Joe Sibilia, CEO of CSRwire said, “As one of PR Newswire’s key CSR distribution partners, CSRwire welcomes this effort in streamlining CSR news distribution.”

CSR Room is a single, online engagement platform that offers easy-to-use content management tools to help a company keep its target audiences informed about their CSR contributions, programs and activities, on a real-time basis. Opportunities to inform global audiences about sustainability programs, philanthropic efforts, clean energy advances, etc. can easily be shared through PR Newswire’s new CSR communication tool.

“We are pleased to partner with CSRwire to help us market the CSR Room,” said Susan McPherson, Vice President, CSR Services at PR Newswire. “PR Newswire’s distribution, monitoring and engagement services provide a complete solution for companies to communicate with media, investors, CSR-focused audiences and the general public. With the new CSR Room service, both public and private organizations can now more easily communicate their efforts on environmental and social issues to audiences and further raise the profile of their CSR initiatives. CSR Room can also help companies comply with the SEC climate change-related disclosure requirements in a timely, relevant manner.”

CSR Room top features include: 

• Showcases all CSR-related programs, reports, videos and other activities




• No IT training required – can easily customize a company’s template with the corporate logo, banners and unique URL




• Automatically posts the CSR-related news PR Newswire distributes




• Leverages built-in SEO tools to help a company’s Web site rank higher in search engines




• Offers one-click press release distribution (through PR Newswire and CSRwire’s featured press releases), RSS feeds and archiving capabilities




• Provides analytics reports 24/7 that show where traffic is coming from, what visitors are doing on the CSR site, how long they spend on each page and more

Jan Morgan, President of CSRwire said, “The CSR wire and PR Newswire partnership helps deliver more corporate socially-responsible news and enables organizations to maximize their ‘green’ focus while expanding their overall media reach at the same time.”

To learn more about PR Newswire’s CSR Room, please visit: http://prn.csrroom.com/.

About CSRwire
CSRwire is the leading source of corporate social responsibility and sustainability press releases, reports and information. CSRwire members are companies and NGOs, agencies and organizations interested in communicating their corporate citizenship, sustainability, and socially responsible initiatives to a global audience through CSRwire’s syndication network and Daily News Alerts. CSRwire content covers issues of Diversity, Philanthropy, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Environment, Human Rights, Workplace Issues, Business Ethics, Community Development, Corporate Governance and much more.

About PR Newswire
PR Newswire is the global leader in innovative communications and marketing services, enabling organizations to connect and engage with their target audiences worldwide.

Through its multi-channel distribution network, audience intelligence, targeting, measurement and compliance services, PR Newswire helps corporations and organizations conduct rich, timely and dynamic dialogues with the media, consumers, policymakers, investors and the general public, in support of building brands, generating awareness, impacting public policy, driving sales, and raising capital.

Pioneering the commercial news distribution industry 55 years ago, PR Newswire connects customers with audiences in more than 170 countries and in over 40 languages through an unparalleled network of offices in 16 countries across North and South America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and via unique affiliations with the leading news agencies across the globe. PR Newswire is a subsidiary of United Business Media Limited (UBM.L), a leading global business media company that serves professional commercial communities around the world. For more information, go to www.unitedbusinessmedia.com.

The ruling is a further blow to the Government’s efforts to raise awareness of the threat of global warming following the “climategate” scandal and questions about the United Nations’s presentation of the risks of global warming.

Two posters juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

Ed Gillespie, the co-founder of Futerra Sustainability Communications, said it was “rubbish communication” that has given climate change sceptics another opportunity to cast doubt on the science.

However he insisted it was a good learning process for the Government. In future he predicted more positive messages will be used to encourage people to take action against climate change rather than using fear as a motivation.

“It has taken us back several years where we have a higher percentage of sceptics but I suspect the bounce back will help get the communication right,” he said.

Prof Mark Maslin, Director of the University College London Environment Institute, also said the Government needs to improve how it communicates the problems of climate change.

“There is a fine line between raising awareness about the potential serious threat from climate change and simply frightening people. The public deserve a better communication strategy from the government which shows them the scientific evidence for climate change and the different options we have to deal with it,” he said.

“As the science does not drive policy, so people and politicians must weigh different competing issues – of which climate change is just one. So I believe using popular nursery rhymes is too simplistic a communication tool for the complex and challenging issue of climate change, with which the public needs to engage.”

Climate change sceptics claim that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the science around global warming in a scandal known as “climategate”. UN body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been forced to retract a claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, feared the ASA ruling could be further used by sceptics to cast doubt on the science.

But he pointed out that it is very difficult to predict the impacts of climate change in small geographic locations like the UK.

“This does not mean that extreme events in the UK will not increase in frequency and severity, only that our ability to estimate future changes is limited at present. So-called ’sceptics’, who promote complacency and denial about the causes and consequences of climate change, will no doubt use this ASA ruling as a propaganda tool in an attempt to mislead the public. But the public should be sceptical of anybody who uses this ruling to claim that there will be no change to extreme weather events in the UK if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere carry on rising,” he said.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph

THE RESPONSIBILITY REVOLUTION: How the Next Generation of Businesses Will Win (Jossey Bass; March 15, 2010. $27.95), argues that for too long, our definition of what constitutes “responsible” corporate behavior has been dangerously timid and blinkered. To confront the economy’s and society’s daunting challenges, companies must do more than monitor factories, donate to charities, and trumpet efforts to be a little less bad. The responsibility revolution is about reimaging companies from within: innovating new ways of working; instilling a new logic of competing; redefining the very purpose and possibility of business.

Written by Jeffrey Hollender, co-founder and chairman of Seventh Generation, the country’s leading brand of non-toxic household products and a pioneering “good company,” and Bill Breen, the co-author with Gary Hamel of The Future of Management, this blueprint for CSR 2.0 tells how revolutionary companies – ranging from industry heavyweights like IBM, Nike and British merchandising giant Marks & Spencer to emerging dynamos like Linden Lab and Etsy – are winning customers and driving profits by:

• Taking on a cause. Revolutionary responsible companies believe that what you stand for is far more important than what you sell. When Organic Valley organized itself around a mission that mattered—saving the family farm—it sparked employees’ imaginations and became a magnet for powerful partners. The result: it’s now the nation’s second largest brand of organic dairy products.
• Daring to wear the see-through. To be a truly responsible company, you can’t be opaque. So the Danish pharmaceutical Novo Nordisk, the world’s largest maker of insulin, invites animal-welfare activists to tour its labs and improve its protocols for animal experimentation, which were later incorporated in the Council of Europe’s guidelines on the protection of animals in medical research. The drug-maker understands that by acting transparently, it stands a better chance of turning critics into collaborators.
• Scaling innovation. Green marketing campaigns don’t cut it anymore; insurgent good companies focus on innovation rather than reputation. Nike harnesses the creativity of its designers through the Considered Index, which rates the ingredients for each product and suggests more sustainable alternatives. The 2009 Air Jordan XX3 is the first version of Nike’s most celebrated sneaker to marry sustainability and performance—and is expected to sell 500,000 pairs.

These and many more actionable strategies from the book will help businesses large and small win the race to the future. In fact, a recent study by A.T. Kearney found that during the recession, companies authentically committed to sustainability outperformed their industry peers by an average of 15%, adding an average of $650 million to their market capitalization. As the economy improves, doing good will be the key to doing well.

About the Authors of The Responsibility Revolution

Jeffrey Hollender has led Seventh Generation from its humble beginnings to its current position as the nation’s fastest growing brand of natural home and personal-care products. As the leading authority on issues related to green consumerism, he frequently addresses social and environmental responsibility issues at national and international venues. He co-founded and was a director of Community Capital Bank, a New York financial institution that invests in affordable housing and community development. He serves on the Board of Directors of Greenpeace USA, Healthy Child Healthy World, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, the Environmental Health Fund, Verite, and Alloy Inc. He’s also helping to build the American Sustainable Business Council, a national coalition of executives and entrepreneurs who are working to create a more equitable and sustainable economy.

Bill Breen is Seventh Generation’s editorial director and the co-author, with Gary Hamel, of The Future of Management. He was the founding senior editor on the original team that launched Fast Company, where he wrote some of the magazine’s most talked about articles on design, leadership, competition, innovation, and risk. He speaks to business audiences throughout the country and has appeared on CNN, Fox, CBS Radio, National Public Radio, and other media outlets.

For a limited time, the first chapter of the Responsibility Revolution is available for download HERE

A working mom with three boys, Culver wants to buy “earth-friendly” products, as she puts it. Instead, she often goes home with the “old stuff that’s probably bad for you.” Like millions of other consumers, Culver isn’t sure if the products tagged as green really are.

And who could blame her?

On one end of the aisle, a Green Works dishwashing liquid sports both an EPA Design for the Environment seal and a Sierra Club logo. A few steps away, the Nature’s Source toilet bowl cleaner assures customers it’s adhering to the “Greenlist” process. And Palmolive’s Eco-plus dishwasher detergent claims it’s “better for lakes and streams.”

“I’ve tried this before,” says Culver, motioning toward the Scott Naturals toilet paper (“green done right”) on the other side of the aisle. “But it’s only 40 percent recycled, so I’m not sure if that’s good.”

Recycled. Organic. Natural. Biodegradable. Non-toxic… Welcome to the murky and largely unregulated world of green marketing, in which manufacturers tag their products with a hodgepodge of highly-regarded terms.

According to Ecolabelling.org, there are nearly 90 different eco-labels in North America alone. They cover dozens of product categories and take wildly varying approaches to determining whether a product is environmentally worthy.

Standard-setting programs such as the Forest Stewardship Council, National Organic and Energy Star isolate a single component of a product’s environment impact. Others take a more ambitious, life-cycle approach, seeking to measure everything from the raw materials that go into a product and the energy used to ship it to the item’s eventual disposal.

While some labeling systems have rigorous, science-based standards that were developed in collaboration with reputable outside experts, others are not so picky.

“With some labels, they’re just saying, ‘Send me $100 and I’ll give you a sticker,’” says Scot Case, executive director of EcoLogo, a third-party certification system for sustainable products run by consulting firm TerraChoice. In 2008 and 2009, TerraChoice researchers surveyed more than 2,200 products in the United States and Canada and found that more than 98 percent were guilty of “greenwashing”—in the form of everything from vagueness and irrelevance to downright fabrication.

This messy label landscape has been called a “tower of ecobabble” and a source of “green fog,” generating a looming sense of disaster among many in the green marketing community. “All it takes is a few big scandals about something not being very green—after it was promoted as green—and consumers will stop trusting,” says Anastasia O’Rourke, co-founder of the research firm Big Room, Inc.

Already, the Federal Trade Commission has charged four textile manufacturers with falsely claiming that their rayon clothing and other textile products are “100 percent bamboo fiber,” with bamboo’s antimicrobial properties. And, this past summer, the agency went after manufacturers of “biodegradable” plates, wipes and dry towels, stating that most of these products end up in landfills where they do not biodegrade.

“This issue has to be resolved before consumers just give up,” says Case. “It could kill a big business opportunity.”

Fortunately, efforts toward a unified authority on what’s green, both for the consumer and industrial marketplaces, are now in progress. Such an über-label would be publicly available and developed in a transparent way.

A frontrunner of these efforts is Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Consortium, which has convened an impressive roster of more than a dozen Fortune 500 manufacturers, as well as various environmental groups and universities.

“Wal-Mart’s got the best chance of doing this because they’ve got the market power,” says Tim Smith, director of the NorthStar Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment. “If they don’t succeed, we’re set back another 10 years. If Wal-Mart doesn’t do it, no one will—the challenge being, can we live with Wal-Mart’s rules?”

Jay Golden, an assistant professor at Arizona State University’s School of Sustainability and co-director of Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Consortium, says the group is working on developing “a common language and a common set of rules” that companies can use for free. The resources will be available via Earthster and other open-source technology platforms to assess the environmental life-cycle impacts of their products. Rather than award labels or certifications, the consortium will let manufacturers share the results of their assessments to both retail customers and consumers as they see fit.

It’s no simple task. The consortium’s data will span hundreds of products, while the group evaluates a profusion of existing labels and certification programs. The goal is to decide which ones can be incorporated into the consortium’s final product and which categories will need new standards.

EcoLogo’s Case predicts that Golden and his team will need to create a lot of new green standards. Despite the growing ranks of green labels, there are still many categories for which no reliable assessments exist. Nobody, for instance, certifies baby products, mattresses or cell phones. Case estimates that existing eco-labels cover only 10 percent of product categories. He says EcoLogo, which certifies everything from paints to cleaning and paper products, is just now developing standards for toys.

Another Herculean challenge facing the Sustainability Consortium is actually convincing manufacturers to adopt new sets of environmental rules and standards. Across the consumer landscape, manufacturers have largely shunned third-party, life-cycle-based labels, embracing only a few single-attribute programs like Energy Star and Fair Trade. Most companies have opted to fashion their own criteria.

“Companies often feel that using a third-party certifier like ourselves borders on regulation, so there’s a lot of hesitation and backlash,” says Linda Chipperfield, vice president of marketing and outreach at Green Seal. “They want their own brand to be the one that’s known as green.”

This widespread reluctance is understandable. Research shows that most consumers don’t distinguish between products that have gone through an actual certification and those where the manufacturer decided to slap a few trees on the packaging and call it earth-friendly.

Initially, the Sustainability Consortium’s efforts could create more confusion before they do any good. The group’s first initiative, a standard for green electronics, will eclipse much of the work of the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT, which has been successful among government and industrial buyers, is now making progress in the consumer marketplace. Currently, Buy.com, Best Buy for Business and TechDepot identify EPEAT-qualified products on their Web portals, with more retailers to come.

So, in some areas, the Sustainability Consortium may be trying to reinvent the wheel, says EPEAT Executive Director Jeff Omelchuck. “Lots of people have worked to develop these standards. If they wanted to they could use EPEAT for free, so it makes some of us wonder why they don’t.”

Golden says the Sustainability Consortium’s electronics standard will incorporate EPEAT, but will go beyond it to include things like the labor conditions under which computers are manufactured.

The good news: There’s an unprecedented awareness that the eco-label problem needs to be fixed. The Keystone Center, a nonprofit headquartered in Keystone, Colo., has convened a roundtable of manufacturers, trade associations, environmental groups and certifiers to look at how the cacophony of labels can be harmonized. And the David and Lucile Packard Foundation is underwriting an extensive study that will assess how much green standards like the Marine Stewardship Council and Fair Trade are impacting both consumer buying patterns and producer practices.

The not-so-good news: It’s going to take several years before we reach a productive conclusion. “It’s a long haul, but I’m confident it will get sorted out,” says Big Room’s O’Rourke.

Until then, shoppers like Denise Culver will have to proceed through the fog with caution. Let’s hope a standard emerges before green fatigue sets in.

By MELANIE WARNER, a Boulder, Colo.-based freelance writer who covers food, the environment and green business. Her articles have appeared in The New York Times,Fast Company and Business 2.0, among other print and Web publications.

Source: Momentum from the University of Minnesota

But is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?

Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.

In what follows, I will offer a brief survey of the economics of climate change or, more precisely, the economics of lessening climate change. I’ll try to lay out the areas of broad agreement as well as those that remain in major dispute. First, though, a primer in the basic economics of environmental protection.

By Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist and winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. His latest book is “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008.”

Source: The New York Times

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE

It would be much easier to compile a list of the top 50 books, which is exactly what the University of Cambridge’s programme for sustainability leadership has just done. It asked its alumni – “around 2,000 senior leaders from around the world who have participated in its sustainability programmes over the past decade or more” – to list some of their favourite “sustainability” books.

The result is a pretty comprehensive rundown of the most influential and thought-provoking books of all time. There are many classics – Silent Spring, Fast Food Nation, The Limits to Growth, The Population Bomb, Small is Beautiful, A Sand County Almanac – but there are also a few omissions, too. Where’s Henry David Thoreau’s Walden? Where’sThomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded? Where’s Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature?

And should fiction be allowed onto the list, too? How about Cormac McCarthy’s The Road? Or Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang?

Of course, there’s always that debate about what you mean by the term “sustainability”, but let us for the sake of argument say that in this instance it refers to books that make you think long and hard about how best to exist within a fragile biosphere blessed with finite resources.

Which books would make your own list?

The full list (in alphabetical order)

Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the battle Against World Poverty, by Muhammad Yunus1999

Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, by Janine Benyus, 2003

Blueprint for a Green Economy: by David Pearce, Anil Markandya and Edward B. Barbier, 1989

Business as Unusual: My Entrepreneurial Journey, Profits and Principles, by Anita Roddick, 2005

Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, by John Elkington, 1999

Capitalism as if the World Matters, by Jonathon Porritt, 2005

Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth, and Humanity, by Stuart Hart, 2005

Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment, by Stephan Schmidheiny and WBCSD, 1992

The Chaos Point: The World at the Crossroads, by Ervin Laszlo, 2006

The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship, by Simon Zadek, 2001

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, by Jared Diamond, 2005

The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel Bakan, 2005

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, 2002

The Dream of Earth, by Thomas Berry, 1990

Development as Freedom, by Amartya Sen, 2000

The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability, by Paul Hawken, 1994

The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, by Nicholas Stern, 2007

The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, by Jeffrey Sachs, 2005.

Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resources Use-A Report to the Club of Rome, by Ernst Von Weizsäcker, 1998

False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, by John Gray, 2002

Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side on the All-American Meal, by Eric Schlosser, 2005

A Fate Worse than Debt: The World Financial Crisis and the Poor, by Susan George, 1990

For The Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future, by Herman Daly and John Cobb, 1989

Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits, by C.K. Prahalad, 2004

Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, by James Lovelock, 2000

Globalization and its Discontents, by Joseph Stiglitz, 2002

Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, by George Monbiot, 2006

Human-Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections, by Manfred Max-Neef, 1991

The Hungry Spirit: Beyond Capitalism: The Quest for Purpose in the Modern World, by Charles Handy, 1999

An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, by Al Gore, 2006

The Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows and Jorgen Randers, 1972

Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World’s Most Unusual Workplace, by Ricardo Semler, 1993

The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, by Hernando De Soto, 2000

Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, 2000

No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, by Naomi Klein, 2002

Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, by George Soros, 2000

Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, by Buckminster Fuller, 1969

Our Common Future, by The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987

The Population Bomb, by Paul Ehrlich, 1969

Presence: An Explanation of Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society, by Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers, 2005

The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future, by Elizabeth C. Economy, 2004

Sand County Almanac, by Aldo Leopold, 1949

Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, 1962

The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg, 2001

Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, by E.F. Schumacher, 1973

Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development, by Vandana Shiva, 1989

The Turning Point: Science Society and the Rising Culture, by Fritjof Capra, 1984

Unsafe At Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile, by Ralph Nader, 1965

When Corporations Rule the World, by David Korten, 2001

When the Rivers Run Dry: What Happens When Our Water Runs Out? by Fred Pearce, 2006

Source: The Guardian

Not too long ago, at a party, a friend confessed in a group conversation that he didn’t really recycle. It was as if his casual comment had sucked the air out of the room—I think the CD player even skipped. He suddenly became a pariah. A heretic had been detected among the orthodox flock. During the indignant tongue-lashing that followed, people’s faces twisted with moral outrage.

Many people who feel passionate about saving the planet justify their intense feelings by pointing to the seriousness of the problem and the high stakes involved. No doubt they are right about the seriousness. There are indeed environmental challenges, and steps must be taken to ameliorate them. But there is another way to understand the unique passion surrounding our need to go green.

Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to notice that religious emotions, like guilt and indignation, are still with us, even if we’re not religious. He claimed that we were living in a post-Christian world—the church no longer dominates political and economic life—but we, as a culture, are still dominated by Judeo-Christian values. And those values are not obvious—they are not the Ten Commandments or any particular doctrine, but a general moral outlook.

You can see our veiled value system better if you contrast it with the one that preceded Christianity. For the pagans, honor and pride were valued, but for the Christians it is meekness and humility; for the pagans it was public shame, for Christians, private guilt; for pagans there was a celebration of hierarchy, with superior and inferior people, but for Christians there is egalitarianism; and for pagans there was more emphasis on justice, while for Christians there is emphasis on mercy (turning the other cheek). Underneath all these values, according to Nietzsche, is a kind of psychology—one dominated by resentment and guilt.

Every culture feels the call of conscience—the voice of internal self-criticism. But Western Christian culture, according to Nietzsche and then Freud, has conscience on steroids, so to speak. Our sense of guilt is comparatively extreme, and, with our culture of original sin and fallen status, we feel guilty about our very existence. In the belly of Western culture is the feeling that we’re not worthy. Why is this feeling there?

All this internalized self-loathing is the cost we pay for being civilized. In a very well-organized society that protects the interests of many, we have to refrain daily from our natural instincts. We have to repress our own selfish, aggressive urges all the time, and we are so accustomed to it as adults that we don’t always notice it. But if I was in the habit of acting on my impulses, I would regularly kill people in front of me at coffee shops who order elaborate whipped-cream mocha concoctions. In fact, I wouldn’t bother to line up in a queue, but would just storm the counter (as I regularly witnessed people doing when I lived in China) and muscle people out of my way. But there is a small wrestling match that happens inside my psyche that keeps me from such natural aggression. And that’s just morning coffee—think about how many times you’d like to strangle somebody on public transportation.

When aggression can’t go out, then it has to go inward. So we engage in a kind of self-denial, or self-cruelty. Ultimately this self-cruelty is necessary and good for society—I cannot unleash my murderous tendencies on the whipped-cream-mocha-half-decaf latte drinkers. But my aggression doesn’t disappear, it just gets beat down by my own discipline. Subsequently, I feel bad about myself, and I’m supposed to. Magnify all those internal daily struggles by a hundred and you begin to see why Nietzsche thought we were always feeling a little guilty. But historically speaking we didn’t really understand this complex psychology—it was, and still is, invisible to us. We just felt bad about ourselves, and slowly developed a theology that made sense out of it. God is perfect and pristine and pure, and we are sinful, unworthy maggots who defile the creation by our very presence. According to Nietzsche, we have historically needed an ideal God because we’ve needed to be cruel to ourselves, we’ve needed to feel guilty. And we’ve needed to feel guilty because we have instincts that cannot be discharged externally—we have to bottle them up.

Feeling unworthy is still a large part of Western religious culture, but many people, especially in multicultural urban centers, are less religious. There are still those who believe that God is watching them and judging them, so their feelings of guilt and moral indignation are couched in the traditional theological furniture. But increasing numbers, in the middle and upper classes, identify themselves as being secular or perhaps “spiritual” rather than religious.

Now the secular world still has to make sense out of its own invisible, psychological drama—in particular, its feelings of guilt and indignation. Environmentalism, as a substitute for religion, has come to the rescue. Nietzsche’s argument about an ideal God and guilt can be replicated in a new form: We need a belief in a pristine environment because we need to be cruel to ourselves as inferior beings, and we need that because we have these aggressive instincts that cannot be let out.

Instead of religious sins plaguing our conscience, we now have the transgressions of leaving the water running, leaving the lights on, failing to recycle, and using plastic grocery bags instead of paper. In addition, the righteous pleasures of being more orthodox than your neighbor (in this case being more green) can still be had—the new heresies include failure to compost, or refusal to go organic. Vitriol that used to be reserved for Satan can now be discharged against evil corporate chief executives and drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles. Apocalyptic fear-mongering previously took the shape of repent or burn in hell, but now it is recycle or burn in the ozone hole. In fact, it is interesting the way environmentalism takes on the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional religious narrative. The idea that the end is nigh is quite central to traditional Christianity—it is a jolting wake-up call to get on the righteous path. And we find many environmentalists in a similarly earnest panic about climate change and global warming. There are also high priests of the new religion, with Al Gore (”the Goracle”) playing an especially prophetic role.

We even find parallels in environmentalism of the most extreme, self-flagellating forms of religious guilt. Nietzsche claims that religion has fostered guilt to such neurotic levels that some people feel culpable and apologetic about their very existence. Compare this with extreme conservationists who want to sacrifice themselves for trees and whales. And teachers, like myself, will attest to significant numbers of their students who feel that their cats or whatever are equal to human beings. And not only are members of the next generation egalitarian about all life, but they often feel positively awful about the way that their species has corrupted and defiled the whole beautiful symphony of nature. The planet, they feel, would be better off without us. We are not worthy. In this extreme form, one does not seek to reduce one’s carbon footprint so much as eliminate one’s very being.

Pointing out these parallels is not meant to diminish the environmental cause. We should indeed do the things in our power, and within reason, to sustain the planet. But we have a tendency to become neurotic and overly anxious, especially when we are regularly told, via green marketing ploys, that each one of us is responsible for the survival of the planet. That’s a heavy guilt trip.

The same demographic group for whom religion has little or no hold (namely white liberals) turns out to be the most virulent champions of all things green. Is it possible that these folks must vent their moral spleen on environmentalism because they don’t have all the theological campaigns (e.g., opposing gay marriage, opposing abortion, etc.) on which social conservatives exercise their indignation?

If environmentalism is a substitute for religion—a way of validating certain emotions—then we might expect to find other secular surrogates for guilt and indignation. Our tendencies to sin, repent, and generally indulge in self-cruelty can be seen cropping up in our obsessions about health and fitness, for example. Struggling with our weight (diet and relapse) has risen above the other deadly sins to take a dominant position in our secular self-persecution. And our resentful aggression still manages to find some occasional pathways to the external world. We may not be able to punch the people we want to punch in real life, but we can turn some of our aggression outward at the reprobates of TV land. What a joyful hatred we all felt at the Octomom or Britney. It was a thoroughly cleansing bit of moral outrage. Or consider the inflamed moral drama for viewers of the Jon & Kate Plus Eight debacle. And more of this kind of indignation, previously reserved for religious condemnation, can be seen and heard everywhere on the screens and airwaves of the 24-hour “news” cycle. Large segments of the news seem calculated to facilitate the catharsis of our built-up resentment. Daytime talk shows and reality shows seem similarly designed to elicit our righteous anger. They form the other side of the religious coin—in addition to the self-cruelty of guilt, we can vent our aggression outwardly (like a crowd at a witch drowning) as long as it’s justified by piety and the defense of virtue and orthodoxy.

Environmentalism is a much better hang-up than worrying about the spiritual pitfalls of too much masturbation. Even if it’s neurotic, it’s still doing some good. But environmentalism, like every other ism, has the potential for dogmatic zeal and obsession. Do we really need one more humorless religion? Let us save the planet, by all means. But let’s also admit to ourselves that we have a natural propensity toward guilt and indignation, and let that fact temper our fervor to more reasonable levels.

By Stephen T. Asma, professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. His books include On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears (Oxford University Press, 2009) and Why I Am a Buddhist (Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 2010).

Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education

Photo by Ivanoh Demera/Associated Press

The news and images from Haiti are heartbreaking. Many individuals and companies are reaching for their wallets; others are wondering what they can do to help. But the best advice for corporate givers trying to figure out how best to respond is the old adage: “Don’t just do something, stand there.” To understand why, take a look back at the responses to other recent disasters. There is a discernable pattern, and not a good one:

1. Donations spike in the immediate aftermath.
2. A huge portion of the funds donated are spent on setting up disaster-relief operations that are no longer the primary need.
3. A flood of cash and materials cause a logistics nightmare leading to waste and ineffectiveness, if not corruption.
4. Six months later, reconstruction stalls because the world’s attention has moved elsewhere.
5. And, finally, a series of reports bemoan the fact that too many funds are devoted to disaster relief and not enough to disaster preparedness and reconstruction.

Companies are in the perfect position to break this cycle: They have the ability (and the obligation) to be thoughtful and strategic about how they handle their charitable giving. Here are a few ways businesses can help — and some principles everyone can apply to post-disaster giving:

Don’t earmark your donations for Haiti. Funds for disaster relief are absolutely necessary in the short term — but immediate relief efforts are just one part of a long recovery process. By the time money earmarked for disaster relief arrives in charities’ bank accounts for a particular disaster, recovery workers have already moved on to the much harder, much more expensive rebuilding phase. Rather than earmark a gift for Haitian disaster relief, direct your donations toward replenishing the cash and materials that disaster-relief agencies will expend in the next few weeks in Haiti, so they will be ready to respond immediately to the next disaster.

Go with experience. If you feel that you must give to disaster relief in Haiti, make sure you are giving to an organization that has extensive experience in Haiti and people already on the ground. They will be much more effective because of their existing knowledge of communities, cultural norms, and power dynamics.

Give money. Gifts-in-kind may seem like an appealing and useful way to contribute but they tend to cause huge logistical problems that dramatically undermine their value. Money gives those responding to the disaster the ability to act flexibly, according to the needs at hand. If you do have materials you are convinced will be useful (construction supplies, computers, and so on) ask the charity your working with whether it can effectively use what you can give. (And be prepared to hear that they’d rather have the cash.)

Look ahead. Long after their immediate health and safety needs are taken care of and the media spotlight has moved on, Haitians will still benefit from your organization’s help in rebuilding their lives and livelihoods. One way to do this — and engage employees and customers — is to match the dollars they contribute for immediate relief with a corporate gift for reconstruction, to be given in six or eight months. By that time it will be clear which areas of the rebuilding effort are underfunded. You’ll also have time to thoroughly vet agencies, projects, and so forth, to ensure that your donations will do the most good.

By Timothy Ogden, president of Sona Partners and the editor-in-chief of Philanthropy Action. He was formerly chief knowledge officer at Geneva Global, an international philanthropy advisory company.

Source: Harvard Business Review Blog

In fact, 82 percent of survey respondents said they planned to use more green messaging in their marketing, according to the report, “Green Marketing: What Works & What Doesn’t – A Marketing Study of Practitioners.”

More than 370 marketing and advertising executives responded to the survey, which was sponsored by Environmental Leader and marketing trade publications including MarketingCharts, MarketingVOX and MediaBuyerPlanner.

About 74 percent of respondents said they are conducting marketing of green messages on the Internet, which proved the most popular medium. About half are using print and another 40 percent are relying on direct mail, among other methods.

Marketers are finding that consumers will spend more on green products, and they are putting their marketing dollars behind the notion, said study co-authoer Jennifer Nastu.

“This was generally seen as a nice opportunity, as most firms perceived that they were – in reality – greener than their customers initially thought they were,” Nastu said.

In a sort of repudiation of the notion of greenwashing, marketing executives seemed to be cognizant of their company’s standing in relation to environmental stewardship. Respondents who noted that their firms were less green were less likely than others to use green marketing messages.

Another finding was that companies tend to make environmentally friendly operational changes before moving into green messaging in their marketing.

Still, 28 percent of respondents said they thought green marketing was more effective than other marketing messages, compared to just 6 percent who saw it as less effective.

The report offers detailed analysis of habits by firms with a range of marketing budgets, from less than $250,000 to in excess of $50 million.

The higher the budget, the more likely a firm was to use mobile phone advertising, a burgeoning trend in marketing. About 16 percent of firms spending more than $50 million used mobile advertising, compared to just 6 percent for all marketers, according to the report, which is available here.

In a recent example of consumer marketing, via the iPhone, an application from SAP and the Carbon Disclosure Project shows a visualized breakdown of a variety of corporate emissions data. It was released ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks as a means of communicating to world leaders and the public about climate change and corporate emissions.

T-Mobile has issued its own mobile application that promotes coupons for green products and services.

Source: Environmental Leader

“Green is Universal” — NBC Universal’s ongoing environmental initiative — conducted research with these very questions in mind. The findings underscore the importance of proving to consumers that green products and services are real, relevant, and worth it. Below are the top takeaways for marketers to make green count:

Health and wellness are motivations for buying green. Green products that provide a tangible health benefit resonate better with consumers. Skincare, beauty and chemical-free cleaning products fall into this category. People regularly touch these types of products, such as shampoos and body washes. It is that direct and frequent contact with the product that helps them connect green with their personal well being.

Buying green, saving green — what’s not to like? In this economic climate, people are looking for a good value, so emphasize the benefit and savings of your green product. People will be motivated to buy a hybrid if they understand it reduces their fuel costs. They will be more inclined to purchase energy-efficient light bulbs knowing that they last longer than regular bulbs and cut down their electricity bills.

Show consumers the collective effect of their individual actions. People admit they don’t always recycle because they don’t think their one individual action will make much of a difference. They would feel more motivated if they were given a better sense of the collective impact of all their green acts on the greater community.

Bring green closer to home whenever possible. People are more likely to care about green issues that affect them directly. For instance, Gallup data show that people care more about water pollution, toxic waste and air pollution than they do about global warming and endangered species. Issues that are literally closer to home have a more personal impact that can trigger changes in behavior.

Become part of the solution. People don’t know what to do with their dead batteries, expired medicines, and burnt-out light bulbs. Retailers who take on the role of a partner and offer solutions, like eco-friendly waste disposal programs, should see an increase in traffic, reputation, and possibly word-of-mouth buzz.

Help consumers become smarter — and greener — shoppers. People want to buy green, but they want to feel smart and informed when doing it. Many people don’t know the difference between green labels such as “organic” or “natural.” They are confused as to why they should pay more for products made from recycled paper or less packaging. Educating them on the green benefits of a product will help connect the dots and make them much more receptive customers.

Leverage younger generations to connect with the community. Parents say it is their kids who keep them in line when it comes to recycling and other eco-friendly behaviors. So, don’t underestimate the importance of community outreach that involves kids and teenagers. Get them involved through school, social groups and organizations to support green efforts.

Source: Mediapost.com

By Maryam Bankarim, Senior Vice president of Integrated Sales Marketing for NBC Universal.

Janet Gallent, VP Consumer Insight & Innovation Research at NBCU Universal, also contributed to this article.