and are supported by senior management committees; not so separate after all.

The real differentiator seems to be the existence of a strong business case for sustainability; in some cases they’ve even changed their business models. As Mark Vachon from GE ecomagination puts it “the idea is not to put your pencil down and quit...it’s to go back and figure out what new level of innovation is required to get to the right answer”.

The burning question is how to get to this level of commitment and pro-activity? What comes first: the CEO who sees sustainability as an opportunity or the business case that shows that it’s a no-brainer? And what happens if there isn’t either; there’s no desire to find a way to make it work? Not easy questions to answer on a general level... However, one thing that can only be helpful is for ‘Harvesters’ to vocalise the positive outcomes of the measures they’re taking, encouraging others to follow suit.

P.s can we drop the 'Harvester' label - it's not working for me!

Time for some real Hope

Hope could be the latest fad to hit consumers’ buying habits this week, as Budgens begins selling blocks of it. And by that I mean literally wooden blocks with the word 'hope' written on them. Place a block in your shopping basket and, when you get to the till, £1 will be added to your bill and donated to Alzheimer's Society. This nifty new idea was created by advertising agency JWT, and trials are already a big talking point.

There’s an interesting link here with the rise of ethical consumption. We've seen surveys show that 83% of people willing to change consumption habits if it can help make the world a better place, and the rise of ethical shopping with consumers choosing fairtrade, sustainably sourced goods and brands supporting good causes. The blocks of Hope build on this trend – enabling everyday shopping habits to have a positive impact on other people. And of course, on top of that it’s a great way to help charities at a time of falling public donations.

But are we at risk of a distraction here? Is this really the way we want to help solve social and environmental issues – impromptu, tiny donations while on our weekly shop? Leaving aside issues about the number of charities, the size of the donation and the unpredictability of income, surely a better way for supermarkets to help charities is to enable you to buy in a way that contributes to causes, rather than throwing around your small change. After all, buying certain products, such as those with a cause marketing element or those where the brand stands for a certain code of ethics, is already a way we can consider ethics while we shop.

There are other ways to show what I, the consumer, hope for. Isn’t it better when I buy shampoo knowing that the product wasn’t tested in animals? Or that through buying this orange juice rather than that one, I know it’s been produced in a way that takes account of carbon impacts? Or that buying this tea means that the community where it was grown are going to be able to build a new school? I don’t mind whether it’s about ethical production of a product, or ethical donations as a result of purchasing – as long as it makes me think about the product and my impacts on the world, it makes sense.

I'd like to see more companies understand that people will place goods, and not just blocks of wood, in their basket if it means they can bring hope to solving a social or environmental issue.

We have seen the real success stories of Pampers with its vaccine scheme and The Body Shop with stance on animal testing, and the stats are there to show that linking products with ethics brings brand benefit as well as social/environmental impacts.

Blocks of hope is a nice new way for a supermarket to help charities. But the impact’s a lot smaller than that of purchasing ethically. I’m hoping that the real impact of this initiative is that it becomes yet another demonstration to businesses that people want to factor ethics into their shopping activities. It’s time for new, innovative and exciting ways to prove the ethics behind the brands on our shelves.

Think Big, Sustainable Dining, B-Corps and more

Our latest e-bulletin takes a look at some of the latest movers and shakers in responsible business– from Telefónica’s ambitious Think Big programme, unlocking the potential of young people in order to unlock the potential of the business itself; to the new partnership between Harden's Restaurant Guides and the Sustainable Restaurant Association, which will make it easier for diners to choose where they eat based on sustainability as well as cuisine.

We also take a look at the rise of the Benefit Corporation and B-Corps (NB. they're different) in America. Do we really need a new classification for businesses that pursue profit as well as purpose? It’s true that B-Corps like Patagonia are showing real innovation and commitment – you don’t get much bigger than 'Don’t buy our product' as a sustainability message. But Patagonia was an innovative, socially responsible business long before signing up as a B-Corp. Introducing a new legal 'status' for responsible business risks giving the impression that 'normal' businesses aren't expected or able to balance profit with social value.

If you’d like to read the full e-bulletin, get in touch – katie@goodbusiness.co.uk

Stakeholder interaction which changes a business

The Guardian launched its video on open journalism a few weeks ago. The video examines the case of the three little pigs in modern times. It transforms a well-known fairy tale into a complex news story on which everyone has something to say. The video shows how the story progresses, with the input of experts and the influence of the public, to the stage where the three little pigs are convicted of insurance fraud (the wolf has asthma it seems and, even so, a strong blow seems hardly enough to cause a house to fall down), sparking riots and a national reform debate.

The video is clever and well put-together and it conveys in just over 2 minutes the Guardian's approach to journalism: an open one. They don't want people to just read a news story. They want people to share it, to contribute to it, to join the discussion and to help find the truth behind the story.

From a brand perspective it’s genius. The Guardian is no longer seen as a brand that is just trying to report the news, but instead as a brand that is playing a positive role in helping society find the truth. There’s also a lot that can be learnt from it in terms of how increased stakeholder interaction could actually change the way businesses operate.

Whilst many businesses have realised they need to play a more proactive role to engage their audiences in their communications, e.g. through providing feedback mechanisms, having social media pages or creating interactive games, most are yet to consider what this change in the communications landscape could mean for the way they do business, like the Guardian has.

We're already beginning to see crowd-sourcing to emerge within businesses e.g. GE Ecomagination but perhaps one day we will see it play an even more prominent role. Will we see supermarkets stocking their shelves with 90% pre-ordered items, reducing costs and waste? Will we see more businesses which are run and managed by an online community of stakeholders?

Reality and Perception

Congratulations to Marc Mathieu for continuing the current debate in the marketing world about the power of brands to drive social progress. This is about getting marketing teams to realise that when sustainability is made real, relevant and interesting to consumers, it can drive brand integrity and increase sales.

Step into the ring Puma and its clever little bag. This innovation, using 65% less paper than its old red shoeboxes, is a favourite: it’s genuinely ‘good’, it visually ‘good’ and it involves the consumer, who can use the bag over and over again. That little bag is a big platform for indicating to the world that Puma has values beyond profit. That’s why it’s so important that this kind of innovation is backed up by a credible strategy, and that’s also why it’s so relevant for corporate responsibility teams.

Mathieu has long been an advocate of the social power of brands. His latest suggestion is that marketing teams need to use a new language: one that’s more about people than profit objectives and targets. Those of you who read Greg Smith’s explosive resignation letter to Goldman Sachs this week might find that idea particularly topical. In it, he explained that he could no longer work for a company that talked internally about profit before people; that failed to put the interests of the customer at its heart. This is far from the image that the financial giant projects to its clients. So if the accusations are true, Goldman appears to have made its clever little bag before getting its house in order.

All this comes down to the simple question of whether the reality of a company’s values and sustainability is weaker or stronger than the image publicly projected. Sustainable Brands points to evidence that having a strong sustainability reality can reduce costs and risks, while achieving a strong perception of sustainability can drive up brand equity. Achieving both a reality and a perception of sustainability might seem the obvious thing to do, but too often those in charge of change fail to communicate it, and those in charge of communications fail to ensure the image they want to project is a reality. The current debate around the social role of marketing is good, but unless it sparks marketing teams to talk to strategy and corporate responsibility teams internally, we’re at risk of being flooded by greenwash.

Individuals and businesses join forces to march across the net

A few weeks ago I heard about a new campaign by the charity BeatBullying and I loved it. It’s called the Big March and it’s the first ever “virtual march” and it's happening today.

I don’t understand. A virtual march – what???

Individuals sign up to create digital characters of themselves that will “march” through websites on the day of the campaign. Organisations sign up to volunteer their websites so that these “avatars” can march across them. Both of these come together to make up a digital march that lasts 12 hours. The idea is to raise awareness of a child's right not to be bullied by marching across thousands of websites.

I’m still a little confused – can you paint a picture?

So what you might see on the day is a digital character marching across the BeatBullying website, then step off and find itself on another organisation’s website, march across that one, then on to another, and so on until the march is over.

It sounds interesting but why do you love it?

It offers a very simple and new way for organisations to get involved in a cause and show their support. And the BeatBullying website facilitates this further - it has a park for characters to march round with personalised sign boards, and you can wander into digital information “tents” created by BeatBullying and the

big partner organisations. Each of the digital tents has its own interactive content, which means that I could enter the Orange tent and watch their videos on staying safe online, or take a look in the Fruitshoot tent and get involved in their games. All this means that through the interactive website, brands are able to support the cause whilst also putting themselves in a positive light to the individuals taking part.

Sounds good. How can I get involved?

It’s taking place today and all you have to do is sign up on the website or get in touch to get your organisation involved. You'll see people marching across the partner websites like this: