Does Branding – ecolabels or NZ made -matter?

What are your views -these two articles from theEconomist on environmental labelling and from the Herald on the By NZ campaign are interesting. Apparently after all the billboards many more kiwis are considering if a product is kiwi made before purchasing. Do you look at labels?

– Jacqui

On the mark

Jan 28th 2008
From Economist.com

Ecological labelling takes off

ALTHOUGH society loses out when fishermen deplete a fishery, or loggers take more timber than nature replaces, it happens all the time. This is partly because there is no immediate accounting for an action’s future effects. Overfishing provides cheap fish, but that price does not take into account the cost of fewer fish to future generations. On land, the broader societal costs of losing a forest (muddying watercourses, the loss of bio-diversity and contributions to climate change) do not fall directly on the landowner, and therefore will not be priced into his actions.

Devising policies to deal with these negative externalities is difficult, but increasingly, product labelling and branding are proving an effective means of bringing the environmental costs of a product’s production into its marketplace price.

Green labels have to do a number of things: achieve brand recognition, represent some meaningful level of environmental virtue, and attract producers and retailers to use them. Two green labels have proven particularly successful. One is the Forest Stewardship Council’s “FSC” label, which has had a big impact on the way that many major retailers source their wood: fully 10% of the world’s harvestable forests are FSC certified. The other is the newer Marine Stewardship Council’s “MSC” label.

The idea of a sustainable fish label all started in 1997, when Unilever, the world’s largest buyer of seafood, and the World Wide Fund for Nature formed the MSC—although it became independent shortly after this. Around the world, catches of commercially important whitefish have been in decline since the mid-1980s, and the company quite reasonably felt that its future fish-finger and cod-fillet businesses relied on a sustainable source of white fish. It said it wanted to source all its fish sustainably by the end of 2005.

Although Unilever only reached about three-quarters of its target before selling off most of its frozen-food business, the MSC has been going from strength to strength. Rupert Howes, the MSC’s chief executive, says that while it took seven years for the first 500 MSC-labelled products to appear, the next 500 took only another nine months.Today there are 1,123 products with an MSC label around the world. Although consumer recognition remains low today, many wholesale buyers recognise the label, and demand for sustainably sourced fish is growing fast. A big advertising firm has agreed to do pro-bono work to raise public awareness of the logo.

Seven percent of the world’s edible wild-caught fish is now MSC-certified. Although that may sound negligible, it encompasses some important fisheries, and the figure is likely to grow. For some fish, the label is already very important. Forty-two percent of the world’s wild salmon fisheries are going through, or have passed, MSC certification. In 2005 the Alaskan pollock fishery, the biggest whitefish fishery in the world, which lands 1-1.5m tonnes a year, was certified.

Getting certified as a sustainable producer involves a lot of work and expense, as a third-party accreditation is used for both MSC and FSC labels. This expense is sometimes borne by governments, sometimes green groups and sometimes the producers themselves. Fisheries may volunteer for certification because they find sustainable fish command a premium: 10% for the Hastings Dover sole fishery, and 3% for Pacific cod fisheries.

And the MSC label could be in for a boom. With new commitments to MSC from Sainsbury’s, Tesco and now Wal-Mart (which wants to stock only MSC-certified seafood within five years), the future looks a lot brighter and means the incentives for sustainable fishing will only improve. The risk is the growing number of other labels—such as “organic” and “naturally raised”—which confuse customers and allow suppliers to dilute standards to keep costs down. Product labels have been proliferating to such an extent that a website, greenerchoices.org, publishes an online guide to them.

Labels are not the solution to every negative environmental externality. The more of them there are, the greater risk of consumer confusion. But, in the absence of firm governance, good labels do provide an incentive for change.

NZ HERALD

‘Buy Kiwi Made’ labelled Green Party sop

5:00AM Monday February 04, 2008
By Maria Slade

Six months in and the Government’s $11.5 million Buy Kiwi Made campaign is being seen as a feelgood venture to appease the Green Party rather than an initiative providing direct economic benefits.

While the Government is claiming success in terms of growing membership of the Business New Zealand-owned Buy New Zealand Made scheme, and increased awareness, critics doubt the campaign is making Kiwis patriotically throw their buying power behind local enterprises.

The campaign, made up of advertising, research, and a $3 million grant scheme, was part of the Labour Government’s post-election co-operation agreement with the Greens. It has been running for six months, with television adverts featuring a robotic Oliver Driver starting in September.

Green MP Sue Bradford, government spokeswoman for Buy Kiwi Made, said attitudes were moving in the right direction.

A Research International survey showed that the percentage of consumers who always or often considered whether a product was New Zealand made before buying had increased from 35 per cent before the campaign, to 41 per cent in December.

Fifteen per cent of retailers said New Zealand goods now made up 6-10 per cent of their stock, up from 10 per cent pre-campaign.

Buy New Zealand Made, the separate self-funding organisation which administers the triangular kiwi logo, has benefited from the publicity. Director Samantha Seath said since Buy Kiwi Made started, membership had risen from 650 to 950.

Hits on the Buy New Zealand made website had also increased from 5000 to 40,000 a month.

“People want to buy New Zealand made products, there’s no doubt about it,” she said. “It’s just getting that message through to manufacturers and retailers that they need to make sure that they are stocking products that are showing they are New Zealand made.”

But both Seath and Bradford concede there is no way of measuring the campaign’s success in terms of dollars spent on New Zealand goods.

The Green MP said the value of Buy Kiwi Made was in enhancing the way New Zealanders saw manufacturing, and improving their understanding of its role in our economy.

Manufacturing needed to be looked after as much as possible, she said. “We just see this as one element of trying to nurture the New Zealand economy and prepare our economy for the impacts of climate change and peak oil.”

Bruce Goldsworthy, advocacy manager for EMA Northern, said while it was pleasing a government had “finally” got behind a campaign to buy local products, it had missed its window. New Zealand consumers were now used to a wide range of choice, and were less likely to err on the side of patriotism.

“The extent to which it [the campaign] is good for the country I’m not sure. I believe it would have had a much greater impact if they’d started it 20 years ago.”

Referring to the deal with the Greens, Goldsworthy said Buy Kiwi Made was a political move. “There’d have to be a question whether this money is well spent.”

David Skilling, chief executive of think tank the New Zealand Institute, is similarly sceptical.

“I would be surprised if what they’ve done to date in terms of the initiative is going to generate significant changes in behaviour.” He said consumers would say one thing in a survey, but behave differently. “The issue is whether people are prepared to pay a premium, or what sort of trade up they’re prepared to make, to make good on that intent.”

Skilling said New Zealand enterprises in search of profitability were adopting all sorts of business models, including manufacturing offshore. “Increasingly we should be supporting New Zealand companies that are going global, and not sending a message that somehow they’re less than fully New Zealand.”

One area of the campaign which has clearly not been a success is the $3 million Regional and Sector Initiatives Fund. It was designed to provide support on a 50/50 funding basis for sector and regional projects that are consistent with Buy Kiwi Made’s aims.

Two out of three funding rounds have now been completed, and only $575,000 has been handed out to five initiatives.

Bradford said the fund hadn’t worked out as well as she had hoped.

She said she and the Ministry of Economic Development were “well aware” of the situation, and an announcement about the fund would be made shortly.

Mixed views as new members sign up

Fine furniture maker Ashton Grove has recently joined the Buy New Zealand Made scheme.

General manager Emma Davies said with the Buy Kiwi Made campaign running, the company felt it was a good time to get on the bandwagon. “A lot of people when they come into our retail shops don’t realise that the product is made in New Zealand.”

But she said the campaign itself hadn’t necessarily brought customers to Ashton Grove’s door.

“It [being Kiwi made] always had been one of our selling tools, so to publicise that a bit more is a good thing.”

Supermarket group Foodstuffs, which operates the Pak’nSave, New World and Four Square chains, is another new member of Buy New Zealand Made. General manager of strategy and new ventures Rob Chemaly said it fitted with the group’s sense of “Kiwi-ness”, in being 100 per cent New Zealand owned and operated.

He said there would be some benefit to store operators in being able to promote Kiwi-made products, but there was no way of measuring sales made as a result.

“Certainly we would have some difficulty in keeping accurate track of individual item sales because we don’t always know which are which.”

One organisation which has benefited from the Buy Kiwi Made campaign’s Regional and Sector Initiatives Fund is DesignTex, a group of 21 Horowhenua and Kapiti clothing manufacturers.

The $252,000 grant it received helped it win a $500,000 job to make clothing for the New Zealand Olympic team. The work is also providing spin-off benefits.

Chief executive Andy Wynne cannot speak highly enough of the scheme. “The way in which they have managed the fund is exemplary.”

However the Jewellery Manufacturers Federation of New Zealand did not have as happy an experience. It decided not to take up its $88,000 grant. Chairman Alan Priestley said the need to come up with the other 50 per cent of the funding was prohibitive for a small organisation. He also felt the scheme was aimed more at helping retailers than manufacturers.

Farmers’ Markets New Zealand, representing 40 markets nationwide, received a $96,000 allocation in the last funding round but has yet to sign on the dotted line. Spokesman Chris Fortune said the Buy Kiwi Made concept fitted well into what farmers’ markets were trying to do, but the fund wasn’t for everyone. “The criteria’s fairly strict, I wouldn’t see it suiting a lot of other organisations.”