A SUSTAINABILITY BRAND MAP STUDYDownload a PDF version of this report or return to Mapping the Future of Innovation introduction
MAPCHANGE 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. MapChange a. Food & Beverage Sector
4. Insights
A sustainable image can be a brand’s best source of competitive advantage. Although there are benefits to adopting sustainability measures for other reasons (efficiency or compliance, for example), building sustainable consumer-facing brands can provide real differentiation in increasingly commoditized consumer product / service markets. Change’s first MapChange study in 2008 showed a significant difference between brand perception and product reality. Consumers thought certain brands were sustainable when they actually weren’t, while other brands weren’t considered sustainable, when they really were. This year we wanted not only to profile the difference between actual and perceived brand sustainability, but how the brands in question measure up against their direct competition. So for MapChange 2010 we partnered with Climate Counts and Angus Reid Public Opinion to compare the top brands within 10 sectors: We gave each brand an ‘actual’ and a ‘perceived’ sustainability score and plotted the results on a classic perceptual map. This document is the complete collection of all 10 sectors. It is also available for download on our website. www.getmapchange.com
2. Methodology We used two distinct methods to calculate actual and perceived leadership in addressing climate change.
To measure actual brand sustainability we used Climate Counts newly released 2010 corporate climate scores. For the past three years, Climate Counts has audited the brands within all 10 sectors using a scorecard that tracks corporate climate action in four key areas: measurement of impact, reduction of impact, engagement on public policy related to climate change and openness and transparency with consumers on corporate climate activities.
Climate Counts uses a 0-to-100 point scale and 22 criteria to determine if companies have:
Perceived Sustainability A ‘maxdiff’ methodology was used to assist the respondents in evaluating the 97 companies represented across 10 different sectors meaning that respondents were asked to “choose the best and worst company in terms of their leadership in addressing climate change” out of a random group of 3-6 companies (dependent on the number of companies in each sector). The survey was divided into two parts, with five sectors in each, to mitigate respondent fatigue and ensure the quality of the data. The complete survey methodology can be found in Appendix 2.
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores a. Food & Beverage Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores a. Food & Beverage Sector – Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores b. Apparel Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores b. Apparel Sector – Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores c. Household Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores c. Household Sector - Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores d. Internet / Software / Media Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores d. Internet / Software / Media Sector – Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores e. Electronics Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores e. Electronics Sector - Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores f. Airlines Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores f. Airlines Sector – Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores g. Hotel Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores g. Hotel Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores h. Food Service Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores h. Food Service Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores i. Consumer Shipping Sector – Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores i. Consumer Shipping Sector – Brand Scores
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores j. Banks Sector Map
3. Complete MapChange Report & Brand Scores j. Banks Sector Map – Brand Scores
• Across every sector, MapChange shows a disparity exists between the actual sustainable activity of brands, and consumers’ perception of sustainable activity of those brands.
• Some sectors emerged as sustainability leaders and others, as laggards. For example, the Consumer Shipping brands all scored above 55, whereas the Airline brands all scored below 50.
• This year, most of the brands had much higher ‘perceived sustainability’ ratings than they did last year.
• This increase in ‘perceived’ sustainability could be due to: a. Improved/increased brand communications about sustainability initiatives
• To compete, brands need to generate sustainable innovation quickly and communicate it effectively.
• In some sectors, brands with high perception scores actually had average actual scores. This suggests that the overall positive perception of these popular brands has a positive ‘halo’ effect on their perceived sustainability. In some cases it could be linked to the trend of large master brands buying smaller brands known for their emphasis on sustainability. The smaller brands imbue the larger master brand with a halo of sustainability.
• On the other hand, brands with the highest actual scores sometimes had relatively low perception scores. This suggests that the corporation’s sustainability activity might not be consumer-facing, or that the activity might be focussed in areas outside of the products / services being produced.
• This represents an opportunity to improve perception through increased consumer-facing sustainable product innovations and improved communications.
• On the flip side, brands already benefiting from a positive consumer perception have an opportunity to strengthen this position through increased sustainability efforts and continuing to innovate new, consumer-facing sustainable products.
Note: These insights are necessarily general, given the broad spectrum of sectors studied. We would be happy to discuss more specific insights pertaining to individual sector maps. To arrange a conversation, please leave your contact information at info@changebiz.com.
7. About Angus Reid Public Opinion Angus Reid Public Opinion is the public affairs practice of Vision Critical – a global research and technology company specializing in custom online panels, private communities, and innovative online methods. Vision Critical is a leader in the use of the Internet and rich media technology to collect high-quality, in-depth insights for a wide array of clients. Dr. Angus Reid and the Angus Reid Strategies team are pioneers in online research methodologies, and have been conducting online surveys since 1995. Vision Critical is now one of the largest market research enterprises in the world. In addition to its five offices in Canada—located in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Toronto, and Montreal—the firm also has offices in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, London, Paris and Sydney. Its team of specialists provides solutions across every type and sector of research, and currently serves over 200 international clients.
Appendix 1: Climate Counts Scorecard
Appendix 2: Survey Methodology – Consumer Perception
CONDUCTED BY Angus Reid Public Opinion
SAMPLE SIZE
2,032
METHODOLOGY
Online omnibus
FIELD DATE
November 2009
SAMPLE COMPOSITION
General US Population
Sample Weighting: Results were weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region US Census data to ensure a random sample representative of the entire adult American population.
A Maxdiff methodology was employed to assist the respondents in evaluating the 97 companies represented across 10 different sectors. Respondents were given four tasks for each sector where they were asked to “choose the best and worst company in terms of their leadership in addressing climate change” out of a random group of 3-6 companies (dependent on the number of companies in each sector).
From November 6 - 12, 2009, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 2.032 American adults who are Springboard America panelists. The margin of error – which measures sampling variability – was ±2.2%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region US Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of the United States.
The survey was divided into two parts (with five sectors in each part) in order to manage respondent fatigue and ensure the quality of the data. A total of 2978 completes were obtained for Part One (margin of error ±1.8% at the 95% confidence level) and 2032 completes for Part Two. The data was collected over the following time frames: Part One Nov 6 – 9th and Part Two Nov 9 – 12th.
Appendix 2 Continued: Survey Methodology – Consumer Perception
Angus Reid Public Opinion polls in the US are conducted using the Springboard America (www.springboardamerica.com) online panels, which are carefully recruited to ensure representation across all demographic and psychographic segments of these populations. Panel members pass through rigorous screening and a double opt-in process ensuring highly motivated and responsive members. These premier online survey platforms present respondents with highly visual, interactive, and engaging surveys, ensuring that panel members provide thoughtful and reliable responses. Each survey is actively sampled and weighted to model the characteristics of the universe required and employs the latest in quality control techniques to ensure data validity.
For the perception measure, we could not avoid the fact that some brands were less well known to consumers than others and acknowledge that the low perception scores of some of these lesser-known brands could be attributed to low awareness rather than negative consumer perception.
We believe we need to clarify the use of the word “brand”. MapChange uses the term to reference the corporate brand (Kellogg’s, Nestle, etc.) while Climate Counts generally uses “brand” to refer to the actual products (Pop Tarts, etc.). MapChange profiles the corporate brand’s sustainability perceptions (which inevitably are linked to consumer perceptions of a corporation’s sub-brands).
The scorecards could also have influenced the general increase in ‘perceived sustainability’ of this year over last. 2008’s scorecard, created by Change (actual) and Environics (perceived), was a broader, more general measure of overall sustainability, whereas this year’s, created by Climate Counts (actual) and Angus Reid Public Opinion (perceived), focused solely on climate change.
Lastly, in order to coordinate brand perception scores with Climate Counts’ actual scores, consumers were asked to rate their perception of company brands, not sub brands. In other words, respondents were asked to make a decision about the company, and not the individual brands in its roster.
To avoid confusion we provided respondents with the full list of the sub brands under each corporate brand.
MARC STOIBER
WOOD TURNER
|
