In January, our firm had the pleasure of hosting Leif Ullman of fischerAppelt relations, our partner agency in Germany. And most recently, Fleur Madden-Topley of Red PR Group, our Australian partner, joined Frause as part of her exchange tour in the U.S.

These opportunities have been made possible via our role in the Public Relations Organisation International (PROI). The international network of independent agencies offers an exchange program that supports team members to learn from other firms. Having partners from around the world join our team – attending meetings, learning about clients and projects, and sharing business knowledge – has been a tremendous opportunity for Frause. It has also given us a chance to strengthen our international relationships.

Leif’s time at Frause was spent soaking up our knowledge, work and practice related to sustainability. He was fortunate to be in town during the opening of the Bertschi Science Wing – Washington’s first building constructed to meet the Living Building Challenge. He was able to get an inside look at the U.S.’s green building programs and our work on promoting the construction portion of the project. To help share the knowledge with the rest of fischerAppelt and its partners, Frause was invited to contribute an article to their quarterly newsletter, CleanTech Radar.

Be sure to check out page 4 for the story: CleanTech Radar

-Nicole Phelan

More companies these days – large and small – are working harder to address sustainability in their daily operations and long-term planning, according to a recent story in the New York Times.  However, this same article chronicles the fact that climate may not be part of the equation when corporations consider how sustainability impacts their bottom line.

The reason for this oversight could be tied to the fact that here in the U.S. we don’t have national policies in place to address climate change – no cap and trade system or other regulatory trigger. However, can corporations work towards long-term sustainability without addressing what most in the scientific community agree is the biggest environmental threat we as a country, and as a planet, currently face?

The New York Times article addresses two approaches to addressing sustainability – the cautious dabblers versus the embracers.  The dabblers tend towards more short-term, measurable investments, such as energy efficiency.  The Embracers are making a stronger commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tend to come from more energy-intensive sectors – companies that make products versus selling services.

And some of the embracers are taking their message to Capitol Hill. A representative of Timberland, speaking on behalf of a group of companies, presented a report by CERES to Congress stating that meeting U.S. EPA regulations would create about 290,000 jobs a year.  If these numbers are accurate, meeting the climate challenge could dramatically help to create greater economic stability and prosperity. Should we step up to that challenge, or are we blowing in the wind?

-Josh Chaitin

Corporate social responsibility. Sustainability.  Stewardship. Businesses often use these terms to describe their commitment to protect the natural world and contribute to a fair, humane society.  But how do we know when a company is truly working hard to create positive outcomes, versus simply trying to create a positive image?

As a consumer, I’ve tried for a long time to dig deeper into the nature of the companies I support with my dollars. Since I’ve become a parent, my awareness has only become more heightened. Trying to reconcile what I buy with my moral and ethical convictions is often a dizzying experience.

One of the best indicators that a company is walking the sustainability talk may seem counterintuitive.  When a company’s stewardship efforts – that is, its work to reduce environmental impacts and to act in a socially responsible manner – are tied to its economic bottom line, then we have something.  Here’s why.  If a company tries to adopt a set of practices purely because it’s a good thing to do, the effort will likely be short lived.  Private businesses must make a profit to survive, and any efforts that take away from that profitability jeopardize the health of the company.  However, companies that tie sustainable practices to economic performance often succeed where others fail.

For example, one client has found that shipping goods by sea, versus air and land, dramatically reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and transportation costs.  The company has a very ambitious goal to reduce GHGs and this effort has helped tremendously.

Another client has found success by building homes that are highly efficient, healthier (with no chemicals off-gassing that affect air quality), and near public transportation.  While these practices can cost more because green building products are often more expensive, they tend to outsell their competition. This is because homebuyers now have a heightened awareness of indoor air quality, energy efficiency, and because a home on a transit line reduces the need to drive.

Through these observations I’ve trained myself to move away from being either a cynic – believing we’re in a horrible environmental tailspin – or from wearing rose-colored glasses – waiting for a miracle to fix our social and environmental problems. I’m now a self-described hopeful realist.  I’m a realist because I can see the true nature of business – for companies to exist they must make money.  And I’m hopeful because the most innovative companies can find ways to tie their sustainability efforts to their economic bottom line.  From what I’ve seen so far, these are the companies that will thrive in the long-term while helping to create a healthier planet and more equitable society.

-Josh Chaitin