Search

By Russ Stoddard

As a marketing guy who’s spent a large portion of a long career forging connections between companies and causes, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about the state of cause marketing.

And I’ve come to the conclusion that cause marketing needs to die.

Harsh words from someone who’s generally congenial, but here’s why: Cause marketing, which next year celebrates the 40th anniversary of its advent as a campaign between Marriott and the March of Dimes, has become so transparently transactional and self-serving in nature that it’s less and less meaningful to those who make it work -- people like you and me, a growing segment of people who seek meaning and social good from the relationships they form with companies and their brands.

Cause marketing: A victim of its own success

In some ways, cause marketing has become a victim of its own success. It’s ubiquitous. Practically every new restaurant that opens or big brand with a product line extension promotes the “buy now and we’ll make a donation to …” mantra. The spectrum covers the full range, from a majority that’s well-intentioned to those that carry the whiff of near-shyster.

This occasions a superficial abundance of one-offs, intended primarily to juice short-term sales. If beauty is skin deep, then so too is the commitment these types of cause marketing activities demonstrate.

Enough. Me and my credit card, we’re so over it. (Sorry about that, American Express, which, by the way, actually trademarked the term “cause related marketing” after its pioneering campaign to restore the Statue of Liberty in 1983.)

People want more than one-night stands

I don’t think this approach flies with people anymore. People – I won’t call them consumers here – are looking for deeper levels of commitment in every aspect of their lives, including their purchases.

That’s why it’s time for a different take on traditional cause marketing.

We need to change the dynamic from “if you buy something” to “when you buy something … or even if you don’t.”

The good news is that corporate behavior is already starting to change and giving rise to new type of company, a purpose-driven one.

The rise of the purpose-driven company

Making a business model of this intentional act is the heart of the buy-one, give-one movement practiced by companies such as Toms shoes and eyeglass maker Warby Parker, where cause — not cause marketing — is woven into the fabric of the company and its DNA.

Companies themselves are even becoming the causes in some sense – certified B Corps, public benefit corporations and startups founded by social entrepreneurs, whose products, services or business models seek to solve social and environmental problems.

Companies are also moving beyond top-down, scattershot philanthropy by engaging their employees in volunteering and pro-bono partnerships to create enduring ties with nonprofit causes. More than being just the work end of a shovel, employees are also helping make strategic decisions about which nonprofits they engage with, and how they choose to partner with these nonprofits.

This becomes core or central to a company’s purpose and not a sales activity. Forging long-term relationships with a cause that involves capital, both human and financial, comes across for what it is: real. And people respond to real, often with their hard-earned dollars.

It’s not a transaction. It’s a relationship.

Nonprofits, in their own innocent way, are culpable too and must evolve. Nonprofit organizations need to move beyond soliciting logo-splattering sponsorships for cash. That’s transactional. They need to develop a foundation for deeper relationships where they deliver added value beyond the “one-off” to their corporate partners.

This all comes from a place of love. Really. I’ve started several nonprofits, served on numerous nonprofit boards, and helped hundreds of nonprofits raise millions of dollars.

But it’s time for change. I strongly believe that corporations have a unique and powerful ability to create social impact while at the same time delivering value in the marketplace and a bottom-line financial profit.

There’s a growing sense of corporate obligation here, but there's market opportunity, too. People are looking for companies to provide leadership in solving society’s problems. Millennials and their growing economic clout, with other generations following, are increasingly allying themselves to proactive, socially responsible brands — and rewarding these companies with their financial allegiance because of their leadership and commitment.

Corporations and nonprofits simply need to realize it’s not about sales any longer. Or donations. It’s about relationships. And as any marketer worth their salt will tell you, the latter (relationship) begets the former (sales), and is worth more on a lifetime value basis any day.

And that’s a bottom-line result that feels better, too.

What do you think?

Image credit: Flickr/Anja Pietsch

Russ Stoddard builds brands for purpose-driven companies as the founder and president of Oliver Russell.

Procter & Gamble is serious about practicing sustainability, as recent announcements indicate. The most recent announcement concerned greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. The company behind popular brands such as Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Dawn, Febreze and Gillette announced its new goal to reduce absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at its facilities by 30 percent by 2020.

P&G developed the goal with World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The company is also joining the WWF sponsored program, called the Climate Savers Program, which helps companies with their efforts to address climate change.

“Climate change is a global issue and we believe everyone – companies, governments, and individuals – all have a role to play,” said Len Sauers, vice president, global sustainability for P&G, in a statement. “We felt it was important to come forward with an ambitious, science-based goal to help do our part to address the challenges that climate change poses.”

Back in April, P&G announced it is taking climate change seriously, stating that it “recognizes the scientific consensus linking GHG emissions and climate change.” To do so, the company is focusing on certain areas:

• Reducing the intensity of GHG emissions from its operations through energy efficiency measures in its facilities, transitioning to cleaner fuel sources, and driving more energy-efficient modes of transporting its products to customers.


• Helping consumers reduce their own GHG emissions by using its products through more efficient consumer product and packaging use and consumption, and educating consumers about reducing their GHG emissions.


• Partnering with external stakeholders to reduce GHG emissions in its supply chain by ensuring its sourcing of renewable commodities does not contribute to deforestation and developing renewable material replacements for petroleum-derived raw materials.

P&G sets goals to deliver clean drinking water to communities in need

P&G’s second most recent announcement concerns clean drinking water, an issue of high importance throughout the developing world. Clean drinking water can save lives in developing countries. P&G set a goal for its Children’s Safe Drinking Water Program (CSDW) to deliver 15 billion liters of clean drinking water to reduce water borne illnesses. P&G and its global partners have delivered nine billion liters of clean water since the program began over a decade ago.

Over the next five years, P&G will launch over 25 projects to get clean drinking water to the most vulnerable groups in developing countries, including families living in rural areas lacking access to it and malnourished children. Over 840,000 people die each year from water-related disease, according Water.org. That is a population greater than the city of San Francisco.

Image credit: P&G

Procter & Gamble (P&G) has set a new goal to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions from its facilities by 30% by 2020. The goal was developed in partnership with World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 

In addition, the multinational consumer goods giant is joining the Climate Savers Program, a program sponsored by WWF to enable leadership companies to collaborate and accelerate their efforts to address climate change.

“Climate change is a global issue and we believe everyone – companies, governments, and individuals – all have a role to play,” said Len Sauers, vice president, global sustainability for P&G. “We felt it was important to come forward with an ambitious, science-based goal to help do our part to address the challenges that climate change poses.”

P&G has been working in partnership with WWF to develop its new goal and advance its efforts on climate change. “This is a significant commitment that will lead to measurable reductions in P&G’s greenhouse gas emissions while inspiring other companies to step up and take action,” said Suzanne Apple, WWF's senior vice president, private sector engagement.

P&G says it plans to achieve its new goal by maintaining a focus on energy conservation and increasing its use of renewable energy.

 

We've been waiting for it for years. For those who spend a significant amount of their paychecks and consumer strategies avoiding the presence of pesticides and genetically modified organisms in food, it's great news: Organic has finally gone mainstream.

According to some analysts, that boon is due largely to one major corporation. And interestingly, it's not Whole Foods, Natural Grocers or another niche natural foods chain.

Kroger, the owner of Fred Meyer, Ralph's, City Market and Sooper's, has been not-so-quietly setting up shop in the organic sector, building a niche that now includes its own certified line of packaged organic products. And best of all, they meet a criteria that Kroger's main natural foods competitor has been struggling to meet in recent years: They are mainstream-affordable.

But let's be fair here. Is it all Kroger?

Organic foods sales exceeded $39 billion in 2015, according to the Organic Trade Association. While that is only about 5 percent of the revenue generated by food sales in general, it's a growing sector that has supermarket chains fully engaged. As of 2000, reports the USDA, 49 percent of all organic products was sold in conventional supermarkets." And that command of the market has continued to grow. Retailers like Safeway, Albertsons (co-owned now), Walmart and niche locations like Trader Joe's now outsell the corner natural food stores, which have, in some cases, become the more expensive go-to places for high-quality, less-mainstream natural and organic products.

Still, analysts credit Kroger's lower-price marketing strategy as one of the reasons that organic shoppers are growing. Unfortunately for Whole Foods, it's also one of the reason for the drop in its own sales, which following the 2008 recession seemed almost unbeatable. Consumers have realized that sometimes a big-box store will do when it comes to organic foods, especially if the prices are more affordable.

And that realization is also forcing Whole Foods to do a re-think of its own marketing strategies, with a smaller footprint called 365. Lower prices, too, will be part of the concept, says Jim Sud, Whole Foods' vice president of growth and business development.

The new store will be geared toward more conservative pricing and allow millennial consumers to use social media and other technology in the store. It will also do something that the mega-size Whole Foods often didn't: It will try to fill a niche in moderate- to lower-income neighborhoods that don't have a lot of retail food stores, like the adjoining area between Houston's Garden Oaks and Houston Heights neighborhoods. The store, which was due to open this year, will be one of a dozen or so spread across the country.

For the consumer that wants affordable organic and natural foods, and isn't in the position to drive miles to go to one store, these changes are good news. It means more competition across the board.

But given the variety of controversial press Whole Foods has received in recent years, it's worth asking if there is a lesson to be gained in this transition. Is mainstream market success in organic foods all due to downsized pricing? Perhaps if it were, consumers wouldn't have backed it as strongly after the recession.

Kroger's organic success vis-a-vis Whole Foods' forced remake says a lot about consumer mindset -- and the questions that need to be asked when taking on a market that may seem, on the surface, like just a niche concept that no one will else will be able to tackle.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Nicholas Eckhart; Flickr/Osbornb

With urbanization on the rise in the U.S., coupled with the lack of appetite for investment in major infrastructure projects, cities are looking for new ways to manage growth in this era of tight budgets.

Hence the smart cities movement, which has a different meaning depending on who you ask. Attracting new industries, solving transportation gridlock and ensuring environmental sustainability are just a few examples that fall under this umbrella, as municipal leaders seek new ideas to make their communities viable and attractive places for residents to live, learn, work and play.

This week, the Obama administration announced a new smart cities initiative that promises $160 million in federal grants to help cities find new solutions to timeless problems. The total amount is coming from a bevy of federal agencies -- which either signals greater collaboration, or a turf war. The agencies involved include the National Science Foundation; the departments of Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Projects that will be funded range from a “research infrastructure” for smart cities to funds for health care, public safety, transport and climate preparedness. Critical to the implementation of these programs will be a partnership with the research initiative MetroLab. Based in Pittsburgh, the organization is an alliance of 20 metropolitan areas and 25 universities that are focused on the research, development and implementation of technologies that can enable communities to leverage technology so that they can become more efficient and sustainable.

These programs are an expansion of what the White House claims is a locally-based and technology-focused approach to help cities deal with growth and infrastructure challenges. Along with the federal monies to be dispersed, the White House also announced a variety of public-private programs that are underway to assist cities in coping with issues related to economic growth, water, energy and waste.

IBM, for example, will work with the mayor’s office in Detroit to find new ways to remove blight and debris from abandoned properties. New York City will open laboratories across its five boroughs to test and deploy new smart cities technologies. And Santa Clara County, which is hosting Super Bowl 50, will create a partnership of municipal agencies and the San Francisco 49ers to optimize local public safety and public transportation systems.

This week’s announcement will foment its fair share of catcalls, especially from those who have long insisted that the United Nations' voluntary Agenda 21 sustainable development guidelines are an affront to America sovereignty. The mention of technology also will bring up images of Jade Helm 15, the military exercises in the American Southwest that some feared were a way for the federal government to impose martial law in Texas.

But in all seriousness, and in the context of the size of the federal government’s budget, these smart cities programs offer the chance to experiment with cost-effective solutions that, if successful, can be replicated across the country and even the world. And the fact remains that while many of us lament federal largess, the reality is that the government often wastes money by refusing to spend smaller amounts of money upfront to solve a problem — instead, bureaucrats wait until disaster strikes, with the result that millions, or even billions, are spent to fix massive infrastructure failures that could have been prevented if a smaller amount had been spent when problems were evident in the first place.

One example of how technology can help avoid pricey infrastructure projects is a smart sewer system in South Bend, Indiana, home to Notre Dame University and approximately 100,000 residents. The city harnessed a technology, CSOnet, which monitors wastewater in real-time through a system of wireless sensors installed throughout the city’s sewer mains.

At times of excessive rainfall, these sensors can automatically instruct so-called smart valves to redirect outflows to avoid discharge into the city’s largest river. In addition to the environmental benefits, South Bend avoided $120 million in conventional civil engineering projects’ costs, notably the digging up of city streets and sidewalks, by investing $6 million in the software.

If the end result of this smart cities program is a 21st-century approach to solving problems that date back to the 19th century, the results could be a collective big bang for the buck.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

The countdown to Climate Week NYC 2015 is well underway, and this year's events are poised to be bigger than ever.

Organized by leading sustainability nonprofit the Climate Group, Climate Week NYC is the annual international platform for governments, businesses and civil society to collaborate on low-carbon leadership and innovation. This year's lineup features more than 150 affiliate events all over New York City, ranging from public gatherings in Times Square to panel discussions headed up by organizations like the Ford Foundation, Baker & McKenzie and Columbia University.

With U.N. discussions on the Sustainable Development Goals taking place during Climate Week in New York City and COP21 on everyone's minds, 2015 is shaping up to be an "important year for the climate," Eduardo Gonçalves, international communications director for the Climate Group, said in a media briefing last month. So, it's even more important to make the business case for climate action and a low-carbon society -- and both COP delegates and the public will be watching to see which corporate announcements come out of Climate Week.

Climate action: The role of the private sector

In late August, General Mills announced a commitment to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent across its full value chain – from farm to fork to landfill – over the next 10 years. The commitment was calculated using science-based methodologies in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CEO Kendall Powell said during a Climate Week media briefing in August.

The private sector is uniquely poised to innovate when it comes to tackling supply chains and achieving carbon reductions that will help us move the needle, Powell told journalists.

"Companies deal with risk all the time, and we get paid basically to mitigate risks," Powell said. "So, these are actually muscles that are very well-developed in organizations ... We're very good at piecing together action plans and mitigating risk."

General Mills is one of 289 companies and investors committed to curb GHGs through the We Mean Business coalition (WMB). Launched at Climate Week NYC 2014, WMB helps businesses and investors rally around climate action. The coalition started big, with Apple CEO Tim Cook and Ikea CEO Peter Agnefjäll issuing public calls-to-action, and it now works with thousands of the world’s most influential businesses and investors.

It also partners with the Climate Group and CDP on the RE100 initiative, in which leading firms commit to using 100 percent renewable energy.

The organization will host a panel at Climate Week, where we can expect climate action announcements from the likes of Procter & Gamble and Walmart, Nigel Topping, CEO of We Mean Business, said during a Climate Week media briefing.

Don't miss a beat

Thanks to support from Mars, TriplePundit will be tweeting and reporting all the action from New York City during Climate Week. Keep an eye out for announcements coming out of the U.N. SDG discussions, the U.N. Private Sector Forum, the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative and more.

We're also expecting big climate action announcements from top companies like Mars and Time Warner Cable. Bookmark this page to make sure you don't miss a beat.

Image credit: Sam Forson/Pexels

A California Senate bill would have required a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030. Last week, California Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate Democrats caved in to pressure from oil industry lobbyists and dropped the provision, the New York Times reports.

The bill, SB 350, passed the Senate, which Democrats control. The bill requires that the amount of renewable energy generated and sold to retail customers be increased to 50 percent by 2030. Currently, California requires that utilities get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The bill will still move forward, but without the 50 percent petroleum reduction.

Both state Senate leader Kevin de Leon and Gov. Brown gave statements last Friday about the 50 percent petroleum reduction provision being dropped from SB 350. Both made it clear that the oil industry may have won this battle, but not the war.

“Oil has won the skirmish. But they've lost the bigger battle,” said Gov. Jerry Brown at a Capitol news conference on Wednesday when the changes were announced. “Because I am more determined than ever.”

“Big Oil might be on the right side of their shareholder reports, but we’re on the right side of history,” Kevin de Leon, the Senate Democratic leader and main champion of the bill, said in announcing the decision. “And ultimately, California is going to demand that an industry which represents most of the problem has an economic and moral duty to be part of the solution.”

An anti-SB 350 campaign called “No on SB 350” highlights the type of rhetoric oil lobbyists used to speak out against the 50 percent petroleum reduction provision. The Facebook page for No on SB 350 urges Californians to contact their “state legislator today and tell them SB 350 doesn’t add up.” It also states that the campaign is part of the California Driver’s Alliance, an effort by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). The WSPA’s website states that the California Driver’s Alliance is a program by the WSPA “on matters related to mandates impacting fuel costs and availability."

Here’s what the No on SB 350 campaign says about the petroleum reduction provision: “While California petroleum fuel providers are committed to helping the state lead the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we believe SB 350’s fuel reduction mandate is an impossibly unrealistic goal.” The campaign also says that SB 350 “makes no provision for what will replace the 50 percent in lost petroleum.”

A pro-SB 350 campaign points out a few facts about the petroleum reduction provision:

• It requires the petroleum reduction to be cost-effective and technologically feasible.


• It requires any actions to be based on validated scientific and engineering data.


• It explicitly requires an economic analysis that takes into account impacts on fuel manufacturers, consumer acceptance, the state’s competitive position with other neighboring states, and the costs to consumers.

Unfortunately, politics sometimes requires a politician to compromise even when they passionately believe in what they are proposing. In order to increase the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 50 percent, the state Senate and Gov. Brown were forced to compromise, but it’s probably a safe bet to assume that down the line they will try again to get a petroleum reduction.

Image credit: Flickr/Marianne Muegenburg Cothern

Many of its brands — and commercials -- may be iconic, from Meow Mix to Alpo, but the fact is that the pet food industry is a relatively new business. For millennia, cats and dogs were simply fed unwanted table scraps. Go to a timeless fish market like the Besiktas in Istanbul, and the chances are high that visitors will see a fishmonger feeding a feline the day’s scraps. Wander through the timeless Central Market in Athens and observers will watch the same thing, only with tidbits of beef and lamb.

Fast forward to the post-World War II era, however, and it was then that many food companies saw the benefits of marketing formulated pet foods to dog and cat owners. Growing affluence and the demand for convenience together inspired companies including General Foods, Nabisco and Purina (now owned by Nestlé) to enter the pet food sector. The profit margins were huge, as food waste that previously would have been discarded was recycled into what quickly became a lucrative new business.

As a result, dog and cat food products comprise a large part of the massive pet industry. Giant food companies such as Mars and Nestlé see even more opportunity in this market, which in the U.S. alone is undergoing more 10-figure mergers and acquisitions as its estimated worth has surged to over $23 billion annually.

But in recent years, there have been several scares for pet owners, as well as for many pet food companies’ bottom lines. The massive melamine pet food recall of 2007, which resulted from contaminated ingredients imported from China, gave a black eye to the Food and Drug Administration and some of the country’s largest pet food manufacturers. Organizations including the Humane Society are pushing the FDA to adopt more stringent rules than the ones currently on the books.

More recently, accusations that human slavery has become a part of some of the world’s largest pet food manufacturers’ supply chains are serving as a wake up call. Companies are starting to get the message that if they do not clean up their acts and show improvement in how their products are manufactured, their most vocal critics could convince politicians to tighten the regulatory screws. Whether these companies' moves will mollify their critics, however, is another story.

One of those companies is Nestlé, which owns a large portion of the global pet food market with its $11 billion Nestlé Purina Petcare subsidiary. This week the company announced it had joined Field to Market, a multi-stakeholder organization that claims it is “providing collaborative leadership” to increase food production while incorporating more sustainable and responsible farming methods worldwide.

Like most press releases, the Nestlé-Field to Farm announcement is long on platitudes and short on specifics. That muted tone is in part because of the composition of Field to Farm: While the organization claims a diverse coalition, a closer look reveals that its membership is mostly large companies with a roster including McDonald’s and Monsanto; some of the country’s largest agribusiness trade associations; and two NGOs, the Nature Conservancy and WWF, both of which have been accused by many of their opponents of “selling out” their ideals in return for lucrative donations from the world’s largest multinationals.

One company not on that list is Mars, the pet food portfolio of which includes brands such as Whiskas, Pedigree and Iams. The company has pledged to eliminate fish listed as vulnerable from its products. While Mars has a ways to go in Europe and Asia, its pet food division says 100 percent of its seafood-based pet foods in North America are 100 percent sustainably sourced.

As Americans — and other affluent societies — become more attached to their pets, finding the right menu for that pooch or kitty can get confusing. But the lessons are not that different from feeding ourselves: less processed foods, as products with the least ingredients will prove more healthful for your pet; vetting opinions from a trusted veterinarian and trusted friends and family who have long owned pets; and scouring the Internet for trusted evaluations on that suggested pet food brand, together are the best way to cut through all the noise as the “we are sustainable, too” chorus now applies not just to makers of human food, but pet food as well.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

By Anna Palmer

Water scarcity remains a global problem. Indeed, demand for water could exceed supply by 40 percent ... by the year 2030! Indeed, current statistics indicate that a mere 1 percent of the water on earth is freshwater. And, given the change in climate, even that 1 percent is under threat.

In other words, it’s vital to start taking immediate action to combat excessive water use.

Why the hospitality industry?

There are a number of reasons that the hospitality industry should be at the forefront of reducing water usage. For starters, it would benefit them: Hotels will often pay twice for the water they use, purchasing fresh water but then disposing of it as waste. Indeed, it’s been estimated that they could cut down their water use by up to 50 percent, per guest, per night if they put the right processes in place.

Of course, the ethical argument is more compelling. Water is a scarce resource, and everyone has a duty to reduce the amount that they waste. Reducing the amount of wastewater requiring treatment in turn lessens the overall risk of water pollution.

Research conducted by Stockholm International Water Institute shows that almost 20 percent of the world’s population currently live in areas where water is genuinely scarce. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that a typical 300-room hotel will use around 60,000 gallons of water each day: nearly 200 gallons per room.

What’s in it for the hospitality industry?

There is a multitude of reasons why being ethical can be advantageous for the hospitality industry. Here are three of them:

• If a hotel can demonstrate a positive impact on water scarcity, this is almost instant positive PR.


• People want to work for an ethical company, so the quality of applicants for jobs can increase.


• Customers who are aware of the cause are also likely to seek out venues that are doing their bit to help save water.

So, how does a hotel actually go about saving water?

One of the great things about the hospitality industry is that it’s possible to take action immediately. There are a lot of different areas in which slight adjustments can help to save water.

Let’s start looking round the hotel …

Guest rooms

More and more hotels are now asking guests to request clean sheets and towels each day, rather than providing them as a matter of course. This is obviously a great way to instantly start saving water, and if a hotel doesn’t already do this, it’s a brilliant place to start. Reusing towels, for instance, might seem minor but can make a big difference.

Dual-flush toilets and water-efficient showers are also worth a look, as they will start saving water immediately when compared to the older models. Of course, any hotel just starting out should install them from the offset.

Public amenities

The same should go for the public amenities: Sensor-operated urinals and dual-flush toilets, as well as water-efficient taps, will instantly start saving water. The energy-efficient taps can also be used in the kitchens: Combining this with flow regulators will help kitchens use less water.

Cooling towers

Cooling towers might not be an immediately obvious way in which to cut down water usage, but a combination of regular maintenance and increasing the cycles of concentration can have a positive impact.

Public pools

Public swimming pools are, unsurprisingly, worth looking at. Though it might seem a bit contradictory when looking to save water, it’s important to ensure regular maintenance and regulated backwash: Essentially, the cleaner the pool stays, the less the water will need to be replaced in the long term.

The laundry room

Finally, a hotel should take a closer look at their laundry list. As well as asking guests to request clean sheets and towels, reusing rinse water, recycling cooling water and using high quality AAA-rated washings can all make a great contribution.

Image credits: 1) Pexels 2) Flickr/Dan McKay

Anna Palmer is an interior designer, currently working with Hugo Oliver, a company that continually work to develop ethically-focused products such as dual flush toilets and water efficient showers, as well as a number of other lines.

Education doesn’t only revolve around the palm-sweating need for top rankings and high standardized test scores. Education also includes the everyday moments in between. Like, when you save a turtle in the road or a lady bug from drowning in the pool. Not to make light of doing well in school and on the SATs — those are critical, but there is value on the journey as well.

We’ve all been taught the importance of Mother Earth, albeit with industrialization taking its toll on the globe, but there is a strong need for more emphasis. Fortunately, sustainable programs have been sprouting up in academic institutions and are continuing to grow. These programs are growing strong roots in schools from elementary to higher education.

Life’s a garden, dig it

It’s refreshing to see many gardens springing up at schools. This version of a sustainable program is geared at cultivating a sense of pride in the community. There is nothing like saving money at the grocery store when you can stop in at the school garden for locally-grown goodies.

The school garden, garden club and environmental science programs offer students fundamental concepts in learning that life is interconnected and includes cycle changes. Not only should the school garden be used for growing but for utilizing compost, harvesting and creating recipes for seasonal pickings. This priceless education gives students the ability to put their hands on food that is grown straight from nature while tasting unique flavors. A garden is an excellent way to embed knowledge on how sustainability can flourish to infinity and beyond.

No more energy vampires

Green schools reduce energy costs by 35 percent every school year, which is equivalent of $3 billion nationwide. That is a significant impact. The Green Schools Alliance (GSA) is one of many programs that are designed to help schools use less energy, reduce costs and make choices toward sustainability.

Many buildings are known for over-illumination during the day and light pollution at night. Schools are implementing energy audits that go into detail about the type of energy a building is using, where it’s coming from and how much is used. Knowledge is power in finding new ways to save and use energy, pun intended!

Energy efficient practices includes, monitoring temperatures, choosing natural light over artificial, using solar panels, and choosing energy saving technology. Energy efficiency, though a great way to save, is more than just saving dollars — it’s saving the planet and that’s priceless.

Energy efficiency teaches students over consumption and the negative effects it has on the environment. This lesson creates healthy habits towards the initiative to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases omitted in the atmosphere. This provokes students to think forward about the future — today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders.

Degrees in sustainability

A growing number of higher education programs are offering environmental science degrees that solely focus on sustainability. These programs train and educate students on practicing in ways that put the environment first. It’s quite obvious how the earth is in dire straights of more sustainable methods, so a degree in sustainability seems like a stellar career move. This college program is not only personally rewarding but rewarding for the environment as well. That sounds like 360 of awesomeness. The planet needs an expanding team of intelligent tree huggers dressed in wolves clothing to roam the streets and advocate for our planet.

Innovations that are being practiced are: composting cafeteria food while reducing landfill waste, the use of LEED lighting, the availability of wind and solar energy and offerings of local produce. Here are some of the top green U.S. colleges where students are leading the way to a greener planet:

• Tufts University


• Warren Wilsons College


• University of New Hampshire


• Middlebury College


• The University of Colorado, Boulder

Planting educational methods in sustainability throughout our educational institutions is vital and a wise choice in pursuing a more environmental friendly way of life.

Image credit: Flickr/Choiyaki