Introduction
When I was asked to come and speak at today's event, my first response was to look at the title of the conference - 'Can sustainability sell?' My second was to think that maybe we are asking ourselves the wrong question.
Why would I say that? You may find this hard to believe from a company as focused on marketing as mine is. But while Unilever as a whole - and Birds Eye Wall's in particular - regards sustainability as absolutely critical to the future of our business, the fact is that our commitment to finding sustainable sources currently has little to do with today’s brand values, or with trying to increase our sales.
At best, you might think this statement is disingenuous. At worst, you might think I need a dose of the real world. But Unilever's view of sustainability is grounded very much in the real world, and I will now explain why.
Unilever's view of sustainability
The reason lies in the fundamental mechanics of our business. We rely on our ability to take high-quality raw materials - be they fish, peas or palm oil - and turn them into high-quality added value products that we can market and sell, with the help of the brand values and consumer trust we have worked to create around them. If our supply of raw materials runs out, we cannot produce any more, and cannot sell anything to anyone - no matter how good our branding.
So sustainability is all about the long-term security of our supply chain. Which is why, in all our sustainability initiatives at Birds Eye, selling the concept has been quite literally the last thing on our minds. Instead, the driver is our awareness that if our business is to continue, then we need to sustain our sources of supply - and the only way to do that is to make them sustainable.
This approach has led us to two conclusions. One is that because sustainability is the only way for a business like ours to thrive in the long term, ultimately it will have to sell to consumers. And the second is that in the short term it is unlikely to do so, because of the dislocation between consumers' day-to-day buying behaviour and their wider concerns.
The fact is that while many people do have genuine concerns about global warming or over-fishing, they do not relate these issues to their own desire to drive their car to the supermarket or buy Birds Eye Fish Fingers when they get there. Sure, they will accept a theoretical link between the two if it is pointed out to them. But a significant emotional bridge between people's concerns over sustainability and their buying habits has yet to be built. Until it has, sustainability as a branding concept will not sell more peas, fish fingers or anything else.
Its place in our business
Given this, you may wonder why Unilever got involved in sustainability in the first place. To begin my explanation, I should like to run a brief commercial break. As advertising people yourselves, I trust that you won't try and skip the ad by zapping me or nipping out to put the kettle on. Not just yet, anyway.
Unilever plc is one of the world's leading foods and consumer goods companies, with annual sales of around 30 billion pounds in 150 countries. Every day 150 million people choose our brands to feed their families and to clean their homes. Within that, Birds Eye Wall's is the UK market leader in both frozen food and ice cream. Running a multi-local multinational FMCG business on this scale requires a tremendous amount of raw materials, about two-thirds of which come from agriculture - and therefore have the potential to be sourced through sustainable farming, on land or in the ocean.
That's the end of the commercial break. Time to start listening again.
Our stated raison d'être is to meet the everyday needs of people everywhere, and to do that consistently we need to know where all our raw materials are coming from - not just next year, but in a decade's time. That is why our drive for sustainability covers three key areas: water management, fisheries, and agriculture.
The sustainable pea project
So what does this mean for Birds Eye Wall's? The initial impact of our drive for sustainable sourcing is on peas and fish - but ultimately its effects will be felt across Birds Eye Wall's and across Unilever as a whole.
Birds Eye is the UK's largest food brand and peas are our biggest product and the foundation of our reputation for great food, simply frozen.
Frozen peas, therefore, are a cornerstone of Birds Eye's business. Ninety-six per cent of consumers in the UK eat Bird Eye peas, and we grow them all ourselves, on 520 independent commercial farms across East Anglia and Humberside, all picked and frozen in 2½ hours and each one individually inspected. So it is logical that we have focused on peas in our main sustainable agriculture initiative in the UK.
We at Birds Eye have been working with our pea growers since 1998 to develop a model of sustainability that can be applied to our entire our frozen pea business. Around 20 of our pea farmers are currently taking part in an initiative called 'partnership for sustainability.' This is based on an unprecedented collaborative effort between ourselves, our farmers, academics, and non-governmental organisations – including ornithologists, environmentalists, wildlife trusts, and Forum for the Future, the UK's leading sustainable development organisation.
Our relationship with all the farmers in the scheme is long-standing. We know them, and their businesses, well. Likewise, they know us. Under their supplier contracts with Birds Eye Wall's, they have always had to meet quality thresholds, co-operate with local pea-growing groups, and be close enough to our freezing plants to get their freshly-picked produce there within the two-and-a-half hour rule.
Under the 'partnership for sustainability,' the commitment on both side goes much further. In simple terms, we and the farmers have agreed to work together to promote a definition of sustainable agriculture that we have drawn up in co-operation with environmental groups.
Sustainable agriculture is productive, competitive and efficient while at the same time protecting and improving the natural environment and conditions of the local communities.
We have defined 10 key indicators – from soil fertility and health to pest management, water, energy to social and human capital. These lead to a common drive to:Keep yields and nutritional quality high, while keeping resource inputs as low as possible;
- minimise any adverse effects in soil, water, air quality and bio diversity – and make a positive contribution to these where possible
- optimise the use of renewable resources, and minimise non-renewable ones
- and support the principle that sustainable agriculture should enable local communities to protect and improve their well-being and environments
Implementation of the project – & results so far
The first pea crop under the sustainability project was planted in the spring of 1999. Three years is a long time in the advertising industry, and even longer in politics – but in agriculture it is nothing like enough to gauge the full effects.
However, we have seen enough to say the results so far are promising - principally that it is possible to maintain quality and productivity, while reducing the use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers, and encouraging bio-diversity. Similar results are being achieved by Unilever companies elsewhere the world with tea, with tomatoes, and with spinach.
Going forward, we believe three aspects of the 'sustainable pea' initiative may make it hugely significant in the future. Firstly, the pilot scheme is now being prepared for roll-out to all our pea farmers in Eastern England. Secondly, the knowledge and experience we are gaining will help us in our drive to increase the security of our future supply chains. And finally, the valuable body of research being built up in a commercial setting – with proven, saleable, mass-market products – will help develop procedures and findings to be shared across the food production industries, and across society as a whole.
Pack design
Given our level of excitement over the sustainable pea project, you might feel we have hidden our light under a bushel. You may even feel Unilever has missed an opportunity by failing to try and 'sell' sustainability to consumers – and thereby sell more peas. Again, I think you would be asking the wrong question.
I have already said that, one day, sustainability will have to sell. The long-term alternative is selling nothing. But we believe selling sustainability proactively as an overt brand value will have to wait.
We do include the sustainable pea project on our packaging now – but in a way we would describe as low-key, and you might describe as invisible. Next time you pick up a pack of Birds Eye peas, take a closer look, and you might spot a small panel on the back mentioning our partnership with farmers to protect the long-term health of the land. That is all.
Why? Because blowing our own trumpet at this stage would risk undermining the credibility of the whole project, by convincing an already sceptical public that this is just another marketing angle from a multinational looking to sell its brands.
Changing nature of brands
Not that there is anything wrong with selling brands, which we actually do rather well. At the risk of starting yet another commercial break, I would say we think we understand the creation and marketing of brands as well as anyone else in the world. And what we have seen in recent years is a sea-change in the nature of brands themselves.
When I started in this business 30 years ago, the relationship between the consumer and the brand was much simpler. It was essentially a trading contract, where the person liked the branded product, bought it, and took it home to eat or wash their hair with. It was a functional transaction.
How far things have come. Today, the issue is what a brand says about someone, as a badge indicative of the individual's values and view of the world. A BMW says more about the driver than about the quality of German engineering. Nike trainers say more about someone being up-to-the-mark than fast off it.
As well as increasing the value and utility of brands, this shift also exposes them to closer scrutiny and higher risk of damage. People now want to know what lies behind a brand, and the extent to which its values are aligned with their own. Is the company producing the brand committed to high ethical standards of behaviour? Is it a good corporate citizen? And does it apply the same values in all parts of the world?
This is clearly where sustainability could come in, as a means of helping build the overall image and 'feel-good' behind the brand. But, in our view, the time to cross this bridge is not yet right, to build this overtly into our Brand strategies.
Sustainable fisheries
Let's move the sustainable story on to fish. Again, Unilever is a major global processor of fish and producer of branded frozen fish products - and to stay that way, we need to secure our supply chains amid growing global concern over the depletion of fish stocks. Our strategy is to reach a position by 2005 in which all our fish supplies come from sustainable sources.
So how do we define 'sustainability' in this context? Our approach here is focused around the Marine Stewardship Council, a non-profit body that was founded in 1996 as a joint venture between Unilever and the conservation organisation, WWF, and became an autonomous organisation in 1999.
The MSC fulfils the need for an independent body to help create and certify sustainable fishing grounds and fisheries around the world. It does the first by engaging with a wide range of stakeholders and local communities to balance the long-term viability of global fish supply with the health of marine ecosystems. And it achieves the second objective by benchmarking fisheries against a number of criteria, principally focused on verifying that the fishing methods used there make the fishing ground sustainable.
The MSC has recently certified its first major species, New Zealand Hoki, which we are now launching in our fish range. But when it comes to marketing this fish and its sustainable sourcing, we face two issues. One is that nobody has heard of New Zealand Hoki - so our new packaging proclaims it as a 'new excellent alternative to cod.'
The other is that nobody has heard of the MSC or what it does. The logo is non-motivating and obscure for most people. Even if they recognised it, consumer research shows that protection of fish stocks is not linked to purchasing habits. So, to start building that link, we have turned to the appeal of the ocean - and have included a statement saying 'Ocean Friendly' on the packaging.
The organic achievement
Our inclusion of the sustainable pea project and ocean-friendly sourcing on our packaging is a modest first step towards linking people’s concerns to sustainability as a brand value. But we can draw some lessons from one industry that has achieved a similar linkage already: organic food.
The rise in demand for foodstuffs produced through organic farming has been one of the features of UK retailing in recent years. Significantly, the growth of organic farming here was very much led by the Soil Association, playing a role foreshadowing that of the MSC in fisheries.
The strength of demand for organic produce, at what are still premium prices, is unquestionably impressive. The UK government recently announced plans to triple the land under organic cultivation by the end of 2006 - and this continuing momentum was one of the reasons why Unilever acquired a small organics business in Scotland last year.
Certainly, as an alternative to environmentally damaging agricultural practices, organic food has many attractions. Its promoters have successfully linked organic produce with people's concerns over a whole array of emotionally-charged issues, ranging from the use of chemical pesticides, fertilisers and GMOs, to children's health, and food crises such as BSE.
The organic downside
If people want all that - great. But we do not think organics is the overall solution, for several reasons. At present there are obvious structural problems in the organic marketplace. For example, well over seventy per cent of organic food eaten in the UK is imported. In addition, proponents of organic food seem divided as to whether their ideal is organic food per se, or organic food produced by independent farmers and smallholders.
There are also doubts about consumer attitudes. The retailer Iceland's decision to commit itself to organic food was not especially successful, although it must be said the demographics of Iceland’s customer base were less than ideal. Wider doubts may be raised by recent research suggesting that consumers may now have less faith in the health advantages of organic food over conventional produce.
What organics cannot guarantee is security of the supply chain, or the social conditions of the people employed to produce the food. I recently read an editorial which asked cogently: 'How can something be good for the environment if it is picked by labourers on slave wages and air-freighted half way round the world?' Unlike organics, any definition of sustainability must deal with the human inputs to the chain – and the human aspect is crucial to ensuring the supply chain really is sustainable.
Finding the right vocabulary
Where we can learn from organics, is in the vocabulary that has been used to communicate its message. You would not sell organic food by slapping 'Approved by the Soil Association' all over it. Similarly, sustainability needs a language that encapsulates what it means without turning people off.
'Ocean-friendly' is a start, giving us an accessible way of communicating what the Marine Stewardship Council is about. We haven't yet cracked the right form of words for land-based sustainability - but we will.
When we do, it will enable us to draw a road map for sustainability's role in the consumer marketplace. At the moment, we are in what you could call the defensive stage of the development of sustainable sources. As we see it, if we shout about it too loud at the moment, we will actually hinder its acceptance.
Having the right vocabulary will let us move from a defensive to proactive approach, enabling us to build – and then steadily reinforce – the emotional link needed to make consumers more willing to buy products and brands from sustainable sources.
The consumer view
But does the necessary level of concern over depletion of the world's resources already exist? To an extent, yes - but its fragility and embryonic state means it needs to nurtured carefully by marketeers.
If asked directly, consumers are - of course - worried about sustainability. But will they pay more for it? Probably not. Iceland's experience is a warning to anyone putting too much commercial faith in the consumer's level of environmental commitment.
If we manage to build the emotional link I keep mentioning between sustainable products and consumers' nagging concerns over the future of the planet, then maybe one day they will pay a premium for it. Yet interestingly, the best way to build this link may not be through the selling process, but through education.
Consumers nowadays are intelligent and sophisticated enough to see marketing for what it is - so if we present sustainability through a traditional marketing pitch and call to action, they will reject it. Instead, we need to develop a debate in straightforward language about the long-term survival of the land and sea as sources of food.
Good old Marketing language – that which we traditionally use in mass communication will not work here. This is my challenge to you the experts in communication, we have to re-think how we relate to the consumer.
In short, if we oversell sustainability, a generation of consumers will turn away. If we use it to survive, then they will warm to it - but only gradually. If sustainability is about a short-term competitive gain, then you miss the point totally!
Competitive advantage
However, unless sustainable produce has a competitive advantage over whatever else is available, consumers will not buy it anyway. The conundrum here is that Unilever or any other supplier cannot fence itself off from the rest of the world. If our fish stocks are sustainable but nobody else's are, then the world will gradually run out of fish and we will have a cost disadvantage.
This means two things. Firstly, we have to share what we learn - making it the reverse of the traditional approach to research and development, which is targeted at building up competitive advantage. We are not creating proprietary intellectual property to be guarded and exploited, but instead we are identifying broad approaches which we need to communicate to - and allow to be used by - other companies facing similar issues.
Secondly, it means we have to be in it for the long term. Peas are grown under a seven-yearly rotation and there is no point being sustainable for one year and then spending the next six flagrantly using up resources. Similarly, the sustainable farm is not just a place that can continue to produce high quality food on a reliable basis, but - like the farms in our 'sustainable peas' project - must also take account of the needs of its workforce and local community. So the farm and the community must be sustainable – not just peas.
As a result, we feel sustainability is closer to the concept of 'quality' than any form of 'competitive advantage.' It is not a one-off opportunity to steal a march on the competition, but a long-term learning process to be shared. Again, this may sound overly touchy-feely at first - but we believe it really does represents the hard commercial reality facing us.
The dilemma
You'll be glad to hear that - unlike sustainable sources - this presentation does have an end-point. But, in a true spirit of sustainability, I would like to begin my conclusion by looking back to what I said at the start.
I claimed then that by asking whether sustainability sells, we were posing the wrong question. To illustrate why, I would like to highlight the dilemma that surrounds sustainability for a company like ours.
In simple terms, this dilemma is that sustainability currently does not sell, but is essential to our future, for three key reasons:
The survival and security of our supply chains:
- as a defensive stance to ensure the continued quality and relevance of our brands in the future
- and to ensure that we continue to be able to attract and recruit the best young people – many of whom, as you know, place huge importance on the social awareness and responsibility of prospective employers
Moving on from that premise….if we are to make sustainability sell, we must create an emotional link between people’s concerns over the environment and our sustainably-sourced brands in the freezer cabinet. This link must also have three attributes:
- it must be communicated powerfully and on the basis of scientific fact, such as the link between polyunsaturated fats and a healthy heart
- it must be water-tight, preventing the growth of cynicism about our true aims
- and it must carry an absolute benefit that consumers value
The right question:
Given this background, I think it is probably pretty clear why I think 'Can sustainability sell?' is the wrong question. Instead, from the perspective of Unilever and Birds Eye Wall's, the real question is: 'Can a business like ours survive in the long term without sustainability?'
And the answer is NO.
As you can tell, this is a challenge about which I am passionate, and which I believe is not only crucial but fascinating. But while I was preparing this presentation, I was asked to distil three key points I hoped the audience would take with them into the subsequent sessions and debate. It took some doing, but here they are:
- you don't 'do' sustainability for short-term sales, but for survival
- to sell it, you have to create a bridge that takes the facts on one side and a general area of consumer concern on the other, and links them emotionally
- and finally, to build that bridge, you have to simplify the vocabulary of communication, by getting away from product-based marketing-speak and into plain language that consumers can relate to
One day, sustainability has to sell. Not just because it is the only way for us at Unilever to secure our future supply chains, but also for the future of the resources on this planet. Like you, we don’t yet know when that day will come. But we hope it will not be too far away.
Thank you.
