Corporate social and environmental performance is all the rage in today’s investment environment. With increasing frequency, analysts are monitoring, evaluating, and ranking that performance. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) lists – ranging from Corporate Knight’s Global 100 to Ethisphere Institute’s Most Ethical Companies and Corporate Responsibility magazine’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens – grow more

plentiful and visible each day. Publishers now vie to position their lists as strategic holy grails for corporations making the cut, and Wall Street has taken notice. Nearly one out of every nine dollars of professionally managed assets in the United States – valued at an estimated $2.71 trillion – has been invested in companies that perform well in CSR rankings.

“Company stakeholders from investors to customers to employees to regulators watch the 100 Best Corporate Citizens List closely, and are using it now more than ever to make important decisions,” said Corporate Responsibility magazine publisher Jay Whitehead in a recent press release. “As a result, making the List is worth millions or even billions in increased shareholder and brand value.”

This should be good news for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Monsanto which, despite their notoriety, have been counted as “Best Citizens” by Corporate Responsibility numerous times. “When someone asks you to define corporate transparency, show them this list,” touts the magazine. But to an increasing number of observers, the transparency seems elusive – as does a clear indication of what the CSR industry stands for. 

“Corporate Responsibility magazine’s so-called transparency only extends one layer deep,” observes Sea Change Media executive director Bill Baue. “We can see the categories and weightings, but we can’t see the rationale behind the decisions on actual scoring of company performance.” Baue notes that organizations including Corporate Responsibility collect data from business executives whose names and positions are not revealed, leaving questions about a company’s true impact on society unanswered. “Input from external stakeholders would make the methodology much more robust and credible,” he says.  

Baue isn’t the only one questioning the value of CSR performance rankings. As evidenced by blogs and discussion boards across the web, a growing number of people are frustrated by CSR industry lists and the manner in which they are constructed. Some even perceive a pattern of favoritism. “Unlike programs like the Nobel prizes, Macarthur Fellowships, or Economist Innovation awards, the companies that run CSR awards and lists often have an incentive to fix the results,” says Martin Smith, founder and CEO of CSR industry website Just Means. “For instance, Corporate Responsibility magazine makes money from the companies that it rates in its annual list (through sponsorship, registration fees for events, and brand licensing arrangements). This, in any industry, would be seen as a conflict of interest, but in the realm of CSR and business ethics it is purely hypocritical.”

The backlash against CSR industry lists is nothing new. Last year, financial news site 24/7 Wall Street warned global equity investors to take Ethisphere’s results with a grain of salt, indicating: “the basis on which [the list] was put together is a bit naive and it appears to be troubled by several conflicts of interest.” In 2005, green business writer Joel Makower criticized Corporate Knight’s approach, saying: “The rankings only go so far. The whole exercise raises as many questions as it answers.” And when Corporate Responsibility magazine (previously called Ethical Corporation) first released its list, green media company AlterNet complained: “When one looks at this list, it is easy to be baffled at the real meaning of CSR. It is riddled with companies that have significant blemishes on their record when it comes to environmental matters, labor practices or treatment of customers. The likes of Wal-Mart and Big Oil have not yet made the cut, but that may be only a matter of time.” 

Clearly the time has come, as many of the world’s most profitable oil, food, agriculture, pharmaceutical and retail companies are featured on the latest “most ethical,” “best citizen,” “greenest,” and “most sustainable” company lists. Given this fact, one has to wonder: Is the CSR industry completely missing the point? And if so, then so what?

Critics see several downsides to the muddle. “CSR is often too hard for the average consumer to grasp when making a purchasing decision, so companies use lists as stamps of approval,” says Smith. “But unfortunately, not only are the lists misleading for consumers, they actually bring an overall lack of credibility to the entire field of sustainable business.” 

Given the importance of sustainable business practices to the future of the planet and its people, this lost credibility is a real concern. “The most vital CSR issue to measure is whether a company is operating sustainably, in the scientific sense,” says Baue. “Environmentally, for example, is the company using natural resources at a rate that allows for the planet to regenerate them sufficiently to provide for future generations?  Unfortunately, almost no companies [on the lists] fully integrate sustainability into their business models, and almost no CSR industry lists consider the sustainability context.”

What Next?

If inclusion on a CSR list translates to “millions or even billions in shareholder and brand value” as Corporate Responsibility magazine indicates, then it stands to reason that some investor and consumer wealth is being channeled in the wrong direction – toward companies that, to Baue’s point, may invest a few pennies in CSR, but make millions or billions of dollars in profits by selling things in ways that take a huge toll on society. This isn’t right. But are CSR industry lists entirely wrong? Not according to some profiled companies.

Dave Stangis, vice president of CSR and sustainability at Campbell Soup Company (which ranked number 12 on Corporate Responsibility magazine’s 2010 list) sees both an underlying purpose and a path forward. “No matter how bad a list is, there is something inherently useful about it,” he says. “It is easy to look at a list and poke holes in it, but what I’m trying to do is use the methodology and questions asked to determine what strategic elements I need to improve inside my company.”

Corporate Responsibility’s analysis, conducted by investment firm IW Financial, assesses 360 data points of public information across seven categories, including human rights, philanthropy and environment. But unfortunately, the same breadth of field that helps companies like Campbell’s to identify strategic weaknesses allows controversial companies to slip through the cracks. “People were up in arms this year, wondering how an oil company like Hess could be considered the tenth best corporate citizen,” says Stangis.  “But in terms of the questions IW Financial asks, such as: Does the company measure its carbon footprint? What violations occurred? How many people were injured? Hess fared well, since they got credit on the disclosures.”

Disclosures aside, many are wondering when CSR industry lists will get around to rewarding companies for creating positive value rather than merely mitigating risk. “These lists should showcase companies that are helping us innovative away from industries like oil, vertically integrated agriculture, and so forth,” Smith says. Stangis agrees: “I think the lists of the future are going to have to better address the issue of strategic opportunity. The real question is: can we finally come up with a list that rewards companies for producing products and services that meet unmet [social and environmental] needs, rather than just minimizing potential damage?” 

Surely, that would be something worth recognizing.

 It was an unusually quiet plane ride home. Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz and Share Our Strength Founder Bill Shore had reached the end of a life-changing journey, after having spent several days in Haiti bearing witness to the unthinkable and helping to address earthquake survivor needs.

“We finally let off our last two passengers, celebrity artist Wyclef Jean and a young orthopedic surgeon from Grand Rapids, a father of four who had been in Haiti since day three performing emergency amputations with borrowed farm equipment,” Swartz recounts. “That gave me thirty-five minutes of one-on-one time with Bill, who I never get to be alone with. But I don’t think we said a word to each other the rest of the trip.”

Swartz and Shore were likely in shock. The full-blown mental processing of what they had just endured in and around Haiti would begin later, as they assimilated back into their previous routines. As part of his re-acclamation process, Swartz wrote a series of downloads to Timberland stakeholders – including a Fast Company blog post, which summarizes his takeaways, and a personal letter to employees entitled: “Bearing Witness to Haiti,” which provides a remarkable play-by-play account of his physical and emotional experience.

“I felt I needed to get this off my chest,” says Swartz. “So I wrote about the heroism of the many doctors we saw, the heartbreak of the destruction, the inspiration I felt with Bill and Wyclef, and the indignation I felt at the world’s well-intended but inept efforts to cope with this disaster.”

Also, Swartz says, he wanted to leave people with a solid indication of why a boot-making CEO would personally venture “to hell and back,” as he puts it, despite the risks involved in doing so. Just prior to his trip, reports of street violence in Haiti had escalated as millions of citizens struggled to survive a series of powerful aftershocks without adequate food, water, shelter, government or emergency support. Given the magnitude of the situation, how could a few individuals – let alone a corporate CEO – possibly make a significant difference? And besides, what would Swartz and the Timberland organization stand to gain from such a venture?

“Before I left for this hastily-planned trip, people  – many of them rightfully disgruntled family members – demanded to know what I hoped to accomplish,” Swartz says. “I always replied, honestly, that I didn’t know and wouldn’t know until it happened.”

But Swartz discovered answers in Haiti – several of which hold significance for business leaders interested in blending commerce with conscience. “[What I learned was that] CEO as disaster volunteer is not a good model. But, CEO as witness — that is a different story,” he says. “What my eyes have seen, my heart has felt. And so this voyage is just beginning.” 

World-Changing Leadership

World-changing business leadership requires three things: enhanced perspective – the ability to see clearly issues and patterns of significance that others don’t; personal resolve – the sheer determination to make a positive difference in the world; and formative relationships – the collaborative connections that amplify individual and organizational effectiveness. While in Haiti, Swartz solidified all three.

The experience appears to have permanently bonded Swartz, Shore and Wyclef. Swartz and Shore, who remain dear friends, serve on each other’s boards and recently confirmed their commitment to the Timberland-Share Our Strength cause partnership. Swartz also agreed to serve on Wyclef’s Yéle Haiti Foundation board in an effort to deepen their existing relationship.

The Timberland-Yéle Haiti alliance has resulted in notable innovations since it was formed back in 2009, including a successful line of eco-conscious boots. For every pair of Timberland Earthkeepers™ Yéle Haiti boots sold, Timberland donates $2 to Yéle Haiti to support restoration and environmental education projects in Haiti. 

After the earthquake struck, the relationship took a necessary turn. Wyclef was in Haiti helping to deliver aid, collect dead bodies from the streets and, via CNN and other international news sources, broadcast the urgent need for more efficient disaster relief. At the same time, Yéle Haiti was accused of financial impropriety. That was when Swartz realized he needed to stand by Wyclef in a literal sense. In addition to publicly voicing his support, Swartz joined forces with him on the ground.

“Wyclef is a man of many faces,” writes Swartz in his letter to employees. “We know him as a musician and a celebrity, for sure, but if I jump ahead and tell you about [who I saw in] Wyclef by the end of this voyage, I would speak of an immensely gentle, noble, powerful man — one part dreamer, one part prophet, one part revolutionary. And one part real friend.”

In fact, Clef (as Swartz now calls him) proved himself full of surprises during their Haiti voyage. Upon landing in Port-au-Prince, he casually announced that he had arranged for a meeting between their burgeoning convoy – which now included Swartz, Clef, Shore, action movie star Vin Diesel and an armed security detail – and the President of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez. 

“There I am decked out in my disaster duds: Timberland hiking boots, cargo pants, travel shirt, baseball cap, and Smartwool base layer.  Not exactly presidential visit attire,” recounts Swartz. “Clef whips out a suit he brought, just in case.” 

The meeting proceeds and Swartz is struck by the surreal nature of it all. “There’s Vin and the gun show flexing in one chair, the President looking presidential, Clef suited up, and me in my ‘let’s go hiking’ look.”

Despite his dorky get-up, Swartz, whose Dominican Republic-based boot factory employs approximately 1,800 local citizens and has operated in the country for 25 years, jumped at the opportunity to put his personal resolve into play. He helped do what previous negotiators had failed to: temporarily open the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti so that vital supplies could flow through. 

“What I said was: “Señor Presidente, history is watching. How do you want to be judged? Haitians are dying because aid is not reaching the people, and we can help solve that  problem—with your help. From our warehouses in the Dominican Republic, Timberland can consolidate and ship by our trucking network. Yéle Haiti is prepared to receive and distribute the aid. Are you prepared to let the trucks go through without the usual bureaucracy?”  

President Fernandez agreed. With that, Swartz turned his attentions to the Timberland team, both in the Dominican Republic and back in New England. Failure to move food and supplies across the boarder was no longer an option, Swartz realized, and so he instructed his staff accordingly: “Don’t tell me that you can’t find a way to get stuff across the border,” he told them. “If stuff gets stuck at the border because you guys can’t figure out an innovative way to get the job done, please understand the consequences. If you have to beg, borrow or steal – just make it happen.”

And they did. Later that day, Swartz’s convoy arrived in Cite Soleil – the City of the Sun –  one of the worst slums in Port-au-Prince. In his letter to employees, Swartz portrays a vivid account of his experience handing out 8,000 hot meals to a crowd of starving people. Here is an extended passage:

...Clef says: “Not a lot of blanche (white people) in Cite Soleil. Should be interesting.” Just what I’m looking for – interesting. Because as the convoy weaves through the city, I am reduced to holding the video camera in my lap and filming my knee. I can’t believe the physical destruction. Nor the swarm of humans walking. People walking in the streets — this is one of the overwhelming images of this voyage. Where are they going? What are they seeking? Walking, everywhere. Streets choked with dust and detritus and despair, and folks out walking. Whole blocks just leveled...

We are in the Cite to feed the hungry. We’ve  already seen a UN convoy heading from the airport to distribute food and water — white armored personnel carriers, soldiers in body armor and combat gear, turret gunners manning loaded weapons, sirens blaring, trucks roaring through the clogged streets — just to hand out fifty pound bags of rice. Clef reminds me that good intentions don’t feed people. Fifty pound bags of of rice are not all that helpful when there is no pot, no cooking fire, and no clean water anywhere with which to cook the rice. 

The Yéle model is a little different — we  brought food from the Dominican Republic, food that Yéle purchased, and somehow, in this destroyed city, Clef’s team cooked 8,000 hot meals of Haitian cuisines (goat stew).  Someone “found” 8,000 styrofoam takeout trays from one of the  destroyed restaurants somewhere in town. And found a truck. Here’s the truck, here’s the meals, here’s Clef with a bullhorn shouting in Creole, and here is a mighty river of the hungry, lining up to be fed. With sweat pouring off of everyone, we began to hand out the meals.

It started “OK,” meaning I’m handing meals to human beings, little kids in Creole or French saying “thanks.” I am trying to say something in French for encouragement, we are working hard in the sunny version of hell, but despite everyone’s best efforts, all of a sudden, it starts to get tense. The Yéle volunteers are shouting at the folks in line in Creole: “don’t push, don’t push,” but you could see in the eyes of the mothers and the fathers and the children, everyone watching the pile of cooked meals in the back of the truck get smaller and smaller and a sense of despair and maybe even panic: “Will I get a meal for my child before they run out?”  And so all of a sudden, the business of Sunday lunch heads in the wrong direction — the river of hungry humans becomes a raging river, pressing forward, starting to crush each other and us. And so the security guys – with good  intentions – shove themselves in front of us, and everyone started taking out their weapons. I heard safeties being taken off and I knew we were not far from a really bad situation. 

At this point I was kinda crushed behind a wall of security people, up against the open back of the truck. In front of me, not three humans deep away, there was a little girl. And someone must have stepped on her or something – she started to cry. In the raging ocean of human suffering—her tears and her fear was too much for me. So I reached between two security guys and put my hand on her and shouted in French: “It’s OK, I’m gonna get you.” I couldn’t lift her up; I was wedged too tightly. But now I was back in CEO mode and so I said to the security guy in front of me: “get me that little girl.” And he did. Lifted her up and passed her back to me and I held her tight, in my arms, and she was sobbing and so was I.  I held onto her, maybe eight years old, talking to her in French, and after about 30 seconds she stopped crying.  Because the crushing that was hurting her—that’s gone now. I’m holding her and we’re behind a security guy and so she’s not going to get crushed. So she stopped crying. 

Kills me. My view of the world says, she should have still been crying.  But her view of the world is: “No. I may not have a home, I may be hungry, I may be living in hell – but that’s normal. That isn’t worth crying over. If someone is hurting me on top of all that, then I’ll cry.” I handed her a meal and off she went – as if to say: “I’m going back to the normal despair of my day and I can handle that, don’t need your help, thanks a million and have a good day.”

We went back to handing out the food. The crush didn’t go away, but the fear of a bad scene did. Everyone got their heads around the fact that we had 8,000 meals — not  8,001. So if you get one, great, if you don’t…I don’t know what. Clef exhorting the crowd; people shouting, crying, waiting…I’m still kinda pinned against the truck when, from under the truck, a little brown hand reaches out and grabs my cargo calf. Scared the hell out of me. I  look down, and there is a little hand clutching my leg. Can’t see the child — he or she has crawled through the densest crush of people I’ve ever seen, wriggled under the truck, and grabbed me — signaling: “I beat the line, now give me a meal.” I slipped one down to the hand; the hand grabbed it and vanished.  My heart still has not come back — a child, figuring out how to get a meal…

This is just one of a series of intense experiences that left Swartz traumatized, and yet focused on what needed to be done. “How am I feeling today? I don’t know. I don’t feel so good,” he says. “I still haven’t yet got my mind around the question: How can we let this happen?” 

Swartz admits to being far less patient today than he was before his trip, particularly toward those who perceive insurmountable challenges. “If a small-scale boot maker from New Hampshire, a prophet dreamer called Wyclef and a social justice guru like Bill Shore can take a field trip to Haiti and as a consequence, 8,000 people get served and a [border opens], you can’t tell me it can’t be done,” he says. “This isn’t in my, Clef’s or Billy’s job description – and yet I’ve got the pictures, and I can show you the faces of the people we helped. So when folks say it’s an impossible situation, that’s just not true. We have the intellectual capital. We have the resources. The question is: do we have the will to make the hard choices?”

The will is alive and present at Timberland. As an outdoor company with a direct connection to the environment and local population, Timberland promises to pursue both reforestation projects that repopulate Haiti’s more desolate areas with newly planted trees, as well as broader initiatives that help struggling citizens to help themselves. “We have a strength to share,” Swartz says, “and we are going to share it.”

 Investors are hoarding it to hedge against the dollar’s weakness. Consumers are buying it up in ever increasing volumes. Gold seemingly adds up to big opportunities wherever you look, with US gold jewelry sales representing a growing $17 billion market and China gold jewelry sales reaching nearly 260 billion yuan in 2009. But the fact is that this precious metal has a dark side, too. As gold’s prestige and value increases, so do the implications of the trade itself.

“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 a 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 explore. 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.

If you’re like me you spend a fair portion of each holiday season assembling plastic toys made in China, which often arrive unassembled in several dozen pieces. I have to admit, I do so begrudgingly. Of course I appreciate that all holiday gifts are given with the best of intentions and that, in the spirit of the season, we should appreciate all we have and are given. But the truth of the matter is, however magical the color photos on any given toy box look, what rests inside the package is often another story.

Last Christmas and Chanukah my son received, among other things, the Evenflo Exersauser, Baby Einstein Color Blocks and a Fisher Price Go Diego Boat Toy. While the Exersauser took a painfully long time to put together (the instructions might as well have been written in Chinese), both the Color Blocks and Boat Toy were recalled for a violation of lead paint standards. How do I know this? Because I monitored their status on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) website. How would an average parent who does not obsess about such matters know this? Most wouldn’t, as virtually no marketer spends as much recalling a dangerous product as promoting its sale.

The CPSC’s list of 2009 toy recalls for lead and related safety violations is shockingly long, particularly considering the publicity uproar surrounding the 2007 lead-laced toy recalls, where Mattel Inc. alone took back over 1.5 million toys. Are toy industry standards improving? If they are, then it seems to be happening rather slowly. Companies including Various Toys, DND Imports and TDI International recalled products for lead paint violations in 2009, despite new consumer safety legislation banning lead, beyond minute levels, in children's toys.

Since corporate standards sometimes fail and CPSC auditing resources are themselves limited, dangerous toys inevitably slip through the cracks. The actual number of lead-laced toys on our store shelves is surely higher than we realize. That’s a serious issue since even limited lead exposure can lead to life-long learning and behavioral disorders in children. My sense is that as long as China remains the world’s toy factory, parents get torpedoed by escalating safety and regulatory risks.

The environmental integrity of plastic toys is another matter for consideration, as parents are all but left in the dark as to the ecological and health-related impacts of the chemicals used during the manufacturing process. Many toys sold in the US are made from PVC, a poisonous plastic.

“PVC is the most toxic plastic for our health and the environment,” says the Center for Health, Environment and Justice in a recently published Fact Sheet on PVC and children. “No other plastic releases as many dangerous chemicals. These included dioxins, phthalates, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, lead, cadmium, and organotins. There’s no safe way to manufacture, use or dispose of PVC products.”

There is also no sure-fire way for parents to determine which toys on Toys R’ Us shelves contain PVC and which do not, since no labeling standard exists for the industry. Material disclosure options are left up to individual companies, and most companies opt not to disclose much of anything. That begs a question: What is a concerned parent to do? On the upside, there are some wonderful online resources and product alternatives for those inclined to opt out of the black box, toxic toy system.

I recommend starting with the Green Guide, an online resource containing facts, environmental impact data, product comparisons and shopping information. Browsing through Green Guide it should become fairly clear that one need not sacrifice fun and ingenuity for peace of mind. From PVC and pthalate-free LEGOs to PlaSmart’s PlasmaCar and Radio Flyer’s Earth Wagon, the selection of toys on Green Guide is fairly broad. It includes selections from small as well as larger companies, indicating that that the trend toward eco-friendly toys is not a temporary fad, but rather a genuine shift in the global market.

Global to Green

At the Pottery Barn Kids Corte Madera store, the statement reads loud and clear: Green is here, the company is invested, and quality comes first. A huge wall of environmentally friendly products – cars, cranes, planes, trains, recycling and dump trucks made from sustainable rubberwood and painted with natural, water-based dyes; all-terrain vehicles made of 100 percent recycled eco-plastics; phthalate-free zoo animals and figurines; BPA-free Klean Kanteen® Water Bottles and other amusements – greets arriving customers and provides a wonderful selection of holiday gifts for choosy parents.

“One of Pottery Barn Kids top priorities is the health and safety of children as well as the environment,” says Christina Nicholson, Director of Sustainable Development at Williams-Sonoma Inc. “Offering simple, safe, high-quality products are founding principles of our brand, which is why we have such a variety of eco-friendly products. Our customers have asked for more unique, eco-friendly products and we are excited to be able to offer a broad assortment.”

Unlike so many other mainstream toy brands, Pottery Barn Kids sets a relatively high bar, not just for its designated eco-friendly products, but for everything it sells. Whereas toy industry standards determine 600 lead parts per million as an acceptable lead content range for products sold in the US, Pottery Barn Kids abides by an internal standard of 90 lead parts per million. The company also voluntarily tests for a variety of other compounds, including antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), and selenium (Se). Remarkably, not every toy company does that.

Product development-wise, Nicholson sees expansion opportunities. “Customers are responding very well to our eco-friendly offerings,” she says. “They appreciate the benefits these products offer their home and children. With each season we will focus on growing our eco-friendly product assortment in all categories – toys, furniture, textiles and décor.”

In addition to eco-friendly toys, Pottery Barn Kids also offers FSC-Certified furniture and organic bedding. In 2008 the company reintroduced its Anywhere Chair, which has long been been a staple in the Pottery Barn Kids assortment, with a new “hybrid” insert made from 30 percent sustainable soy-based foam. Further plans for eco-makeovers on existing products, as well as the development of new eco-product lines through partnerships with manufacturers Sprig Toys, Plan Toy and Green Toys, are reportedly in the works.

“We are parents too and we are committed to making sure everything we sell is as safe for our customer’s kids as we demand that it be for our own,” says Nicholson. “We recognize that there is much more to be done, and we are committed to growing even more eco-friendly as a company.”

Nicholson’s attitude is a signal to parents – and smart marketers, too. Some US toy companies puff up their “rigorous standards.” Others blame lax oversight on the part of the Chinese government, or on the part of US regulators for their quality-related woes. On the other hand, Pottery Barn Kids, having made a significant investment in green toys while humbly communicating environmental and safety-related ambitions for the future, gives people a better sense of assurance. They neither over-promise nor under-deliver. And that’s the key to building trust.

Micro-lending website Kiva.org recently hit a major milestone. Since launching four years ago, the organization has facilitated $100 million in microloan transactions between individual lenders and low income entrepreneurs all around the world. Lots of charities target the poor, you may ask, so what makes this organization unique? It’s the approach. 

In order to achieve its mission of connecting people through lending for the sake of alleviating poverty, Kiva employs a strategy of inclusion. It turns what was once an opaque process in both lending and charitable giving on its head, creating greater levels of personal involvement and future commitment. 

A few weeks ago Kiva founder Premal Shah described this process to an audience of thousands at the 2009 Women’s Conference, saying: “When you give to big organizations, you don’t know where your money is going. Here you do. There are short feedback loops and direct transparency. When you browse entrepreneurs’ profiles on Kiva, choose someone to lend to, and then make a loan, you know exactly where your money is going. You can see that you are helping a real person make great strides towards economic independence. Because of the technology we enable, you get an e-mail from that person and establish a connection. That makes it personal.”

What Shah describes also encourages the experience of web-based world change to go viral. People excited about a new process tend to spread the word, and Shah says Kiva has benefited tremendously from this natural momentum: “We don’t even have a marketing person at Kiva, it all just spreads from word of mouth. For every dollar we spend at Kiva, we raise $10 online.”

Other firms are benefiting from technology-enabled connections, too. Ashton Kutcher’s company Katalyst, which is widely known among the Gen Y and Hollywood set for creating savvy social media campaigns, is now convincing large corporations that it’s time to go about communicating social issues and engaging stakeholders in totally new ways. Earlier this year the company joined forces with Kellogg company in order to confront hunger. 

The result of the Katalyst-Kellogg collaboration was a web video featuring a cross section of user generated content, submitted by people moved to help end the growing hunger epidemic in the United States. The aim of the video was to encourage consumers to donate to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger relief organization. The video, accessible on on the KelloggCares Facebook Page www.facebook.com/kelloggcares and numerous other channels, was directed by Demi Moore.

“The web is by far the quickest and most efficient way for companies to activate and organize people,” explains Kutcher. “We don’t just use the web to evangelize a cause, we use it to activate and mobilize people.”

The core idea behind what both Kutcher and Shah stand for, in addition to transparency and openness, is effective engagement. Both feel an urge to harness the power of technology in order to elicit a greater level of participation from the public on key issues that affect our world. They strongly encourage more companies to do the same. 

“Let people be the ambassadors of your cause,” Kutcher says. “There are now dozens of ways to do this. The biggest thing I advocate for is don’t go out and build a website. There are so many social media tools that already exist: Facebook, Twitter, iPhone applications...These are all tools that can be used to create social good. All you have to do is connect them. Just link these tools. Create a loop of technology to get your message out and create a world of good.”

Shah heartily agrees that linking technology applications creates superior social opportunities for companies, and points to how even the simplest advances – from e-mail to cell phones and mobile cash – have upped the ante for Kiva and helped his stakeholders tremendously. As for what the future holds, Shah seems optimistic: “What we are going to see in the next decade is going to be mind-blowing.”

Follow Christine on Twitter