It’s Time That Socially Responsible Investing Was Just Investing

The marketing of SRIs, like sustainable marketing in general, has not brought responsible investing into the mainstream. Why? As marketers, we’re being severely limited.

It’s Time That Socially Responsible Investing Was Just Investing

About two months ago, Joel Makower made the claim that  “green marketing is over.” Makower
believes green marketing as we know it has failed us–the great
consumer revolution simply hasn’t materialized, and sustainable products
continue to limp along as niche players.


All this, despite growing
evidence that these products are hitting the mark as far as price and
quality are concerned. It’s perception that’s killing them.

is this more true than in socially responsible investing (SRI). Look at index
after index, and you see SRI funds that consistently outperform their
non-responsible counterparts. It’s easy to understand why, if you consider
companies incorporating sustainable and socially responsible practices
are generally also innovative and forward-thinking in other areas–which tends to lead to better returns.

Cliff Feigenbaum, publisher of Green Money,
believes that SRI is gaining wider market acceptance, but still remains
niche. As he told me, it’s migrated from values-based personal
investors to become part of much larger institutional portfolios, but
only a minute part of these portfolios. It would appear institutional
investors include SRI funds to tick off a box for trustees and


So what can we as marketers do to change the
perception of SRI funds to simply good, moneymaking funds? For answers, I turned to
a number of great new studies.

Getting It Right Is The Exception

At last month’s Sustainable Brands conference, I had the opportunity to sit down with James Cerruti of Brandlogic. His company just released a new study
tracking the actual versus perceived sustainability performance of 100
leading global companies. The study is the first to pull its perception
scores from a narrow group of key stakeholders: investors, students, and
supply chain partners.


Although some companies did put out a
sustainability message consistent with their actions, the majority were
either unacknowledged in their actions, laggards in both actions and
words, or getting unfair credit for their less-than-stellar performance.

study is a glaring indictment of the inconsistencies in sustainable corporate
messaging being put out to key stakeholders like investors. We as
marketers still have a way to go.

Start Marketing To The Majority


Another illuminating study
was released at Sustainable Brands by OgilvyEarth. As Freya Williams,
one of the study’s authors told me, green marketers are still busy
preaching to the choir, or trying to convert the defiant
unbelievers–while bypassing the huge (66%) majority of consumers who
would be willing to give green a chance.

If you look at SRI
marketing today, this isn’t immediately apparent. Values-based pitches
have taken the back seat to performance, and windmills are slowly fading
from the front pages of prospectuses. But we’re still
pigeonholing SRI marketing, albeit more subtly. Among the violations
Williams highlighted, there were at least five that SRI marketers regularly
engage in. They include:

It isn’t easy being green: Why
are green investments still presented as a separate category? Why do we
spend a disproportionate amount of time explaining their green
credibility? Why can’t we simply put a seal of approval on them, to
assure consumers they perform, and fit the ethical bill.


Green is confusing: So
what are they calling SRI anyway? In the last while, I’ve heard ethical
funds, sustainable funds, responsible funds, and more. If we can’t
agree on a name, heavens knows we won’t be able to convey a clear
message. Personally, I like what Paul Herman has created: the Human Impact Profit index, or HIP. Definitely a better emotional message than “responsible,” and if you break down the acronym, easy to understand.

Green is the new pink: I
understand that appealing to female investors is lucrative. But by
making a pitch aimed at feminine values, you isolate yourself from 70%
of the population: men, and women who like “cool” men’s products vs “girly” women’s products.

Green costs: Lead with the
personal profit benefit, and you won’t go wrong. Balance the personal
profit benefit with the values benefit, and you’ll introduce niggling
doubt that your fund is a jack of all trades, and master of none, which
translates into lower returns.


Green is suspicious: Almost three-quarters
of consumers prefer an environmentally-friendly cleaner from a big company whose name is
synonymous with bleach, over an environmentally-friendly whose maker is totally sustainable. Why? Because we all want the reassurance of going with the
tried and true. In SRI, that means pushing the reliability of the master
brand, instead of trying to carve off a niche.


The above watch-outs give us a good idea of our ongoing missteps in marketing SRI.


the most valuable learning we can take away is that we need to distance
ourselves from our pitch. Get outside the jar. We may believe that our
marketing is squarely aimed at pitching performance, but a step back
might reveal we’re still engaging in limiting behavior.

If you’ve
been with your company for more than six months, chances are you’re
inside the jar. In that case, get some fresh eyes from outside to look
at your work. It’s well worth the green.

[Image: Flickr user Tracy O]


This article is based on a speech presented to the Canadian SRI Forum June 20, 2011, and the IAC Conference July 8, 2011.

About the author

Marc Stoiber is a creative director, entrepreneur, green brand specialist and writer. He works with clients to build resilient, futureproof brands. Marc's leadership positions have included VP of Green Innovation at Maddock Douglas, President and Founder of Change Advertising, National Creative Director of Grey Canada and Creative Director of DDB Toronto