Sierra Club and Clorox, Earth Day on Wall Street

Wondering what the rest of my fellow eco-kossacks think about this news?

It kinda turns my stomach, but I could be wrong.

What do you think?

Discuss.

Clorox Chairman and CEO Don Knauss Rings The Opening Bell(sm) with Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope

EVENT: Kicking off Earth Week, on Monday, April 21, Clorox Chairman and CEO Don Knauss and Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope will visit the New York Stock Exchange to promote Clorox's new Green Works(tm) brand of natural cleaning products.

Just in time for Earth Day, Green Works labels will feature the Sierra Club's logo, marking the brand's financial commitment to supporting the organization's conservation efforts, including the protection of America's clean air, clean water, wildlife and special places. The Sierra Club-Green Works partnership also aims to underscore the benefits of corporations working with environmental organizations to protect our communities and planet.

To celebrate this occasion, Knauss will ring The Opening Bell accompanied by Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

About Green Works Products (Source: The Clorox Company): Green Works cleaners are a breakthrough line of natural cleaning products that work as well as conventional cleaners in their categories but made from plant-based ingredients. The Green Works products also are the first line of natural
cleaners developed by a major consumer products company. Green Works products are at least 99 percent natural and made from ingredients derived from coconuts and lemon oil. The products are formulated to be biodegradable, packaged in bottles that can be recycled and not tested on animals. The Green Works line includes five natural cleaning products for use in the home, kitchen and bathroom.

Corporate brand gurus are fascinated with this marriage.

For a recent example of how a company is appealing to its audience’s truth, there’s Clorox’s strategic decision to co- brand its new "green" cleaning product with the Sierra Club.  The Sierra Club is America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. To environmentally conscious people, the Sierra Club brand means "green."

The Clorox Company makes cleaning products, most notably the powerful agent bleach.  To most people, the Clorox brand name means "effective." By combining the two brands on the package, they’re attempting to strategically influence customers’ truth; namely that a cleaning product from a cleaning company can’t be truly "green."  It’s all about perception.

Now, please don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that the marketplace is all about image.  In fact, it’s just the opposite. Today the substance of a brand is as important, if not more so, than the sizzle in creating resonant associations and giving customers the subsequent feeling (The Sierra Club made darn sure that the Clorox product met its high eco-standards before adding its stamp to the brand). What I am saying is be obsessed with your audience’s truth, and design your business to appeal to that truth.  Perception may not be reality, but it drives your customers’ feelings and actions. And if you don't take the time to learn about that, then their perception is going to be your problem.

Branding Strategy Insider

•  Oy Vey!

  What would Abbie Hoffman think?

  by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:16:11 AM PDT

  •  Abbie?

    He'd think there was a missed opportunity to dump something on the trading floor.

    by opendna on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:29:19 PM PDT

•  Ummm what's wrong with this?

  I can't really tell from what you've written why you're upset.

  Are the products not what Clorox claims they are?

  Not saying you're wrong to be upset, I just don't understand

  by plf515 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:22 AM PDT

  •  It's just a strange new world

    Is Sierra Club is still interested in me as a citizen, or just as a consumer.

    Do they still love us for our minds?

    by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:31:41 AM PDT

    •  Or maybe they are realizing

      that corporations follow the money and that, with the help of the Sierra Club, Green Works might just make Clorox some money.  It's called incentive.

      by dannyinla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM PDT

    •  it's a way to

      engage people....

      i'm not necessarily fully in support of it, but i've outlined below some of my thoughts.

      of course the club is interested in you as a citizen. first and foremost. but people clean their houses, and not everyone is going to make their own vinegar and baking soda based cleaners. if the name can help move even a few percentage points of people away from harsher cleaners... is that a bad thing?

      by birdbrain64 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM PDT

    •  well, I still don't get your upsetness

      I mean, if Clorox were lying about its products, your outrage would be fully justified.

      But we all consume things.  We aren't going to stop (although we could slow down).  If we consume greener things, isn't that good?  Even if they are made by big corporations?

      by plf515 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:19:51 PM PDT

•  What's wrong with that?

  I mean I know that they make bleach, but they also make  Burt's Bees.  This seems like a positive step to me.  A major company making a big push to get into the market producing environmentally conscious products.  They obviously think that there is a benefit to promoting green products.  This seems like a big win for the green community.

  by Mickey Thunder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

  •  We've become so cynical

    that when a corporation begins to make environmentally better producets we immediately dismiss them.  Sure, maybe Clorox is just trying to cash in... but in corporations, money talks. And if we start buying Green Works, then maybe their less eco-friendly products will come off the shelves.

    Full disclosure: my wife bought some Green Works a couple of weeks ago and I immediately told her I thought it was just a marketing gimmick. Then I backed off with the imprimateur of the Sierra Club.

    by dannyinla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM PDT

    •  Well then, that proves the branding woks

      It will be interesting to see where this all leads.

      I wonder if the Audubon Society will be backing eco-toothpaste soon?

      Or if Greepeace will soon support eco-diapers that dispose in the landfill?

      by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM PDT

      •  As with the auto industry

        it will lead to products that are safer and better for the environment... as long as the manufacturers and corporations can make money.

        by dannyinla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:38:44 AM PDT

        •  Your Right, the Key is they need to contiue

          to make money.  I would be interested in your take on the article I have linked below:

          http://www.spectator.org/...  

          Eric Peters usually bashes domestic auto makers, but I thought this article made some sense.

          by poolkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:48:26 AM PDT

          •  Good article

            Althought the carmaker out there now with the best known eco-car - the Prius - is a manufacturer who didn't make its fortune on gas guzzlers.  Toyota obviously responded to the market by making trucks and SUVs and, I would imagine, that those vehicles were "loss leaders" when they were introduced into a market where people of people who didn't usually think of Toyota when they thought of buying a pick-up truck.  
            OTOH, Ford is making serious in-roads with its hybrid line andd can do os because they are such a carmking giant. But Eric Peters is right about Ford having the financial freedom to lose money on the Hybrid Escape because they are making so much money on the F-150s.

            Thanks for linking the article.

            by dannyinla on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM PDT

            •  Actually, Ford is in hock up to its neck

              and some have indicated it could go bankrupt.  It would be a shame.

              by poolkey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM PDT

      •  If the Audubon Society gave their label to...

        a pesticide, that would mean something cause they're all about the birds and ecosystems.

        Greenpeace endorsed fish products, because they're so concerned about the health of the oceans.

        by opendna on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM PDT

•  I'm excited about it.

  Kudos to Clorox for being a leader.  Companies are going to have to drastically change the way they do business and I'm happy to see Clorox fully embrace that reality.

  by Scout Finch on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM PDT

  •  But how does this help the Sierra Club's

    perception from the world.
      Sierra Club should have maybe setup a foundation to vet these claims
    and/or  make commercial endorsements.
     Good for Clorox, bad for Sierra Club...maybe.

    by KenBee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59:18 AM PDT

    •  I disagree.

      The only way we are going to get a handle on sustainable issues is to convince corporate America to change the way the do business.  The Sierra Club obviously recognizes it and made working with corporations a priority.

      by Scout Finch on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM PDT

      •  There's got to be a better way

        to accomplish that.
              You're preaching to me? ha.
          Speak to what I said:
        *the risk to the Sierra Club,
        *the suggestion of a formal but a degree separate Sierra Club organization to screen/vet/endorse/pressure corporations.

        by KenBee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM PDT

      •  There have been many sell-outs and

        lop-sided and embarrassing compromises over the past decades, as corporates have co-opted many enviro organizations and programs.

        But there have been sincere attempts at environmentally responsible efforts within the corporate world too.

        A Clorox/Sierra partnership chills my bones, but I have   seen so many admirable activities by Sierra Club over the years , I will be hoping with some optimism that these particular products - regardless of the chemical carnage that the company may be doing elsewhere, that these particular products might be state-of-the-art in sustainability. The reputation of Sierra Club is at stake.

        by NetRootsDaily on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM PDT

    •  As a long time active Sierra Club member

      I have seen them "endorse" other products before, though maybe not with as big a name as Clorox.  I see it as a win-win, though I know some members who will be upset by this "partnership."
       Purity trolling hasn't worked well on some issues, so better to make some positive impact even if it's with an unlikely "ally".  Politics make strange bedfellows.

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM PDT

      •  "Purity trolling" ?

        way to make friends and discuss things.

         So now you want to discuss purity trolling?
              I thought we were talking about the Sierra Club and whether it should stake it's hard won reputation on the decisions of corporate lackeys. But you want to call people names...whoever complains first 'loses'? Leave me out of that please.

        by KenBee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM PDT

        •  Thanks Ken

          That was a pretty nasty comment.

          "Shut up and shop" is not really a valid argument in a democracy.

          Keep trying FFD.

          by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM PDT

          •  You are the one who took it as nasty.

            That is not at all the way I intended it.
             As a more than 20-year member of the Sierra Club who has held positions as Conservation Chair of local groups, I'm offended that you suggest I'm not environmentally conscious, or that I am not open to people who have objections to the way things are done in the club.  I certainly do not agree with all they have done over the years.
             But if you really don't like what the Sierra Club is doing, you're welcome to join some other group that better aligns with your beliefs.

            by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:13:42 PM PDT

            •  Your Karma

              just ran over my bicycle.

              by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM PDT

        •  You misunderstood my comment.

          I was referring to Sierra Club members who want no connection whatsoever with any companies they perceive to not be "purely" eco-friendly.  Eg. those who dislike companies such as Whole Foods because they may not support local farmers as much as some members would like.
            Years ago I was organizing a clean-up function for the regional S.C. for Earth Day.  Someone at a local Starbucks called me and asked if they could be a "sponsor" of the event by providing refreshments.  I accepted.  But after the event one of the group's officers chewed me out for taking "corporate sponsorship" from a company that wasn't 100% eco-friendly.

          by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:08:18 PM PDT

          •  I don't think I misunderstood

            anything.
             The use of the term 'purity trolling' is an insult, especially here, and ends discussion. When one is losing a debate, it's always a good trick to say something seemingly innocuous to derail the opponent, who then, if things go right, yells, swears, and stalks out.
             Caution and  conservative position on the subject of one's organizations reputation is important, and not to be squandered by poorly thought out moves.  Calling those taking that side in a discussion purity trolls serves no good interest...except the corrupt. No organization is free from that. Suggesting that those who want these deals are corrupt would be the other discussion ender.

            by KenBee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:05:02 PM PDT

    •  To me the Sierra Club

      was hurt much more by their infighting than by endorsing products.

      If anything, this improves their reputation in my eyes.

      by plf515 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM PDT

      •  much appreciated, plf515. n/t

        by birdbrain64 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:48:01 PM PDT

•  Sierra Club Boots Florida Chapter Over Clorox Dea

  The Sierra Club now a division of Clorox, -

  http://www.motherjones.com/...

  by forgore on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:38:44 AM PDT

  •  florida was disbanded

    for other, longstanding internal difficulties.

    by birdbrain64 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM PDT

    •  that is not what Fl says

      "They found the Chapter's scrutiny of their policies inconvenient."
      http://gristmill.grist.org/...

      by forgore on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:15:48 AM PDT

      •  lots of entities

        within the club have been critical of this. very critical.

        timing is convenient. but again, florida had other longstanding issues that were the reason for the disbandment. i don't know the specifics (none of my business), but i have close ties to some who do know. i trust them.

        by birdbrain64 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM PDT

  •  Rather, for criticizing the deal

    The Sierra Club voted this week to suspend its entire 35,000-member Florida chapter for four years and removed the chapter's leadership. The reason? The chapter openly criticized the Club's decision to partner with Clorox for Clorox's new "Green Works" line of "natural" cleaning products.

      The Mother Jones article isn't very complimentary of Clorox. Glad they're doing something better than 409, Liquid Plumber, and Armor All. The article didn't mention Burt's Bees as did someone above.
        This ambiguous  statement could be more informative however:

    Just one example of the conflict of interests inherent in such a partnership: In the same month that the Sierra Club decided to put its logo on Green Works products Clorox was fined $95,000 by the EPA for donating illegal, mislabeled, Chinese versions of its disinfecting bleach to a Los Angeles charity.

      The Sierra Club has never done this before, they booted the entire 35000 membership in Florida for criticizing this deal. This isn't going to turn out well.

    by KenBee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM PDT

    •  not true.

      florida was "in trouble" for other reasons, reasons that developed over a long period of time and came to a head before the clorox endorsement was even announced.

      by birdbrain64 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM PDT

•  Clorox deserves high praise, not a rebuke...

  ...Clorox is one company that is truly striving to align its products (and product ingredients) with both environmental needs and sustainability.  It now runs through the manufacturing and marketing blood of people who work there.  Please take this diary down.  You're only raising unwarranted suspicion about a true corporate friend to the environmental movement.  

  by Larry Bailey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM PDT

  •  It's not Clorox I question

    Good for them. And kudos to their brilliant PR team!

    It's the Sierra Club I'm worried about.

    Corporate America needs more regulation after 7 years of the Bush Administration's handing the economy over to pirates.

    Will the Club's new cozyness with Wall Street lead to mint julips with CEOs on the veranda at the country club?

    Who will Americans be able to count on to monitor and expose the polluters then?

    by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM PDT

    •  Trying the Clinton guilt-by-association tact?

      Will the Club's new cozyness with Wall Street lead to mint julips with CEOs on the veranda at the country club?

       S.C. endorses one line of Clorox products, and you want to paint them as being in bed with all of Wall Street?  WTF?

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM PDT

      •  Sorry but it is not

        by forgore on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM PDT

        •  Try again

          it is not the role of the SC to take a boat load of cash from Clorox. This changes the nature of the organization

          by forgore on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:28:31 AM PDT

      •  When the nation's watchdog organization

        Puts out a press release saying they are going to "ring the bell" on Wall Street I think that is fair game for a vibrant discussion in our glorious democracy.

        P.S. Clinton's ties to Wall Street do make her suspect in my mind. I'd prefer a candidate who works for primarily for the average American, someone who plans to fight Murdoch, Scaife, and other billionaires, not have lunch with them.

        by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM PDT

•  as an active SC member, my thoughts:

  i see both sides. (how's that for taking a stand? heh.)

  the club has never before associated it's name with a product so it breaks huge precedent, and clorox is not a perfect company by any means. it can appear to be a sell-out.

  on the other side, if the sierra club name -- because it is so widely respected by the general public -- can help sell products that are truly earth-friendly, (and work!) to the wal*mart shoppers of the suburbs and rural areas, at reasonable cost rather than the higher cost of many of the natural products, can it help move people away from the harsher chemical cleaners? if it can, is that something we should do?

  i bought a bottle of the greenworks all purpose cleaner to try it, and i think it's a pretty good product.

  now there are all kinds of other parts to this discussion -- should we not be supporting smaller companies instead? (well, they are frequently more expensive -- sometimes you can "hook" people into going 'one step further' once you get them used to buying better, so this could be seen as a "starting point.)

  what about if they were to change the formulation? can sierra club withdraw its endorsement? i sure hope so.

  and what does it mean if in the future clorox does something really crappy -- with the club stand up to them, or let it slide? these aren't things we can know now, but bear watching.

  by birdbrain64 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM PDT

•  This calls for some investigation

  Are these new green products as green as Clorox says they are?
  Will Clorox discontinue the rest of their products that pollute and damage water, land and air?
  What other companies does Clorox own, or do its directors own, that continue to pollute?
  Did Clorox give the Sierra Club a pile of money for their endorsement?

  by howardfromUSA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM PDT

  •  Did Clorox give the Sierra Club a pile of money ?

    yes - see link in my post above.

    This is a very slippery slope

    by forgore on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM PDT

    •  Here's the nugget

      So far, details about the exact nature of the agreement have not been revealed, except for the fact that Clorox will pay the Sierra Club for its sponsorship and the use of its logo on Green Works products, with the exact amount depending on product sales.

      http://www.motherjones.com/...

      by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM PDT

•  Bringing the Green Lifestyle to the middle class?

  Here is a pretty decent argument...

  Sierra Club spokesman Orli Cotel said the cleaners, which sell for between $2.99 and $3.39, could be a way for regular consumers into the 'green' lifestyle, especially during an economic downturn. A bottle of all purpose cleaner from Seventh Generation, in comparison, could cost between $4 and $5.

  'A lot of people haven't been able to do it because frankly the price point has been too high,' she said. 'People are happy they don't have to go broke trying to live a green lifestyle.'

  http://www.forbes.com/...

  by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:09:51 AM PDT

  •  I'm cautiously in favor of corporate "greening"

    mostly because I think it's a better way of introducing good products to a large number of people, but I'd rather it be done by smaller companies with better reputations, which, of course costs more.  It's quite a quandry.  

    by fatherofdragonwagon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:18:26 AM PDT

•  Product is a scam

  I bought Green Works and I thought it was simply a less toxic, safer form of disinfectant but it is not. Read the ingredient list as my wife, a nurse, did. A type of Ethanol is one of the ingredients listed and not only is that exacerbating global warming but it is driving up the cost of food so we can continue to destroy our planet. Thank you Archer Daniels Midland.

  All Green Works does is spread germs on countertops and other surfaces. Bleach really does work as a disinfectant, which is more than I can say for Green Works. Probably the nicest thing I can say about is that you can use it instead of Windex or other glass cleaners because you don't necessarily have the same problems with germs on a mirror than you do on kitchen counters, floors, and toilets.

  by Dirk McQuigley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29:12 AM PDT

•  Another worthless union

  The Clorox- Sierra Club alliance reminds me of when Sunbeam and the American Heart Association and American Medical Association hooked up in the 90's.

  by Dirk McQuigley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:32:45 AM PDT

•  Use castille soap and white vinegar

  (or ordinary bar soap grated like cheese and dissolved in water) to clean. Works great, and almost as cheap as dirt.

  by Leo in NJ on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM PDT

•  Changing the market

  The critical issue here is that products like Seventh Generation have less than 2% of the market.  GreenWorks is a game changer and will dramatically expand the number of people using far greener cleaning products. Even companies like Seventh Generation and Method welcome GreenWorks because it will expand the market, not cut their market share.

  Having participated from the inside I can say the Sierra Club studied it extensively - including the chemical composition - and its one of the best products out there.  Yes, it has some very small amount of ethanol but even Seventh Generation has cleaning products found with a small amount of carcinogens.  But nothing is perfect and these products are dramatic improvements over the alternatives with their toxic soups.

  If we are going to fundamentally change our relationship with the planet we need to scale up the best technologies possible in a huge way.  Not only is GreenWorks a step in the right direction but if Clorox and other companies see that serious big green products sell well they will shift more of their products in that direction.

  The Sierra Club has supported products in the past such as the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius. The market place is changing and we need to find and accelerate the best that is out there.

  This is a very very good product.  This is a huge step forward.

  by Arjuna on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for piping in Arjuna

    Always nice to get the perspective from someone who was in the mix.

    Hope you are right.

    If the campaign is able to move the marketplace away from the most toxic chemicals we use in our homes and workplaces each day then it will have been a success.

    I just hope the Sierra Club has retained its right to criticize Clorox and hold them accountable.

    by greendem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM PDT