To support his point, Godin points out that more information drives sales (look at book reviews). More information is also a point of differentiation that creates consumer preference and loyalty.

And for those who argue that transparency increases costs, Godin has an answer—consumers who value transparency are likely to pay more for that assurance. (Though I wonder if this is yet true in practice—while there are some who seek out products certified as being made ethically or in an environmentally responsible way for example, it’s far from mainstream.) What’s more, as expectations for transparency rise and more information becomes the norm rather than the outlier, the market penalty for not disclosing will quickly rise.

For me, the wild card is still giving people the tools to make sense of all that information. I agree that greater transparency can be valuable, but it’s not necessarily valuable. Installing cameras in thousands of chicken coops may provide the appearance of transparency, but it’s most useful if there’s a way to turn all those video feeds into easily accessible and actionable information.

In other words, data is cheap, just a commodity. Information—providing insight into what the data means—is valuable. Finding patterns or connecting dots across information has even greater value. And analysis—delivering a relevant point of view or recommendation—is most valuable of all.

Godin is right to call out the benefits of transparency, but I think he overstates its inherent value. Transparency is an essential first step, but it’s how the data is refined, shared and applied along the way that’s most important.

Photo credit: Joanna Paterson on Flickr

This may sound counterintuitive, but transparency can be at odds with an effective corporate responsibility report.

Here’s why: To meet rising stakeholder expectations for disclosure, many companies resort to packing more and more information into their CR report. Page counts mount, complexity grows, and the important drowns in the trivial.

The net effect? Fewer readers. Critical information hidden in plain view. Long refresh cycles. All of which translates to less, not greater, transparency.

It’s why transparency has to be balanced with materiality. Before they begin their CR report, companies should establish a threshold for what’s most important to their company and stakeholders. Thresholds will vary by company and industry—and change over time—but the general principle of materiality applies to all.

Materiality is key not only to the integrity of a report as a forum for disclosure and accountability, but also to its effectiveness as a communications platform. Ensuring a disciplined approach to determining what issues to cover and in what detail makes it easier to produce (but doesn’t necessarily guarantee) a clear and concise CR report.

Yet materiality doesn’t receive as much attention as transparency. There’s no real penalty for a bloated report. In fact, it’s often more notable and risky if information is left out than if too much is left in. If something is given short shrift or even absent, critics may question if a company is downplaying or even hiding something.

Plus, according to one study, companies that produce longer reports have better odds of winning awards. Statistical analysis shows that every extra page in a CR report increases the odds of a company winning an international environmental award by 3%. So the overriding incentive is to cover more ground and provide greater detail in the interests of mitigating risk or gaining recognition—and not necessarily informing stakeholders.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that companies smear Vaseline on the lens. Emphasizing materiality—which may trim or shift the scope of a CR report—is not about deflecting scrutiny or tightly controlling the message.

Instead, it’s about first critically assessing and understanding the issues that have the greatest impact on the interests and welfare of your stakeholders and company. And then giving readers the access and tools to make the most of that information as easily as possible.

Photo credit: BuhSnarf on Flickr

This piece from Slate’s Farhad Manjoo will no doubt get a permanent spot on many an editor’s  list of browser favorites. It’s about the  now age-old argument between wordsmiths and readers: one space between sentences, or two?

The answer is, of course, one, as Manjoo explains. And in case there’s any doubt, he points out that he’s got all the major editorial style guides on his side. The folks at Good also weigh in with their support.

So why do so many people insist on using two spaces between sentences? It’s an excellent example of a fact we should remember every time we try to craft any kind of strategic, persuasive communication. Whether you’re talking about getting a consumer to choose one product over another, getting employees to make more sustainable decisions in their day-to-day work, or just getting people to stop taking an extra and completely unnecessary step every time they type:  Change is hard, even when it makes perfect sense.

Photo credit: ollesvensson on Flickr

With the number of times Gary Shapiro, the Consumer Electronics Association head honcho, said the word “innovation” during his opening keynote, you’d think there would have been more evidence of innovation at this year’s CES. Instead, the products that were unveiled just drew more and more attention to the innovation being driven by the elephant (that was not) in the room—Apple.

The subject of Apple can be an easy, cop-out topic when it comes to CES or the tech industry in general, but it would be disingenuous to ignore the role the company plays at CES. There were dozens of tablets on display—all being compared to Apple’s iPad. Every content delivery program was compared to iTunes. Even with Android on the scene, Apple has set the model for how apps are developed and distributed. And every single phone exhibited by Motorola, HTC, Samsung, et al., still had to answer one question—how does it compare to the iPhone?

There were millions of dollars of R&D on display at CES 2011, but none of it will make Steve Jobs quake in his sneakers.

After spending two days at CES 2011, it’s becoming more and more difficult to understand who is supplying what to the electronics consumer. For example, I can use Google Android software to access the Netflix app on a Samsung phone connected to Verizon’s network to watch a TV show created by NBC (who will soon be owned by Comcast). Charting the partnerships of hardware, software, content, communications networks, and so on, is nearly impossible. Of course, each company says these partnerships are making life for the consumer simpler and more satisfying. For example, if Verizon partners with Time Warner, then Verizon users have quicker and easier access to Time Warner’s productions. But similar deals must be made between Time Warner and other communication networks. And if those deals aren’t made, does that mean a consumer on a rival company’s network has less access to that content?

Buying a gadget for the everyday content consumer could get very, very complicated. They’ll need to choose what sort of content they want to consume—movies, music, TV, games? They’ll have to decide what device they want to use—smartphone, TV, tablet, video game console, PC? They’ll have to choose that gadget’s manufacturer and model—Samsung, Motorola, Nintendo, Sony, HP, Apple? They’ll need to choose a service provider—Verizon, AT&T, Comcast? They’ll need to choose a content provider–Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, cable channels? Somewhere in there, content producers—TV networks, movie studios, game and app developers—are thrown in the mix.

Plus, everyone will have to play nice with each other so it all works in the end. And that doesn’t even bring the new players such as Boxee, Roku, Clicker—who all offer a mix of the above—into the picture. The message at CES is that more partnerships means a brighter, shinier, streamlined future. I hope that’s true, because right now that future is looking like a big headache for the yous and mes of the world.

Here’s another great infographic from Good, in collaboration with Mercy Corps, a nonprofit aid organization based right here in Portland. Simple, clear, informative, and an excellent example of how words and images can work together to amplify a message.

One thing that also stands out: the title.

The idea here isn’t new, particularly at this time of year. And plenty of readers might bristle at the guilt-inducing message that instead of buying holiday gifts, they ought to be feeding the hungry or teaching people how to read. But, I see the title as an attempt to avoid finger-wagging in favor of delivering a positive message. Consumers have power. Even when times are tough. How we use that power is up to us, whether it’s to delight someone we love on Christmas morning or support someone with less power than we have.

Or, even better, we could do both! Once the holiday hubbub is over, it would be interesting to see an infographic like this revealing how consumers used their buying power to support socially responsible companies. We’ll be on the lookout.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Photo credit: From Robbie Veldwijk on Flickr

Back in April, Fast Company ran this story pitting Walmart against Target in the corporate responsibility ring. Target had the advantage in areas such as sustainable seafood and human rights, but Fast Company declared Walmart the champ. Why?

One big reason is the Sustainability Consortium, Walmart’s massive effort to bring academia and industry together to develop a new standard in product life-cycle reporting. Another reason: Target had made progress toward becoming a more sustainable business, but it didn’t have a plan. Target hadn’t published any specific goals related to sustainability or spelled out how it planned to measure progress.

Now, eight months later, Target jumps back in the ring with its Here for Good initiative. The initiative outlines goals and milestones toward achieving them in four key areas: education, environment, well-being, and safety and preparedness.

In terms of size, supply chain and revenue, Walmart is so much larger than Target, it doesn’t seem fair to compare the two. But, then again, why not? There’s no doubt that competition between companies with their reach will be good for corporate responsibility in the retail sector and beyond.

What a simple way to change behavior. If you can’t print these documents, maybe you’ll think twice about printing the next true PDF you receive. And, the file extension is .wwf, a reminder of the worthy nonprofit behind the effort.

So far, commenters on the WWF blog think it’s nice in theory but not practical. I have to admit that, while I like the idea, I feel like I need a little more information before I start using it for anything important. What do you think? Well-intentioned marketing stunt, or the file format you’ll use for your next document?

The plan is available online, in an easy-to-navigate, user-friendly format. The site combines Unilever’s narrative for what it wants to do and how it plans to do it with supporting data, including greenhouse gas, water and waste reporting for individual uses of 70 percent of Unilever’s products.

A key point at the heart of the story Unilever is telling: Truly sustainable growth requires a symbiotic relationship between the company and its customers. Unilever says more than two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions and half the water used in its products’ life cycle come from consumer use. When it comes to soaps, shampoos and shower gels, a full 95 percent of greenhouse gas emissions result from consumer use.

So, Unilever is not afraid of throwing a wet blanket on the hot shower, delivering the explicit message that changing consumer behavior is critical to meeting its goals.

Next year, in the U.S., Unilever’s  “Turn off the tap” campaign will try to persuade consumers to shave minutes from their showers. How the message will be communicated to consumers is yet to be revealed—it certainly won’t be as simple as those back-of-bottle directions that got us to lather, rinse and repeat. But if the company succeeds, and I hope it does, it will set a new standard for how to not only engage, but involve, consumers in successful corporate responsibility.