It makes intuitive sense that what people say is important isn’t always what motivates them at the moment of choice. And yet we read poll after poll that trumpet astonishingly high percentages of consumers who say “green is important” or that they’d spend more money on green products. This is like saying that 77% of all women want to marry a rich guy. I’m sure we all recognize that this statistic is neither realistic nor helpful.

What’s more reasonable is looking at actual purchase trends of green products.  Unfortunately what’s lacking here is the answer to why consumers made the decision for one brand over another. In a recent post I wrote about sizing your total available sustainability market (TASM); in other words, how many women are in the market for a nice guy. As I’m sure you’ve guessed by now, this market sizing isn’t based on what consumers say but what they actually do. We look at how many women are actually dating nice guys now.

After we identify and size the market, we then seek to understand what is driving their decisions in the moment of choice. Again, this isn’t based on what they say is important, but through research techniques that unveil the top attributes that actually motivate their choice. In the dating world, the top 3 attributes that motivate choice of a nice guy could include listening, thoughtfulness and “makes me feel special.” In the sustainability space it might be education, toxin-free and “makes me feel like I’m making a difference.”

So now you’ve figured out your market and what matters most to these buyers, whether specific attributes or emotional benefits. Now the question is, how does your business rate versus other alternatives in the market? You might find that you rate quite low on the #2 purchase driver, but you get high marks for the #4 purchase driver. This tells you what to promote in marketing today while addressing the sources of dissatisfaction that may be hindering sales.

This isn’t an easy process. But what you’ll get out of it are quantifiable steps to boost revenue, reputation and competitive advantage from sustainability.

Without a CEO mandate, business units usually have little incentive to deviate from what’s been working in the past. Sustainability and CSR initiatives have safely been tucked away behind the scenes, dealing with internal and supply chain issues that reduce risk and cost to the business. Objections to customer-facing sustainability initiatives range from “Why put our neck out and risk greenwashing charges?” to “It’s still a niche market” and “Why would we promote our values for commercial ends? We’re doing this because it’s right, not to make money from it.”

Perhaps they do see that sustainability is beginning to go mainstream, but it hasn’t become a burning platform for action. And this is the big opportunity for sustainability pros. It’s time for you to change the conversation.

As pointed out in a recent EthicalCorp article, “Corporate responsibility teams could do more to articulate a clear business strategy for their company that will grow sales…. Social and environmental issues are increasingly seen as new business opportunities, rather than risks to be managed. But translating this knowledge into practical business plans is easier said than done.”

You’ll need to craft a compelling story and business case for taking sustainability to the next level within the organization. And that story must to be told using the language of numbers, making a clear connection between sustainability and top line revenue.

How you do that is the subject of a new series of articles that will cover:

• identifying your total addressable sustainability market and your share of that pie
• learning what you can do to protect your current base and attract new customers
• enabling customers to experience your company as a sustainable brand through key touchpoints
• engaging customers to boost loyalty and grow the sustainability market
• communicating in a simple, relevant and credible way with customers

Let’s tackle the first one now. TAM, or total addressable market, is the sum of all of the potential sales that your company could make if it didn’t have any competition. In the sustainability world, we need to identify your TASM, or total addressable sustainability market, to begin building the business case.

TASM is based on an understanding of how many buyers are motivated by sustainability-related attributes when they purchase or recommend a product. It’s crucial to your strategy, and yet secondary data on this information is slim. LOHAS is a wellknown segmentation model originally designed for health & wellness, but it may or may not apply to your category. I would question whether the same segmentation model holds true across all categories including food, electronics, personal care and energy.

Without knowing exactly how many buyers in your market care enough to adjust their purchase and loyalty behavior, it will be hard to justify any customer facing initiatives. Even if the market is small for your category, it may be growing at a rapid enough pace to make a dedicated effort worthwhile. Side note: don’t believe what consumers tell you; TASM should be based on behavioral data, not a poll.

Step two is knowing what share of this market you currently own versus your competitors. Are you leading or lagging? If you increased share by one percentage point, what is the resulting revenue that you could use to fund additional projects? If you cede competitive advantage among this group to a competitor, what percent of your customer base is put at risk?

The next post will address the customer insights needed to move the needle and increase your share of this rapidly growing market.

But it doesn’t have to be either-or. Companies that consider social and environmental initiatives as potential innovation platforms and brand builders — not expenses — will come out ahead.

The Opportunity Audit helps prioritize and inspire

To aid businesses in evaluating initiatives, (re)allocating resources and exploring white-space opportunities, we’ve developed the Fruitful Opportunity Audit. This tool maps what a company does, not what it says. That means you won’t see cause marketing programs on this audit, mainly because the Brand/Customer quadrant could hypothetically be filled with greenwash. (click to enlarge)

The columns represent the locus of initiative; whether it primarily resides with your suppliers, employees or internal operations, community or customers.

The bottom row shows tablestakes initiatives that most businesses are undertaking regardless of industry. These include basic blocking and tackling like sustainability initiatives in energy, water, waste, IT, supply chain, employee volunteerism, fair labor practices, and so on. Note that it also includes philanthropy efforts that are not directly aligned with the category or brand.

The middle row represents activities that are industry-specific. Now we’re getting into actions that are more strategically in line with your business and therefore could be more effective in reputation-building. Electronics recycling (Community/Customer), industry-related training and job creation (Employee/Community) or Fair Trade efforts among coffee and tea manufacturers (Suppliers) are a few examples.

The top row is where it gets really interesting… this is where you’ll see social-impact initiatives that directly support the brand promise. The most effective initiatives often span most, if not all columns in this row; think Plan A from Marks & Spencer, GE’s Ecomagination, Timberland, Clorox GreenWorks, and specialized ethical brands like Whole Foods and Seventh Generation. Other examples might include Best Buy’s Geek Squad Summer Academy (Community) or Fairmont Hotel’s Green Cuisine (Supplier/Community/Consumer) that aligns with their authentically local brand pillar.

Now is the time to kill sacred cows

If you plot your CSR initiatives on this chart using bubble size to approximate relative spending, you’ll see where most of your dollars are going. Is your chart weighted more heavily at the bottom or the top? If the former, how much could be  shifted to brand-building without compromising on the essentials? If the latter, good job; just make sure you’re covering your bases at the bottom to eliminate risk of goodwashing claims.

This process will inevitably generate some controversial discussion around cutting philanthropic programs that aren’t aligned with your brand.  NCR, a former client of mine that I helped reposition their brand around self-service technology, supports a wide variety of charities completely unrelated to their business through the NCR Foundation; buried on the last page of their Citizenship Report is a brief mention of how they are improving access to technology for disabled and areas with low literacy. That’s a fantastic example of triple-bottom line innovation driving the brand, but it’s being communicated like an afterthought. Imagine what a powerful ethical brand NCR could build if it reallocated its CSR investments in favor of value creation at the intersection of self-serve technology and social needs.

Please note that this is not intended to decrease the amount of funding that any particular non-profit should receive from corporations. Rather, if all corporations were thoughtful about which non-profits to support, then everybody wins. The non-profit could benefit from their corporate partner’s lobbying power and investment in ethical brand-building; the corporation benefits from the strategic alignment with the right non-profits. 1+1=3. The recession is a good opportunity to justify such shifts.

Finding competitive opportunities – a retail example

When you plot your top competitors on the same chart, you’ll start seeing patterns that give insights into opportunity areas for the brand. You might also want to plot related but non-competitive companies on the same chart to bring new ideas to the table. Below is an illustrative example from the retail space; you’ll see that Marks & Spencer in the UK has done a great job creating ethical brand drivers across all columns. Retailers in the US can borrow ideas like branding internal initiatives similar to Plan A. Likewise, M&S could borrow an idea or two from Best Buys’ branded Employee/Community initiatives. (BTW, don’t get hung up on circle size; I don’t have enough info to map to investment levels. Just take it for the illustrative example that it is.)

You can push the innovation potential even further by mapping completely unrelated companies or industries for inspiration. For example, what could micro-finance teach the retail industry? If I’m Target, perhaps I combine “enabling individual potential”  of Kiva.org with my “design/value” brand promise to create a program that gives design students (or employees!) an opportunity to be discovered, promoted and funded for their product design ideas. That’s a program that spans all four columns of Brand-Builders.

I’m interested in your feedback. Is this a useful framework? What are the roadblocks to adopting this approach in your company? Who would actually drive this… CRO or CMO? CEO? And of course, if you see anything big that I missed in the retail audit, let me know.