QUENCHING AMERICA’S THIRST FOR BOTTLED WATER:
HOW CORPORATE AND NONPROFIT CAMPAIGNS CAN JOIN FORCES TO
IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT
A Directed Research Project
Submitted to
THE FACULTY OF THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION GRADUATE PROGRAM
SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In Candidacy for the Degree of
Master of Arts
By
Monica M. Zimmer
May 2009
Copyright © 2009
All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without written permission from the copyright owner.
To obtain permission to use material from this work, please submit a written request
via email to: mmzimmer@comcast.net
2
Abstract
Each year, 38 billion empty plastic bottles end up in landfills in the United
States. This study examines two campaigns that both sought to raise awareness about
the environmental costs of bottle water: Brita’s FilterForGood and New American
Dream’s Break the Bottled Water Habit. Although one campaign was sponsored by a
large corporation and the other a nonprofit, both campaigns focused on a similar issue.
This study explored the advocacy benefits of combining and coordinating campaigns
to strengthen private-public partnerships and to achieve civil society objectives for
environmental change. The study identified the strengths and weaknesses of the two
campaigns and then explored the benefits and obstacles of combining the two
campaigns. This study shows that the strong message framing of each campaign could
benefit from being combined and coordinated. Strong message frames about the
environment and about consumerism need to join forces in order for this movement to
reach its full potential. Nonprofits and corporations needs to overcome their
ideological differences to make the kind of environmental changes that are needed at
this time in history.
3
Acknowledgements
Many people supported me throughout this capstone project and I am grateful to all of
them. I would like to thank Dr. R.S. Zaharna for her guidance, encouragement and
spot-on feedback. She has the gift of asking the right questions to help her students
perform at a higher level. Her organization and thoughtful counseling made this feat
so much more manageable.
This capstone would not have been possible without the daily – and sometimes hourly
– encouragement of my dear husband Hans Jürgen Hoyer, who is American University
alumni. He has been especially empathetic by recalling his dissertation-writing days at
AU. I would like to sincerely thank Hans for filling both parenting roles during this
time, for giving me the strength to persevere and for being the one.
My sweet children – Katarina and Nealon – have been compassionate and encouraging
throughout this process – often letting me off the hook for another bedtime story so I
could work on my capstone. They have kept me in check by comparing grades. I owe
them a few rollercoaster rides for all the sacrifices they’ve made for me to complete
this capstone and graduate degree.
Thanks to my wonderful colleagues at Sodexo, Jaya Bohlmann and the Public
Relations team. I appreciate their encouragement and their sharing of ideas and
listening to mine.
Thanks to Professor Darrell Hayes for his constant support and acknowledgement of
the challenges I faced juggling family, work and graduate studies. The entire faculty of
the Weekend Public Communication program contributed to this capstone by helping
to shape my ideas.
Last, but certainly not least, thanks to my classmates in cohort 17. I will treasure the
memories of this marathon we’ve run together. I look forward to lifelong networking
and friendship with you.
4
Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction………………………………………………………………6
Study Purpose………………………………………………………………………….7
Study Objectives……………………………………………………………………….7
Study Significance……………………………………………………………………..7
Study Limitations……………………………………………………………................8
Study Overview………………………………………………………………………...9
Chapter II: Literature Review……………………………………………………..10
Chapter III: Case Profiles…………………………………………………………..25
Break the Bottled Water Habit Case Profile………………………………………….25
Campaign Rationale and Movement………………………………………………..25
Campaign Tactics…………………………………………………………………...27
Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………..32
FilterForGood Case Profile…………………………………………………………...32
Campaign Rationale and Movement……………………………………………… 32
Campaign Tactics…………………………………………………………………...34
Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………..38
Chapter IV: Case Analysis………………………………………………………….39
FilterForGood Campaign: Strengths and Weaknesses………………………………..39
Break the Bottled Water Habit: Strengths and Weaknesses………………………….45
Combining Campaigns: Obstacles and Benefits……………………………………...50
Overall Assessment…………………………………………………………………...53
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………….54
Chapter V: Conclusion……………………………………………………………...56
References…………………………………………………………………………..60
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………….62
Figure 1: FilterForGood Homepage………………………………………………….62
Figure 2: Map of FilterForGood Pledge……………………………………………...62
Figure 3: Break the Bottled Water Habit Homepage…………………………………63
Figure 4: Bottle Water Cost Calculator………………………………………………63
Figure 5: Current Partners FilterForGood…………………………………………….64
Figure 6: Current Partners for Break the Bottled Water Habit……………………….64
5
Introduction
America’s love affair with bottled water is a doomed relationship according to
most environmentalists. American landfills drink up more than 38 billion empty
plastic water bottles each year because 80 percent of the containers are tossed in the
trash, instead of the recycling bin. In 2007, the Clorox Company, the parent company
of the Brita water filter brand, launched a campaign called FilterForGood to reduce
bottled water waste by asking consumers to pledge to use water filters and a reusable
plastic bottle instead. That same year, nonprofit Center for a New American Dream
launched a campaign also aimed at curbing bottled water waste called Break the
Bottled Water Habit.
Most environmentalists agree that Brita’s alternative is much better for the
planet. They agree with Break the Bottled Water Habit that most tap water is safe to
drink. Ultimately, bottled water is largely unnecessary in the United States. However,
the campaigns by themselves have not been successful at tuning the media agenda
onto this issue. Both campaigns have strong messaging yet they fail to reach a broad
range of audiences. Greater collaboration between corporate and nonprofit
organizations could help to propel this issue into the spotlight. While New Dream
would benefit from Brita’s resources to reach a broader audience, Brita would benefit
from having a solid nonprofit partner to bolster its corporate social responsibility
authenticity. Research shows that audiences demand companies ―walk the line‖ or
practice what they preach when it comes to CSR. An opportunity exists for
collaboration and finding common ground, which is needed to curb bottled water
waste – one small but important problem for planet Earth.
6
While both good campaigns, both have strengths and weaknesses. Since both
working on basically same issue, raise the possibility of what might be potential up
and down side of combining campaigns?
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore the advocacy benefits of combining and
coordinating campaigns to curb bottled water waste: Brita’s FilterForGood campaign
and New American Dream’s Break the Bottled Water Habit. Both campaigns will be
analyzed to determine their strengths and weaknesses then assess the potential benefits
and viability of joining the two campaigns so that they compliment each other.
Study Objectives
The study objectives include examining the communication strategies and
campaigns of a corporate sponsor and a nonprofit sponsor on a similar issue.
To highlight each campaign, the study will pay particular attention to: Setting the
media agenda; using effective message framing; and utilizing private-public
partnerships to provide authentic corporate social responsibility.
Study Significance
This topic of better coordination between corporations and nonprofits on messaging
and campaign strategies is significant because the findings could apply to
environmental and other social change initiatives that have an impact on both the
private and nonprofit sectors. As established systems within our society continue to
7
break down – the financial system; food safety system; environmental system; and
healthcare system – we will need coordinated efforts to rebuild and restore them.
Public relations scholars will need to study how corporate social responsibility impacts
civil society as our systems go through transformation.
This study is significant because it highlights the need for coordination among
several sectors of society in order to make significant and much-needed environmental
change. The study also examines the noteworthy need for authenticity in corporate
social responsibility to achieve maximum impact. Finally, the study is significant as it
will shine the spotlight on how private-nonprofit partnerships can increase authenticity
and accountability to help each attain their respective goals.
Study Limitations
Many areas of civic activity could benefit from better communication coordination,
I selected bottled water waste because I have noticed the many similarities of these
campaigns as a supporter yet I am puzzled that the issue does not get the attention it
deserves in the media. Additionally, the areas of private-public coordination and
partnership have many facets, not all of which will fit into this study. I will not study
the specific programmatic elements of reducing bottled water waste, such as reducing
environmental impact in scientific terms. This study will not explore other aspects of
successful private-public partnerships including setting a clear business agenda,
identifying strong partners committed to change, investing in both parties, reaching
out to grassroots and committing replicating results.
8
Finally, this study will not examine the public health benefits of drinking water.
Curbing bottled water waste could be misinterpreted to suggest people should drink
less water. The study will focus on bottled water waste, not the benefits of hydration to
the human body.
Study Overview
Following the Introduction, Chapter 2 surveys the literature related to message
framing, agenda setting, priming and CSR authenticity to identify best practices in this
area. Chapter 3 profiles the themes, elements and results of Brita’s Filter for Good
campaign and New American Dream’s Breaking the Bottled Water Habit campaign..
Chapter 4 analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of these cases and discusses how the
two efforts could be combined to strengthen the outcomes while still preserving the
integrity of the individual sponsors. Combining and coordinating campaigns could
provide the leverage needed to reach a wide range of audiences to motivate behavior
change and to get people to reduce or eliminate the use of bottled water in order to
improve the environment and their pocket books.
Chapter 5 concludes the study by summarizing the findings and their significance and
suggests areas for future research.
9
Chapter II: Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature of agenda setting, framing and corporate
social responsibility authenticity. It provides insight on concepts that corporate and
nonprofit organizations could use to coordinate efforts to achieve social-change
objectives.
McCombs and Shaw (1972) claim that the media set the agenda by telling
people how much importance to attach to an issue based on the amount of
information and its position in the news. The scholars assert that the mass media
has the ability to set the agenda in political campaigns, influencing the salience of
attitudes toward issues.
The scholars examine agenda setting during the 1968 presidential campaign
by attempting to match with what Chapel Hill voters said were the key issues
compared to the actual content of the mass media during the campaign. McCombs
and Shaw find that the study demonstrates that much campaign news focused on
the campaign itself and not major political issues. Overall, the issues received
minor coverage, according to the scholars. They note that the media appear to
have exerted a considerable impact on voters’ judgments of what they considered
the major issues of the campaign. The scholars’ data showed a strong relationship
between emphasis placed on different issues by the media and voter judgment as
to the salience of important campaign issues. The voters reflect the composite of
the mass media coverage, according to McCombs and Shaw. The scholars say this
suggests voters pay attention to all political news regardless if it’s from their
favored candidate.
10
The authors’ study shows the type of media – newspapers, TV and radio and
that like media tend to share the same correlations. Secondly, the scholars assert
that news media have a point of view and sometimes show extreme biases. While
the media reproduces an imperfect reflection of the political world, according to
the scholars, evidence from the study shows that voters share the media’s
―composite‖ definition of what is important – thereby setting the agenda.
The scholars claim that the media is the major primary source of national
political information, providing the best, and only, available coverage of the everchanging campaign. They assert that the correlations in their study do not prove
the agenda-setting nature of the mass media and that subsequent research must be
conducted. However, they claim that it is more plausible that the mass media
influences more since few people directly participate in electoral politics.
The scholars also hypothesized that cognitive style also influences patterns of
information seeking. McComb and Shaw categorized each voter’s salience of
affect as his/her cognitive style. Some of the factors in salience include education
level and political interest. However, cognitive style is closer to the time of actual
participation in a campaign and has a more functional relationship to voter
behavior. The scholars also demonstrate the salience of affect on media use as
well as the efficacy of salience of affect as a predictor of media use, especially
among persons with high political interest.
The scholars studied the proportion of media users by political interest and
salience of affect and found that high salience of affect tends to block use of
communication media to acquire further information about issues with high
11
personal importance. Respondents with high salience of affect do not recall
acquiring recent information. McCombs and Shaw say this is true both for
persons with low and high political interest, especially among those with high
political interest.
McCombs and Shaw showed the correlation between media agendas and
public agendas. Sutherland and Galloway (1981) built on that correlation to see the
parallels with advertising. Sutherland and Galloway explore the process by which
media agendas transform into public agendas in order to examine the parallels with
advertising and marketing. The scholars discuss various elements in this process
including the agenda-setting process, relevance to advertising, and salience and lowinvolvement theory.
In delving into agenda-setting theory as it may relate to advertising and
marketing, Sutherland and Galloway observe that the audience often perceives that
because the media covers a story, it must be very important. The scholars put forward
that the extent of coverage also contributes to the perception of the degree of
importance of that particular news item. This media emphasis, they say, is internalized
and comes to the surface when an audience is asked about the public agenda. For
example, the scholars use the example of energy issues and how they would be more
salient in the audience’s mind if they saw headlined coverage of it. The scholars
clarify that the media’s coverage has less to do with bias and more to do with
journalistic convention regarding newsworthiness.
The scholars delve into the parallel to ―agenda‖ in the mass media with the
effect that advertising causes on agenda setting. They say, advertising compliments
12
agenda-setting theory in that its goal is to focus attention on the values, products,
brands or attributes consumers should think about without telling customers what to
think about these things. The scholars concur with others who suggest that persuasion
is not involved at all in television advertising but rather repetition or ―overlearning‖
that lead to altering perceptions of a brand or product. Sutherland and Galloway assert
that altering perceptions may take the form of shifts in salience, which is clearly
consistent with agenda-setting theory. The scholars argue that ―brand salience‖ has
been called ―top of mind‖ or ―first-brand awareness‖ in advertising. The authors cite
numerous studies that point to increases in salience and its connection to greater
market share and purchases. They hypothesize that advertising is an important ―cuein‖ to perceptions of what is popular. They test their hypothesis and find that
advertising received the biggest response for describing why a brand was popular. The
second biggest response was that the brand had been around for a long time –
indicating a strong link to top-of-mind [first brand] awareness. The scholars determine
that advertising is a significant cue in judging what is popular with others. Therefore
the scholars say that ―perceived popularity‖ is inferred via ―salience‖ and subsequently
is linked to agendas that contribute to behavioral outcomes.
The scholars claim that salience also plays a role in ―low-involvement decision
areas‖ by determining the evoked set. Meaning that most times not all alternatives are
evaluated in order to solve a problem but the ones that are most salient are evoked.
Therefore salience accounts for solutions and behavioral outcomes. For examples,
media coverage of plane crashes results in lower ticket sales and an increase in flightinsurance sales. The scholars argue that the media do not often influence opinions but
13
rather they influence salience and ―what people think other people think,‖ which
stimulates action. This, they say, is a mental creation based on what is salient at a
point in time in the public mind – relative to other issues.
Entman (1993) highlight how frames are embedded in text and influence thinking.
He defines framing as the way people use schema to select and highlight (give
salience to) certain aspects to understand and respond to events or ideas. He says
framing is the precise way in which influence over a human consciousness is exerted
by the transfer of information from one location to the consciousness. He concedes
that the words frame, framing and framework are commonly used words outside of
scholarly writing. Yet, he says, the connotation is similar. Entman’s goal is to identify
and make explicit common tendencies and to suggest a more precise and universal
understanding. Entman emphasizes that the communication field might develop from
studying frames, which could develop into a core of knowledge that could develop
research and social theory.
Entman outlines four functions of framing, which include: defining problems,
diagnosing causes, making moral judgments, and suggesting remedies. Defining
problems, he says, is usually measured by cultural values and looks at the costs and
benefits of a causal agent. Diagnosing causes, Entman says, uses frames to identify the
forces creating the problem. Making judgments occurs when frames are used to
evaluate causal agents and their effects. And suggesting remedies, according to
Entman, is to offer and justify treatments to a problem and then predict the effect.
Entman suggests that frames have at least four locations in the communication
process. First, the communicator makes decisions on what to say and what not to say
14
that may be conscious or unconscious. Second, text contains frames that manifest by
the presence or absence of key words, stereotypes and sources of information. Third,
Entman says the frames that guide the receiver’s thinking may or may not reflect the
framing intention of the communicator. Fourth, he asserts that the culture is stock
commonly invoked in frames.
Entman explains that frames give information more salience by making it
noticeable, meaningful, and memorable. Receivers’ existing schemata can make it
difficult for them to notice, interpret or remember information without a resonant
frame. Schemata, Entmans says, are cognitive shortcuts (categories, scripts,
stereotypes) prominent in frames. In political news especially, frames can call
attention to some aspects and blur others.
Entman says there are benefits to having a consistent concept of framing. He says
a consistent concept of framing gives audience autonomy by being able to decode
media’s dominant meaning. Journalistic objectivity can be manipulated by skilful
spokespeople conveying the dominant frame, he says. Entman refers to other scholars
who agree that in most matters of social or political interest, people are not generally
well informed and cognitively active. Because of that, framing influences their
responses. Although most journalists strive for objectivity, they convey a dominant
framing of the news text that prevents most audience members from making a
balanced assessment of a situation, according to Entman. The scholar recommends
content analysis to help to neutralize frames from both sides and to identify and
describe frames. This can only be done if content analysis is guided by framing theory
to prevent coders from simply dubbing messages as positive or negative but rather to
15
judge the salience of the research. Finally, public opinion can be shaped by elites who
frame issues, eroding its true nature.
Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) examine the parallels between agenda-setting
framing and priming and suggest all three media effects compliment each other and
serve a cognitive function with audiences. Scheufele and Tewksbury outline the
differences between agenda setting, priming and framing. They say that with the use
of framing as a communication tool for campaigns, research has emerged on other
cognitive campaign effects, such as agenda setting and priming, which are thought to
be related or based on similar premises.
The scholars assert that there have been three models of political
communication. The first is the early hypodermic needle and magic-bullet models of
the 1920s and 1930s. The second is that media had long-term effects on audiences
based on the volume of messages presented and was prevalent in the 1970s. Finally
there is the ―negation models‖, which include approaches such as priming and framing
in the 1980s and 1990s. This last model, they assert, is based on the idea tat mass
media had potentially strong attitudinal effects but depend on predispositions, schema,
and other characteristics of the audience that influenced how they process messages in
the mass media. The scholars outline that agenda setting refers to the idea that there is
a strong correlation between the emphasis that mass media place on certain issues and
the importance attributed to these issues by mass audiences.
Scheufle and Tewksbury assert that priming refers to changes in the standards that
people use to make political evaluations. Priming occurs when news content suggests
to news audience that they ought to use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating
16
the performance of leaders and governments. Priming is an extension of agenda
setting. The scholars say there are two reasons for this extension. The first is that both
effects are memory-based models that assume that people form attitudes based on the
considerations that are most salient when they make decisions. The second is based on
common theoretical foundation, where some researchers have argued that priming is a
temporal extension of agenda setting. The scholars say that by making some issues
more salient (agenda setting), mass media can also shape the considerations that
people take into account when making judgments about political candidates or issues
(priming).
Framing differs significantly from accessibility-based models, according to
Scheufele and Tewksbury, and rather focuses on how an issue is characterized in news
reports and how it can have influence on how it is understood by audiences. The
scholars explain that the sociological foundation of framing by those who assumed
that individuals cannot fully understand the world and struggle to interpret and make
sense of the world around them. Therefore, the scholars assert, people apply
interpretive schemas to classify information and interpret it meaningfully. The
scholars put forth that framing is both a macro-level and a micro-level construct.
Frames are invaluable tools for presenting relatively complex issues in a way that
makes them accessible to lay audiences.
The scholars argue that the relationship of the three concepts is a) how messages
are created, b) how they are processed, and c) how the effects are produced; must be
used in a conceptual model to make sense. The first area to compare is news
production and the scholars conclude that its elements are part of the entire framing
17
process. Scheufele and Tewksbury say the question is whether news audiences
experience the two processes identically. They conclude that accessibility of an issue,
and its corresponding place on the issue agenda, may be higher when people attend to
messages about it. They say that attention to messages may be more necessary for a
framing effect to occur than an agenda-setting effect. The third central question is the
locus of cognitive effect, which outlines that processing time rather than information
carries effect.
Dorfman, Wallack, and Woodruff (2005) apply the concepts of framing to public
health to illustrate societal tensions between individual freedom and collective
responsibility and how these two frames influence the public dialogue on health
consequences of corporate practices. Dorfman et al. describe how two frames, market
justice and social justice, influence public dialogue on the health consequences of
corporate practices. The scholars argue that public health advocates must articulate
social justice values in the debate that plays out in the news media to achieve the
changes they seek. Dorfman et al. [conclude seems premature if still going to talk
about study] provide lessons on how to do this, which include: importance of
understanding existing values and beliefs motivating the public health change, the
benefits of articulating core messages that correspond to shared values, and the
necessity of developing media skills to compete effectively.
The scholars define framing as meaning many different things to different
people. They describe two types of frames – conceptual frames and news frames,
which they believe have to strongest impact on public health and social justice. The
scholars discuss how people are only able to interpret words, images, action or text
18
because their brains fit those texts into an existing conceptual system that gives them
order and meaning, according to the scholars. Frames, often expressed in metaphors,
help people understand complex ideas.
The scholars refer to cognitive linguist Lakoff (1996) work on frames. Lakoff
argues that frames are the conceptual bedrock for understanding anything. Lakoff
described three conceptual levels for framing messages in the context of public health
and other social, political issues. They describe Level 1 messages as the expression of
overarching values, such as fairness and responsibility. Level 2 is the general issue
being addressed, such as schools and health. Level 3 is about the weeds or details of
issues. The scholars say that advocates should resist the tendency is to argue the
fallacy of their opponents Level 1 message instead of taking the strategic advantage to
develop their own value-laden Level 1 message. Similar to Lakoff, the scholars say
that frames trump facts and the frame is set at Level 1.
The scholars claim that conceptual frames operate inside our heads as
cognitive shortcuts to help us make sense of the world by giving us cues. But, the
scholars ask, where do the cues come from? People in our society, they say, get their
information from the media, especially the news. In 1922, Walter Lippman warned
that news provided pictures in our heads, which in turn were determining policy.
Therefore, the scholars conclude that it’s important to look at the ―pictures in our
heads‖ in relation to public health issues.
Dorfman, Wallack and Woodruff say frames are similar to a painting’s frame.
Elements of the picture within the frame are deemed important and those outside the
frame are unimportant. The scholars say that advocates should anticipate the
19
opposition frames. They say corporate spokespeople make statements reflecting Level
1 market justice values. Advocates, they say, can influence the debate by triggering
frames that connect to their values. Effective messages meld policy with values,
according to the scholars. They say that public health educators need to learn three
lessons: 1) understand and be able to articulate their core values; 2) integrate those
values with concise description of a key aspect of a problem; and 3) develop media
skills to effectively deliver the message.
O’Connor, Shumate, and Meister (2008) explore how corporations need to
understand their targeted stakeholders to deliver what those audiences demand, which
is authentic corporate social responsibility. O’Connor, Shumate and Meister observed
a lack of research into corporate social responsibility as it relates to and is shaped by
primary publics, such as prominent stakeholder groups like Active Moms. Through
nine focus groups with Active Moms, the authors identified an emerging definition of
CSR. Their definition is broad and touches on many facets of CSR. The scholars assert
that authentic CSR combines socially responsible business practices and campaigns to
engage issues. They discover that authentic CSR must operate over a long period of
time and be consistent. CSR must be linked to core business practices, they say. Their
definition cites CSR as distinct from philanthropy. It is evaluated using emotionality
and rationality. Overall, Active Moms conceptualized CSR more broadly than
previously considered.
The scholars say that an important part of defining CSR is to examine issues of
legitimacy or socially accepted values and behavior. The root definition of legitimacy
comes from being appropriate within a socially constructed system of norms, values,
20
beliefs, and definitions. This, the scholars say, links to CSR because it underscores the
importance of relationships between stakeholders, organizations, and communities.
They stress that corporations understand the implicit and explicit value of
communicating social responsibility to a wide range of stakeholders and responding to
their expectations. CSR communication, they say, attempts to negotiate the value and
legitimacy of CSR activities.
The scholars conducted a study, which asked: According to Active Moms,
what are the meanings of CSR? What attributed do Active Moms perceive as
important for socially responsible corporations to exhibit? In the focus groups, Active
Moms described CSR as having three distinct definitions. The first one involved
economic vs. social justification for existence, citing that corporations must do more
than provide economic justification for their existence. The second definition that
emerged is rationality vs. emotionality. The participants stressed that CSR activities
are heavily value laden. Participants expressed that they connected more strongly with
corporations that supported a cause to which they had a deep emotional connection.
The third definition was outlining the differences between philanthropy and CSR. The
two should be distinct yet complimentary.
Another significant result that the scholars cite from their focus group is the
central category put forward by the participants which was that corporations must
―walk the line.‖ This metaphor describes participant explanations of how corporations
and stakeholders define the line of CSR, monitor individual corporation’s ability to
walk the line and enforce the agreed upon standards of the line drawn. The metaphor
demonstrates the group’s need for consistency and represents a desired mandate that
21
corporations should mirror the audience, especially pertaining to social values, norms
and expectations. Participants did not equate CSR with making a profit, counter to
strategic philanthropy and shareholder capitalism theories. Corporate citizenship
should display ethos – or guiding beliefs of the organization – to be authentic.
Participants revealed that organizations and stakeholders co-construct the line. As such
the line has both corporate and community value-based construct.
Finally, Middlemiss (2003) and his study supports the notion of how important
it is for corporations to walk the talk in corporate social responsibility. Middlemiss
draws on the findings of a study to examine the rising prominence of corporate social
responsibility and its implications to stakeholders and the media. Study findings show
important aspects of CSR and communication. Other vital components of an effective
CSR are also explored, including having credible program elements in place, and
credible public relations and reputation management.
Middlemiss studies the finding of ―Giving Back‖, which was a survey and
study of CSR in global markets conducted from 2000-2002 that analyzed the news
media and conducted opinion research among senior corporate decision makers and
communication professionals. The survey findings highlight the risk of not ―walking
the talk‖ in CSR and the risks of one-size-fits-all ways to report results and the
dangers of being defensive about shortcomings.
Respondents in the survey, almost unanimously agreed that CSR plays a key
role in building reputation, points out Middlemiss. As a result they saw improvements
flowing from many fields, including: enhancing corporate image/reputations,
managing reputation risk, improving employee relations and recruiting efforts;
22
improving the supply chain, improving market understanding, growing awareness of
the merits of sustainability; maintaining a stable social environment, providing a
license to operate, and benefiting the bottom line.
Middlemiss outlines three critical drivers to successful CSR. The first is
championship from senior management, including at the board level. Without this
support, CSR will not get the resources it needs to be successful. The second is
company-wide ownership and understanding. It’s key to gain buy-in throughout the
organization so employees understand and are accountable for CSR. The third is
business synergy, which respondents agreed that companies must act in areas aligned
with relevant CSR activities to exploit core competencies and to make the initiatives
more credible.vg
Middlemiss cautions against several possible breaks from acceptance. This can
occur when line managers are caught up in internal work, top management are not
persuaded, financial team (including accountants and lawyers) won’t buy it, sales and
marketing people see it as detracting from the brand, or if the old guard don’t see the
need for it. Measuring CSR, according to Middlemiss, should be assessed in terms of
relationships as a guide to strategy, rather than financial value.
Middlemiss asserts the strong link between public relations and reputation
management around CSR with two fundamental values: transparency and openness;
and dialogue with stakeholders. CSR cannot only be seen as a PR activity. Topping
the list of ―do’s‖ is to be credible, transparent, and honest. Topping the list of ―don’ts‖
is spin and greenwashing, which is the perception of consumers that they are being
mislead by a company. Tailoring communication for specific stakeholders is critical.
23
Actions must match words. Media are most interested in catching corporate missteps
in CSR, but Middlemiss says the media needs to avoid excessive cynicism regard
CSR.
This literature review has explored concepts of agenda setting, framing and
CSR authenticity that can be analyzed and applied to the case study of bottled water
waste.
24
Chapter III: Case Profile
This chapter provides two cases profiles of campaigns that aim to curb bottled water waste.
The first campaign is Break the Bottled Water Habit sponsored by the Center for a New
American Dream. The second campaign is Filter for Good sponsored by Brita, which is a brand
within the Clorox Company.
Break the Bottled Water Habit
Break the Bottled Water Habit was conceived and sponsored by the Center for a New
American Dream (New Dream). This nonprofit organization was established in 1997 to address
consumer consumption and its unsustainable nature and social impacts. The nonprofit reaches
consumers through media campaigns, tips on responsible purchasing, and through building
communities committed to consuming more responsibly. The New Dream targets both
individuals and institutions. In October 2007, New Dream piloted a test to call for activists to
pledge to stop using bottled water at its website www.newdream.org. Built on that success,
the organization launched a multi-year campaign to curb bottled water use by individuals and
institutions.
Campaign Rationale and Movement
Break the Bottled Water Habit supports the mission of the New Dream community of more
than 140,000 Americans who embrace less materialistic lifestyles and making healthier
choices. New Dream published a Responsible Purchasing Guide that outlines the impetus
behind curbing bottled water waste. That guide outlines its concerns with consumerism citing
that Americans bought a total of 8.8 billion gallons of bottled water in 2007 (Center for a New
American Dream, 2009). According to one estimate, producing these bottles required the
25
energy equivalent of over 17 million barrels of oil and produced over 2.5 million tons of carbon
dioxide. This is the same amount of carbon dioxide that would be emitted by over 400,000
passenger vehicles in one year. Nearly 50 billion new plastic bottles were produced in 2005
from virgin rather than recycled materials, producing additional greenhouse gases. In 2004,
only 14.5 percent of non-carbonated beverage bottles made from plastic bottles were recycled.
For each gallon of water that is bottled, an additional two gallons of water are used in
processing. The New Dream asserts that much of this impact can be easily avoided by
switching to tap water, filters, fountains and coolers when necessary. Bottled water, it claims, is
environmentally damaging and wasteful. The organization suggests alternatives given the wide
availability of safe, low-cost tap water, and the wide array of appropriate and cost-competitive
filters and other drinking water dispensing equipment. New Dreamers suggest switching to tap
water would save consumers money and dramatically reduces environmental impacts,
including greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and waste generation, according to the
organization (Center for a New American Dream, 2009).
The overall mission of the organization is to help people save money, reduce waste, and
promote safe, accessible tap water, and decrease carbon footprints. In 2007, the Center for a
New American Dream (New Dream) launched the Responsible Purchasing Network (RPN), a
membership-based coalition of institutions committed to leveraging their collective power to
shift the marketplace. New Dream seeks to provide individuals with campaigns and resources
they need to make smart choices and be effective advocates, while helping large institutions
shift the market toward greener goods through its Responsible Purchasing Network. The goal
of the campaign is to persuade people to be responsible consumers of water. The specific
26
objective of the campaign is to significantly reduce the use of bottled water among individuals
and institutions, including governments and universities and others.
The campaign was piloted in October 2007. After an initial response of 14,000 New
Dreamers pledging to stop using bottled water, the campaign was officially launched in spring
2008 and continues today. Organizers say the campaign will continue as long as it achieves
success in raising awareness among individuals and institutions to reduce bottled water use.
The target audience during the pilot stage of the campaign was New Dream inner circle of
activists who are already open to ideas of more responsible consumerism. From there, the
campaign has broadened its reach and expanded to the broader public and institutions. The
campaign is targeting municipal and states heads of government – mayors and governors.
Break the Bottled Water Habit encourages leaders to ban the use of bottled water in municipal
and state buildings to support municipal water systems, to cut costs, and to be more
environmentally responsible.
Campaign Tactics
There are five key messages and supporting proof points woven throughout the campaign.
The first message: At least 40 percent of bottled water is tap water anyway. That’s right: you
are paying a huge premium on water that you could have just gotten from your tap in the first
place. You probably like tap water more than bottled water, too! (Natural Resources Defense
Council, 2008) The second message: Your tap water is fine to drink. Tap water is more highly
regulated than bottled water and over 90 percent of water systems meet Environmental
Protection Agency’s standards for tap water quality. (If the taste or color is a little off from
your tap, your pipes are probably at fault—a simple filtration system should do the trick to take
both aesthetic problems away.) The third message: Bottled water is expensive! Drinking the
27
recommended daily amount of water using bottled water can cost an average of $1,400 per
year; drinking the same amount from the tap costs around 49 cents for the year.(New York
Times, August 1, 2007) The fourth message: Bottled water is full of oil. Making bottles to meet
Americans’ demand for bottled water requires more than 17 million barrels of oil annually,
enough to fuel some 100,000 cars for a year. To put it another way, the entire energy costs of
the lifecycle of a bottle of water is equivalent, on average, to filling up a quarter of each bottle
with oil. (Pacific Institute, 2007) The fifth message: Disposable plastic water bottles are not
meant for multiple uses. The #1 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is fine for a single use, but
reuse can lead to bacterial growth and leaching of dangerous chemicals.
The campaign utilizes several channels to reach its audiences including email lists,
pledges, letter writing (to suppliers and government leaders), water Webinar, bottled water cost
calculator, partnerships, sponsorships, open polls, and Internet portals.
New Dream encourages individuals seeking to consume more responsibly to join their
email list, a forum for giving updates about the campaign and ―inside‖ information about the
movement to curb bottled water use.
In partnering with Corporate Accountability International and its bottled water campaign
Think Outside the Bottle, the New Dream asks individuals to take this pledge:
I pledge to Break the Bottled Water Habit by Thinking Outside the Bottle and using
a reusable water bottle instead of buying bottled water. I also pledge to support the
efforts of local officials to stop spending public funds on bottled water and
prioritize strong public water systems over bottled water profits.
28
New Dream and Corporate Accountability also are working with mayors around the
country to develop policies and action plans that will eliminate the use of taxpayer funds used
to purchase all non-emergency bottled water.
The New Dream urges its members to encourage local businesses to stop selling bottled
water. A letter campaign with templates targeted specifically at stores, co-ops and restaurants
aims to encourage its activists, as conscious consumers, to use their purchasing power. The
New Dream claims that business owners should know that by removing the bottled water from
their shelves they stand to gain loyal customers.
Letters templates are available to be completed by New Dream activists to encourage
governors to stop using bottled water. The letter asks governors to issue an executive order to
end the purchase of bottled water using state funds. The letter says that in light of the state’s
budget crisis, it is crucial that states scrutinize and eliminate wasteful expenditures, and bottled
water is a sensible place to start. It goes on to say that bottled water is 240 - 10,000 times more
expensive than water from the tap and is subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards
than tap water. Furthermore, the bottling process consumes the energy equivalent of 17 million
barrels of oil annually and wastes two gallons of water for every gallon that is bottled. The
letter concludes by asking the governor to prohibit the use of state funds to purchase bottled
water, including bulk water jugs and single serving bottles, for government offices and statesponsored events, unless needed for public health purposes.
In later March 2009, New Dream offered an education tool via the Internet called the
Water webinar, which coincided with World Water Day. This educational tool provided an
opportunity to discuss the broader implications of consuming water in a more responsible way.
29
This tool acts as a channel that gives proof to the economic benefit of curbing bottled
water habit. Audiences are asked to provide information into a computer field on the number of
16 oz. bottles of water they drink each year. It then provides the cost of tap water and the
average cost of bottled water. It then calculates the impact and gives a glimpse of the average
impact. For example, most people consumer 57 gallons of water per year in bottled water. The
extra water required for production and purification is 114 gallons. The energy required for
manufacturing is 37 megajoules. The oil required to produce the plastic bottle is 9 gallons. And
the CO2e required to manufacture the plastic bottle is 68 pounds. The extra cost of bottled
water is $546.77 (Center for a New American Dream, 2009).
New Dream is partnering with two organizations to extend the reach of the campaign. Its
first partner, Corporate Accountability International, has been waging winning campaigns to
challenge corporate abuse for more than 30 years. Now, Corporate Accountability
International is challenging transnational corporations that are abusing the human right to
water, starting with the bottled water industry. The organization’s Think Outside the Bottle
campaign is a collaborative effort with Center for a New American Dream and other major
national organizations, communities of faith, student groups, cities, celebrities and concerned
individuals across the country. The campaign encourages people to choose tap over bottled
water and support the efforts of government officials to invest in public water systems. The
second organization New Dream is partnering with is ThinkMTV. ThinkMTV is the umbrella
for MTV's on-air, off-air and online pro-social campaigns to engage, educate and encourage
young people to take action on some of the biggest challenges facing their generation.
Think.MTV.com is an online community where young people, their friends and some of the
biggest names in pop culture come together to effect positive social change. The Think online
30
community enables youth to easily learn more about the issues that matter to them most, share
their opinions - via uploaded online videos, podcasts and blogs - and connect with others to
make a difference.
New Dream has three sponsors of the campaign. The first is Brighter Planet, an
organization dedicated to helping individuals take charge in the fight against global warming
and building a clean-energy future. The second sponsor is Wellness Enterprises, LLC, an
organization that utilizes specialized minerals and water-enhancement properties to effectively
reduce harmful contaminants in water up to 99% while introducing antioxidants and hydrating
nutrients. Their products, including the Wellness H2.O water bottle and the Wellness Shower,
utilize state-of-the-art filtering technology, a patented magnetic treatment and rare Japanese
volcanic minerals to deliver, what they call the best water on earth. The third sponsor is Nuun,
a company whose product claims to ―turns every water source into optimal hydration‖ by
dropping a tablet into a reusable bottle. The tablet turns the water into an electrolyte enhanced
drink with light flavor and without the plastic bottle waste (Center for a New American Dream,
2009).
The poll is a tool that helped New Dream gain insight as to what motivated people to give
up bottled water. Responses include the options: never used bottled water; family and friends;
inspiring statistics; photo of waste impact; and convenience alternative. It is an open poll
maintained on the group’s Website.
Activists are encouraged to develop their profile and their own online communities
within New Dream. Discussion boards are available to discuss campaigns such as Break the
Bottled Water Habit.
31
Evaluation
The campaign pilot, which concluded in October 2007 garnered 14,000 people pledging to
stop using bottled water. So far, the campaign has garnered only 1054 signatures from across
the country to persuade governors to stop using bottled water. Since the campaign has just
reached the first year of a multi-year campaign, they are not publicly announcing results thus
far. Nonetheless, reports in the blogosphere indicate that bottled water sales are declining as a
result of this campaign and others. The Associated Press reported bottled water sales volume
dropped one percent, perhaps as more people refilled their bottles from tap water, according to
an industry analyst (Associated Press, April 2, 2009). Overall, bottled beverages are declining
in sales due to the poor economy. This campaign has received no visible earned traditional
media. The issue of reducing bottled water waste overall has received substantial mainstream
media coverage. However, there are nearly 3,000 mentions of this campaign in the
blogosphere, where many activists and environmental communities communicate.
Filter For Good Case Profile
In August 2007, water filter manufacturer Brita, owned by The Clorox Company,
partnered with plastic bottle maker Nalgene to launch an online campaign via a Web site,
www.FilterForGood.com. The campaign aims to reduce bottled water waste, asking
consumers to drink filtered tap water instead. In April 2008, Brita began running primetime
ads, entitled ―Drink Responsibly‖ about the environmental impact of using bottled water.
Campaign Rationale and Movement
Brita launched the campaign to educate people about the negative impact of bottled water
on the earth. With the notion that ―small things can make a big difference,‖ Brita says it wants
to provide a general audience with easy ways to be more environmentally responsible when
32
they drink water. The company also wants to make people aware of the amount of plastic that
bottled water adds to landfill sites. Brita estimates that 50 billion plastic water bottles are
consumed each year in the United States and 38 billion of them are not recycled and end up in
landfill sites (Fast Company Magazine, July 2007).
Several environmental groups preceded Brita with this message by mounting campaigns
against the use of bottled water, including the National Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club,
Center for a New American Dream and various faith-based groups, including the United
Church of Christ. Brita and Nalgene partnered to ride the wave of kicking the bottled water
habit.
In recent years, as bottled water has become the world’s favorite beverage, which has
damaged the financial growth of companies that sell water filters. Brita was looking for new
ways to grow its business.
The campaign highlights the marriage of the two products. Consumers are asked to use a
Brita filter to purify their tap water and then fill a reusable Nalgene bottle with the filtered tap
water. Brita research showed this ―ask‖ would make sense to consumers because it is easy to
do; tastes good; and costs less than bottled water. Brita and Nalgene claim the average Brita
pitcher filters 240 gallons of water a year at roughly 19 cents per day. By comparison, it would
cost nearly $5 per day for more than 1,800 16.9-ounce water bottles to equal the same amount.
The oil it took to make the 50 billion plastic water bottles used in the U.S. in 2006 could fuel
100,000 cars for a year.
Brita says the overall goal is environmental education to make the case that using Brita and
Nalgene reduces the carbon footprint, is easy to achieve, and costs less money. The underlying
33
goal is to make the product and brand relevant and profitable in response to a surge in bottled
water sales in the past two decades.
The FilterForGood campaign has three main objectives. The first objective is to encourage
a significant number of people to pledge to stop drinking bottled water at home and at work.
The second objective is sell Brita filters and Nalgene bottles to enable pledge takers to sustain
their commitment. To take the pledge may involve a purchase of a Brita filter, if one doesn’t
already own one. Discounts on Brita and Nalgene products are given to pledge takers. The third
objective is to increase Brita’s philanthropic giving via the campaign. Every purchase of a $10
refillable bottle generates a $4 donation, up to $25,000, toward the Blue Planet Run
Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to provide safe drinking water to 200 million people by 2027.
The campaign has been operating for 14 months, since August 2007, and is ongoing with
no foreseeable end in sight. Brita is monitoring the campaign and continues to refresh the
content to keep it relevant by adding features as the campaign matures. For example, the
company added daily ―eco bloggers‖ to facilitate an online dialogue about easy ways to be
environmentally friendly.
The campaign targets stay-at-home mothers, such as Active Moms, who are likely to drink
water at home and on the go, and to serve it to their children. Another target includes people
who go to the gym and work out and happen to drink lots of water. The third key target
audience is health-conscious young adults. College students are a secondary audience.
Campaign Tactics
FilterForGood has the overall message frame of ―sustainawellness,‖ which combines
sustainability, health and wellness. The overarching message is ―drink responsibly.‖ The key
messages include: ―American send 38 billion water bottles a year to landfills‖ and ―Together
34
filtered water and a reusable bottle are an ideal solution for going green at home and on the
go.‖ The target audiences know that drinking water is vital. The ―ask‖ message is to take the
pledge to ―Refill your reusable bottle instead of a landfill.‖ Pledge takers are thanked for doing
their part to help reduce bottled water waste and are reminded that by keeping the commitment,
the pledge takers can save 365 disposable bottles each year from going to landfills. The
message then progresses to a sales pitch: ―Brita and Nalgene would like to help you keep this
great commitment by making it easy to purchase a filtration system and reusable bottle. If you
already have a Brita, click to receive a one dollar discount off any Brita filter. Or, if you're new
to filtering water at home, click to receive a five dollar discount off a Brita pitcher or faucet
mount system. Coupons are limited to one of each type per person.‖ Finally, Brita taps into the
target audience’s network with a message for pledge takers to become viral: ―And don't forget
to increase your impact by challenging friends to take the pledge. If you have a blog or Web
site, you can also help spread the word by posting this banner on your site to show your support
for FilterForGood.‖
Appealing to the key target audience of mothers and young adults, the campaign has a
highly interactive Web site, which allows visitors to take a pledge to stop using bottled water,
to post to and install a FilterForGood widget on one’s Facebook or MySpace page or personal
blog.
Another unique feature in the Web site is an ability to ―map your pledge.‖ Participants can
see how many people in their state pledged to stop using bottled water. A fact sheet provides
solid environmental reasons for giving up bottled water and is based on credible research from
the Earth Policy Institute and the New York Times.
35
FilterForGood has a presence on both network and cable television. The campaign is
prominently featured on NBC reality television series The Biggest Loser. NBC approached
FilterForGood to form a partnership for the show to promote the network’s environmental
goals and to compliment the show’s theme. When people are losing weight – the theme of the
show – they need to do two important things: drink lots of water and exercise, which makes one
want to drink water.
The campaign has an additional education component. Brita is working with Scholastic,
publisher and seller of children’s books, to develop curriculum for students from grades three
to six on easy ways to be more environmentally friendly, including using filtered tap water
instead of bottled water.
An active earned media relations component is an integral part of the campaign, which
targets media outlets widely read by the target audiences. The campaign is also present in the
active blogosphere, where key influencers in the environmental movement communicate.
Brita broadened the frame of the campaign by getting city governments to take the pledge
to stop buying bottled water and to use filtered tap water instead. To date, San Francisco,
Chicago, and Salt Lake City pledged. In April 2009, the campaign began direct email outreach
to its pledgers. The first email outreach included up-to-date information about the campaign,
including new advocacy campaigns, celebrity endorsements and new social media tools.
Brita is also interjected an element of corporate social responsibility into the campaign.
Brita is supporting the effort to rebuild tornado-ravaged Greensberg, Kansas, which when
rebuilt will be the greenest city in the country. Brita donated $200,000 to rebuilding the K-12
school. Brita created filling stations throughout the school. The company is also a sponsor of
Discovery Channel’s documentary series ―Greenberg,‖ directed by Leonardo DiCaprio.
36
Another example of corporate social responsibility includes scholarships. FilterForGood
recently gave scholarship to five college campuses after receiving hundreds of proposals on
how to improve campuses nationwide and educate fellow students. Five schools were selected:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard Law School, The George Washington
University, University of California-Davis and Warren Wilson College. In addition,
FilterForGood will support students from California Lutheran University, The University of
Minnesota, The University of Arkansas, Washington University in St. Louis, New York
University and Duquesne University to grow existing projects and jumpstart new programs.
Another unique feature of the campaign are its spokesperson. Josh Dorfman, an
environmental activist and radio personality and author of The Lazy Environmentalist: Your
Guide to Easy, Stylish Green Living, is the main spokesperson for FilterforGood. Dorfman’s
philosophy suggests that everyone wants to be more green but people don’t want to pay more
or be inconvenienced. Lady Antelbellum, a new Grammy-nominated country band from
Nashville is the campaign’s latest celebrity supporter. The group has a video on Brita’s new
Facebook page, where it endorses the FilterForGood Campaign.
FilterForGood also features partnerships. Besides partnering with Nalgene, Brita also
partners with drink-crystal manufacturer Crystal Light, Kool Aid, and Country Time. Crosspromotional offers are made to pledge takers to receive discounts on all the partners’ products.
In November 2008, FilterForGood announced a partnership with Whole Foods to collect and
recycle used Brita filters. This partnership was prompted by a small but powerful advocacy
campaign called Take Back the Filters, which decried Brita’s policy of not recycling its filters.
37
Evaluation
Since FilterForGood launched in August 2007, Brita has experienced the highest
earnings in company history, described by the media as ―double-digit‖ increases. The campaign
is ongoing, as long as it continues to reduce bottled water waste and drive sales. Brita track
how many filters, pitchers and reusable bottles are sold in relation to the campaign. Brita also
measures its overall earnings in relation to the campaign. To date more than 130 million bottles
saved and 100 million people have taken the pledge.
Brita has received significant traditional media coverage for the campaign, including
nearly 25 positive articles in 12 months in major publications including the New York Times,
Washington Post, USA Today, Fast Company and Ad Age. New media evaluation of the
campaign shows that FilterForGood has received 2,285 postings on various blogs from August
2007 until April 2009. Brita measures the number of unique visitors to their website and how
many of them take the pledge.
Brita expects the number of pledge takers to continue to grow as consumers move
toward being more environmentally conscious and, in these difficult economic times, looks for
ways to spend less money. As pledge takers increase so too will the number of Brita filters
sold, which will continue to drive sales and profit for Brita.
38
IV. Case Analysis
This chapter analyzes the effectiveness of Brita’s FilterForGood campaign and New
Dream’s Break the Bottled Water Habit by examining the strengths and weaknesses of each
campaign. This chapter will also explore the obstacles and benefits of combining the
campaigns. It will conclude with an overall assessment and recommendations of how the
cause of curbing bottled waste could possibly be catapulted into mainstream thinking through
combining and coordinating campaigns.
FilterForGood Campaign: Strengths and Weaknesses
Brita’s FilterForGood seems to have made agenda-setting a key element in the
campaign. A marked strength of the Brita campaign is its prime-time television advertising.
Brita advertising FilterForGood is important for all campaigns aimed at curbing bottled water
waste. In fact, when the Brita campaign first aired in late 2008, it could have easily mistaken
for another campaign to curb bottled water use because the messages were so similar, such as
the tag line: ―20 minutes on the treadmill and a lifetime in the landfill.‖ Sutherland and
Galloway (1981) assert that advertising is an important ―cue-in‖ to perceptions of what is
popular and they found that advertising received the biggest response for describing why a
brand was popular.
Another strong element of the campaign is clear and purposeful message framing.
Strong message framing is a hallmark of Brita’s FilterForGood Campaign. Schema can be
defined as ideas and images that are presented as a core part of message framing. Dominant
schema in the FilterForGood is found on the campaign homepage. There is an image of an
odometer – similar to the instrument found on the dashboard of a car that show distance
39
traveled – along with an image of clean filtered water cascading upward as the odometer
numbers increase to arrive at the number of people who have pledged to stop using bottled
water. The main idea behind FilterForGood schema is ―sustainawellness,‖ which combines
sustainability with health and wellness.
While the economic benefits of using bottled water is a key message, a stronger message
for this campaign is the environmental benefits of giving up bottled water – focusing heavily
on how Americans send 38 billion water bottles to landfills each year. How an issue is
characterized in news reports and can influence how it is understood by audiences. As
mentioned earlier, the schema of bottled water waste brings forward ideas and images of
negative environmental impact along with unnecessary cost to consumers. Scheufele and
Tewksbury (2007) say that people apply interpretive schemas to classify information and
interpret it meaningfully. The schema for bottled water waste is images of 38 billion empty
bottles in a landfill, the image of one-third of a bottle filled with oil; and all the money
consumers throw away. Scheufele and Tewksbury also say that media has long-term effects
on audiences based on the volume of messages presented. The scholars also discuss ―negation
models,‖ which include approaches such as priming and framing. The mass media have
potentially strong attitudinal effects but depend on predispositions, schema, and other
characteristics of the audience that influence how they process messages.
Besides strong schema, the FilterForGood message is strong because it does exactly
what a strong frame is supposed to do. According to Entman (1993), a frame should define,
diagnose, make a moral judgment, and suggest a remedy for the problem. FilterForGood
defines the problem of bottled water waste by outlining the environmental impact and cost to
consumers of bottled water. FilterForGood diagnoses the problem of bottled water waste to
40
the fact that most people do not recycle their empty bottles, which means they end up in
landfills. For Brita and the Clorox Company the cause of the problem is that in recent years
bottled water has become the world’s favorite beverage, which has damaged the financial
growth of companies that sell water filters. The third is making moral judgment – the moral
judgment for FilterForGood is that if you drink bottled water you are being irresponsible by
contributing to the negative environmental impact you cause. Finally, FliterForGood suggests
that the remedy is to use a Brita filter and a Nalgene reusable bottle.
Entman argues that framing is the way people use schema to select and highlight – or
give salience to – certain aspects to understand and respond to events or ideas. The technique
of framing in the FilterforGood campaign gives it salience by helping the audience to
understand and respond to the role they need to play in battling bottled water waste. The
overarching message in the paid advertising portion of the campaign is ―drink responsibly,‖
which reminds audiences of another campaign that set out to reinforce responsible
consumption of alcohol by not overindulging. When FilterForGood uses the same phrase, it
provides a mental shortcut for audiences to recall that changing habits is achievable – in this
case ending the bottled water habit and switching to filtered tap water.
FilterForGood is gaining a steady stream of mainstream media attention, which bolsters
the campaign. The amount of information and its position in traditional news outlets is
significantly more dramatic than other similar campaigns. Brita has received significant
traditional media coverage, including 25 positive articles in the first year of the campaign in
major publications such as New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today. More
recently, as bottled water sales continue to decline, it has received attention in Fortune
magazine, National Public Radio and in countless regional media outlets for local and
41
campus-based campaigns. The ―importance attached to‖ FilterForGood seems to be gaining
momentum. McCombs and Shaw (1972) emphasize that the media sets the agenda by telling
people how much importance to attach to an issue based on the amount of information and its
position in the news.
At the same time, FilterForGood could greatly benefit from even more media coverage.
Brita could make this issue common knowledge with more media attention. Sutherland and
Galloway (1981) suggest that the extent of coverage also contributes to the perception of the
degree of importance of that particular news item. Part of the reason why the Brita campaign
is becoming better known is that Brita filters have salience affect by reinforcing the values of
environmental stewardship and attributes consumers seek such as a healthy, inexpensive
alternative to bottled water. Sutherland and Galloway say that advertising compliments
agenda-setting theory in that its goal is to focus attention on the values, products, brands or
attributes consumers should think about without telling customers what to think about these
things.
Despite these strengths, FilterForGood had some notable weaknesses, particularly the
degree to which the campaign was perceived as authentic corporate social responsibility and
how it has been at risk of being seen as ―greenwash‖ or deceptive environmental marketing.
Earlier in the campaign, FilterForGood showed vulnerabilities in the area of corporate social
responsibility authenticity but has taken steps to strengthen that area of the campaign. Brita
recycles filters in Europe where consumers return used filters to the manufacturers. However,
such advances were not in place in North America when FilterForGood was launched.
In late 2008, about a year into the campaign, this critical issue was brought to the
forefront by a vocal advocate who was pressing Brita to establish recycling protocols for its
42
filters in North America. The hue and cry to persuade Brita to recycle its filters was growing
with the campaign’s target audience. The critics demanded consistency and mandated Brita to
mirror what it expects from them, especially pertaining to environmental practices and
standards. Brita responded with bold moves to recycle filters in December 2008 by partnering
with Preserve, a company that makes household goods from post-consumer recycled plastic
and Whole Foods, which would act as a recycled-filter collecting depot. Brita users can also
mail their used filters to the Clorox Company, which promises to recycle it. Leading up to this
partnership, Brita underwent significant scrutiny by its audience. Recycling advocates -- who
endorsed the FilterForGood campaign – organized a counter campaign called
TakeBackTheFilter and were on the verge of equating Brita’s CSR with simply making a
profit. Clorox’s corporate citizenship did come through by displaying the ethos of recycling to
be authentic. Brita also faced a competitive threat if it did not ―walk the line‖ because other
smaller brands can be recycled and there was a threat that their followers could shift to those
companies.
With strong message frames that compliment the environmental movement,
FilterForGood was forced to ―walk the line‖ by finding a solution to recycling its water filters
and it to cooperate with its publics by welcoming the issues they raised and allowing its
communication professionals to be ethics leaders and change managers. Moving to recycle
filters demonstrates Brita’s environmental stewardship, even if there is a profit motive
attached. Having longevity and consistency is a key ingredient according to O’Connor,
Shumate and Meister (2008). In this regard, Brita had no choice but to invest some of its
recent ―double-digit‖ increases in profits into enabling the recycling of filters in North
America. Otherwise, the campaign, which spokespeople say will run for the foreseeable
43
future, could have quickly lost credibility and be cut short. If that happens, Brita’s longevity
will be lost along with its CSR authenticity.
A threat still exists for the FilterForGood campaign because not everyone who
purchases Brita filters has easy access to Whole Foods or may not find it convenient or cost
effective to mail the used filters back to the Clorox Company. Also, the faucet-mounted Brita
filters are not recyclable because of the type of plastic used in its manufacturing. While Brita
and Preserve say they are working to find a solution, one does not yet exist.
O’Connor, Shumate and Meister (2008) studied what a specific group of stakeholders,
Active Moms, expect from corporate social responsibility for it to be authentic. Moms who
are active are a key target audience for Brita’s FilterForGood campaign. These moms expect
CSR to impact socially responsible business practices. But perhaps the biggest test of whether
FilterForGood could earn the distinction of authentic CSR is its adherence to what O’Connor,
Shumate and Meister refer to as the central category put forward by Active Moms:
Corporations must ―walk the line.‖ This metaphor monitors Brita’s ability to enforce the
agreed upon standards of the line drawn, which in this case is ―drinking water responsibly‖
defined as causing no waste to landfills. The ―walk the line‖ metaphor was seriously skewed
by Brita’s inability to recycle filters but seems to have been rectified with the Preserve and
Whole Food partnership.
Middlemiss (2003) asserts that having credible program elements in place and credible
public relations and reputation management is key to authentic corporate Social
responsibility. Brita’s handling of the recycled issues clearly demonstrates those elements are
in place. When Brita did not recycle filters, it jeopardized its credibility. However, Brita
rectified the situation. Middlemiss asserts that there are three drivers of success CRS:
44
championship from senior management; companywide ownership and understanding; and
business synergy. Its media outreach and the growth and evolution of the campaign illustrates
that all three of those components are in place.
Another weakness of the FilterForGood campaign is the lack of endorsement from a
credible environmental organization. Brita needs to gain the broader support of environmental
advocates to achieve a more comprehensive CSR campaign to make the type of behavior
change that is required if society is to truly curb its bottled water habit. Middlemiss claims
that there is a strong link between public relations and reputation management around CSR
with transparency and openness and dialogue with stakeholders.
Break the Bottled Water Habit: Strengths and Weaknesses
One of the strongest aspects of the Break the Bottled Water Habit campaign is its
consumer focus. Current economic pressures have forced consumers to take a closer look at
spending and consumption. At the same time, the country is appalled by the excesses of Wall
Street executives and the greed attributed to them since late 2008 that caused widespread
financial devastation to people far removed from the world of high finance. Bottled water
represents everything that is wrong with consumer society today. While more than a billion
people on the planet struggle to find sources of safe drinking water, the West finds itself
bobbing between the virtues and evils of bottled water for its drinking pleasure. Excess and
the need for restraint are currently on the media’s agenda.
Sutherland and Galloway (1983) observe that the audience often perceives that because
the media covers a story, it must be very important. While traditional media have picked up
on the environmental and business aspects of curbing bottled water use, the consumer element
45
side of the story needs to be told and is very important. Sutherland and Galloway also say that
the extent of coverage also contributes to the perception of the degree of importance of a
particular news item. In turn, because this is not happening with Break the Bottled Water
Habit, the lack of media emphasis is not being internalized and is not coming to the surface
when a broader audience is asked about this issue. Addressing the consumer element is
absolutely critical to getting this issue on the public agenda in a meaningful way. The Natural
Resource Defense Council reports that sales of bottled water grew exponentially in the past
two decades at a rate of 8 to 10 percent – about twice as fast as the rate for other beverages.
That type of consumption needs to be addressed and New Dream is attempting to do so but
needs support to get on the public agenda.
Even though the campaign has had little media coverage, Break the Bottled Water Habit
benefits from strong message framing for the most part. Schemata for this campaign include
the image of a map on the campaign homepage to demonstrate who has taken the pledge to
stop using bottled water. The map is populated with dots and audiences can view the
concentration of dots. The map image could prime audiences to also take the pledge based on
being persuaded or thinking what other’s think in their state or region regarding bottled water
waste. The main idea in the messages of Break the Bottled Water Habit is that most bottled
water is tap water anyway. Not only is tap water safe, it’s also inexpensive or free. Besides
the expense of bottled water, it is also environmentally destructive.
The message frames for Break the Bottled Water Habit strengthen the campaign because
they mostly stay at the value level by attempting to motivate their audience’s motivational
aspects of less consumerism and more environmental awareness. Dorfman, Wallack and
Woodruff (2005) discuss message framing in the form of ―levels,‖ which they say should start
46
with values and move to strategy. They say that ―Level 1‖ messages are an expression of
overarching values, such as fairness and responsibility. The ―Level 1‖ message for Break the
Bottled Water Habit campaign is strong: It’s our responsibility to take care of the
environment. The scholars refer to ―Level 2‖ messages as the general issue being addressed,
such as schools and health. The scholars refer to ―Level 3‖ messages as the weeds or details
of issues. Break the Bottled Water Habit’s ―Level 3‖ messages are more prevalent and this
campaign falls victim to what the scholars warn of by not taking enough advantage of
developing there own value-laden messages. For example, one of the campaigns key
messages gives the following ―weeds‖ as a proof point: ―The #1 polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) is fine for a single use, but reuse can lead to bacterial growth and leaching of dangerous
chemicals.‖ Perhaps the activists who are the group’s core audience would appreciate this
message but it lacks the value-laden attractiveness to draw a broader audience to make a
substantial effort to truly curb bottled water waste. Weighing the message in technical details
is a weakness of the Break the Bottled Water Habit campaign. With that exception, the overall
messaging framing is a strong point of the campaign.
Another strong element of the Break the Bottled Water Habit campaign is its advocacy
component that encourages supporters to write letters to store owners, mayors and state
governors. While other campaigns are also encourage letter writing, it’s helpful that New
Dream is part of the chorus. The results are trickling in as municipalities and states are
beginning to ban bottled water to both reduce budgets and to protect the environment. The
strong advocacy skills that New Dream brings to the table could help bolster a partner’s
corporate social responsibility efforts. O’Connor, Shumate and Meister (2008) say that this
type of legitimacy links to and underscores the importance of relationships between
47
stakeholders, organizations, and communities. The scholars stress that strong CSR is for
corporations to communicate social responsibility to a wide range of stakeholders and to
respond to their expectations.
Break the Bottled Water Habit is strong too because it puts the issue of bottled water
into context. As consumers in North America, we have access to safe water from our taps.
Over a billion people on earth do not have that privilege. By offering Webinars, New Dream
puts the bottled water in question into context. This context is a critical part of changing
behavior for consumers but that message is still not widespread. Scheufele and Tewksbury
(2007) say that mass media has a potentially strong attitudinal effect but depends on
predispositions, schema and other characteristics of the audience that influence how they
process messages in the mass media. New Dream needs to find a way to make their campaign
more robust so it can talk about the broader context of bottled water to influence how the
audience would process their message and turn it into positive actions.
However, the campaign has failed to set the media agenda with its important consumerfocused message. Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) outline that agenda setting refers to the
idea that there is a strong correlation between the emphasis that mass media place on certain
issues and the importance attributed to these issues by mass audiences. At a time when
consumer-focused issues are part of the agenda, this campaign has not broken through in
traditional media coverage. It has received none.
Perhaps the lack of earned media is attributable to the dense message that is lighter on
values than other similar campaigns. Break the Bottled Water Habit campaigners may suffer
from lack of media skills to effectively deliver the message. The Dorfman et el. (2005)
suggest that public health educators, perhaps like environmentalists, need to learn three
48
lessons: to understand and be able to articulate their core values; to integrate those values with
concise description of a key aspect of a problem; and to develop media skills to effectively
deliver the message.
A weakness of the campaign is its insular appeal. Among people who would already
favor its position, New Dream has strong support for Break the Bottled Water Habit campaign
with 14,000 subscribers pledging to curb their bottled water use when the campaign launched
in 2007. However, this campaign has received no visible earned traditional media coverage. It
did receive almost 3,000 mentions in the blogosphere – again amongst those who already are
aware and agree with curbing bottled water waste. As a result this campaign remained quite
insular to the point of almost preaching to the choir. Sutherland and Galloway (1981) suggest
that the extent of coverage contributes to the perception of degree of importance of a
particular news item. Break the Bottled Water Habit would benefit from more media coverage
to increase the perception of bottled water waste as an important issue. Sutherland and
Galloway say that advertising compliments agenda-setting theory in that its goal is to focus
attention on the values, products, brands or attributes consumers should think about without
telling customers what to think about these things. Break the Bottled Water Habit falls short
of providing a specific alternative to bottled water to satisfy consumers.
Another weakness of Break the Bottled Water Habit is that it does not provide a succinct
remedy. Proposing a remedy was an important fourth function of message framing, according
to Entman (2003). The campaign suggests using tap water, determining the quality of the
municipal water, using filters, adding Nuun tablets to the tap water and purchasing reusable
bottles and keep them filled and in the refrigerator for future use. By not giving a more
tangible remedy, Break the Bottled Water Habit does not mention the specific brand names of
49
filtration systems, nor does it gives incentives to make the switch. The campaign offers
filtration only marginally as a solution but in a very generic way.
Combining Campaigns: Obstacles and Benefits
Given that both campaigns address a similar issue and that both have strengths and
weaknesses, one can pose the question of what would be the obstacles and benefits for
combining the two campaigns.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle in combining and coordinating these campaigns is the
ideological differences of the two organizations but that doesn’t mean it would be impossible.
New Dream’s Break the Bottled Water Habit campaign works in partnership with Corporate
Accountability International. Their partner says its mission is to ―strengthen democracy by
limiting corporate interference in national and international policymaking.‖ It goes on to say it
will do this to ―to hold corporations accountable for their actions to put an end to irresponsible
corporate behavior.
Corporate Accountability International has its own campaign called Think Outside the
Bottle. Patti Lyn, its campaign director said: ―Partnerships between environmental
organizations and corporations like Fuji Water often provide positive PR, and can distract
from the genuine concerns that people are raising about the practices of the bottled water
industry‖ (Fortune Magazine, November 14, 2008). Activist groups generally do not take
corporate money and nor do more mainstream organization like Natural Resources Defense
Council or the Environmental Defense Fund. Middlemiss (1983) asserts a strong link between
public relations and reputation management around CSR, especially around transparency and
openness; and dialogue with stakeholders. CSR cannot only be seen as a PR activity. Topping
Middlemiss’s list of ―do’s‖ is to be credible, transparent, and honest. Topping his list of
50
―don’ts‖ is spin and greenwashing, which is the perception of consumers that they are being
mislead by a company. The type of transparency that is needed can be bolstered by a
respected third-party endorsement of a strong nonprofit partnership.
The Clorox Company, Brita’s parent company, has experience with attaining this type of
endorsement. Clorox secured a Sierra Club endorsement for use of its logo on Greenworks
line of green cleaning products. Interestingly, neither organization will disclose how much
money was involved. Leaders in the environmental community, including Jeff Hollender,
chief executive of Seventh Generation, a company producing natural cleaning products raised
questions about the Clorox-Sierra Club partnership: ―No one will say how much money the
Sierra Club is getting from Clorox. If you’re going to do it, you have to have complete
transparency‖(Fortune Magazine, November 14, 2008). There are other ways to conduct
partnerships such as how Greenpeace works with Coca Cola and Unilever to promote clean
refrigeration but will not take the corporations donations.
The benefits to combining the campaigns are evident. Combined campaigns could
extend the reach, increase the agenda-setting abilities and provide more comprehensive
frames. The bottom line is that combined campaigns could greatly impact the environment by
greatly reducing the 38 billion plastic water bottles currently in landfills.
FilterForGood could greatly benefit from the consumer-focused message that Break the
Bottled Water Habit brings to the table. Some attribute last year’s one percent drop in bottled
water sales to consumer realization of the frivolousness of drinking bottled water when tap
water is safe, cheap and available. Some would argue that this decline in sales says more
about our consumption hierarchy than a desire to reduce carbon footprints, health benefits or
overflowing landfills. But there is not clear way to measure. So it would be prudent to
51
combine the consumer and environmental messages for full impact. As McComb and Shaw
(1972 ) assert, the mass media has the ability to set the agenda and in doing so influence the
salience of attitudes toward issues. Perhaps a coordinated campaign would have had an
impact on telling ―people how much importance to attach‖ to curbing bottled water waste. A
combined and coordinated effort in which Break the Bottled Water Habit and FilterForGood
– and other similar campaigns – banded together would likely ratchet up the agenda-setting
capability of moving the issue of reducing bottled water waste forward to motivate behavior
change and result in a reduction of the use of bottled water. This could be achieved by getting
the media’s attention by having environmental, consumer and corporate interests come
together because of their concerns about bottled water waste. This unusual and unified
approach would have a good chance to encourage the media to report on it. Agenda-setting
theory postulates that the more an issue is reported, the more importance audience attaches to
it.
McCombs and Shaw (1972) claim that the media is the primary source for national
political information. One could argue that the media – both traditional and new – is also the
source for other national issues such as environmental concerns. It could be argued that the
traditional and new media set the agenda and that it is still critical to have national traditional
media attention to get an issue on the agenda. McCombs and Shaw (1972) claim that the mass
media has more influence since few people directly participate in electoral politics. If that line
of thinking was transferred to the issue of bottled water waste, it is likely also true that few
individuals think about or participate in conversations where they could learn about the
environmental degradation caused by a seemingly innocent bottle of water. One could apply a
similar edict to environmental issues: the broader public does not know about bottled water
52
waste – it is not yet common knowledge that bottled water is the beverage equivalent to
driving an energy-guzzling Hummer in relation to its carbon emissions and waste. Beverage
companies have marketed the health benefits of water to the point where no one even
considers the container in which the water is delivered. Therefore, a combined and
coordinated campaign might help set the agenda and give these lesser-known facts salience.
A benefit of coordinated and combined campaigns would be that the corporate partner
would likely have the resources to underwrite the advertising and mention campaign partners,
further giving salience of affect. Sutherland and Galloway (1981) argue that the media do not
often influence opinions but rather they influence salience and ―what people think other
people think‖, which stimulates action. This, they say, is a mental creation based on what is
salient at a point in time in the public mind – relative to other issues. If that concept is applied
to these campaigns, one can surmise that broader advertising could make reducing bottled
water waste the ―norm‖ thereby demonstrating what ―people think other people think‖. This
norm-making power of advertising could have salience of affect on all campaigns aimed at
curbing bottled water waste, including Break the Bottled Water Habit.
Overall Assessment
This chapter has given evidence to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of each
campaign and the clear benefits to combining and coordinating them. This evidence is
supported by scholarly concepts. Among the benefits are a higher ranking in agenda setting
that would be spawn from the convergence of sectors to attack a growing environmental
problem. Another benefit of aligning the campaigns would be to focus more attention on the
values, products, brands, and attributes that consumers are seeking. The corporate entity could
underwrite advertising and could mention strong nonprofit partners to give both campaigns
53
further salience. Existing schema used in the campaigns compliment one another. If combined
the two campaigns could gain substantially more exposure and visibility. The two campaigns
could locate frames in a more coordinated way to attract a more comprehensive audience.
Together, they could strengthen how messages are created, processed and what effects are
produced – all key concepts to making bottled water waste reduction a household issue. Yet
there is one key reason why this suggested combination and coordination may not work.
Break the Bottled Water Habit is a campaign that is part of an organization that
challenges the use of consumer goods. New Dream may find it objectionable to partner with
The Clorox Company, which sells consumer goods. To make this collaboration work, New
Dream would have to consider the potential backlash from its activists and base to work with
Brita and The Clorox Company.
Recommendations
Brita and New Dream should begin discussing coordinating and combining their
campaigns. They need to start by focusing on their common ground: reducing bottled water
waste. They also need to acknowledge their differences in ideology, approach and target
audiences. Perhaps these recommendations seem naïve but when one considers the huge
challenges confronting the environment and its inhabitants, then overcoming ideology is a
comparatively small difference that seems like a moot point.
If New Dream rejected partnering with Brita because of the company’s positioning in
the market place, it would be a sad day for civil society. Similarly, if Brita refused to join with
New Dream because it might slow them down or hinder their profit-seeking abilities, then that
would be a sad day for corporate social responsibility authenticity. The traditional and siloed
way of thinking cannot continue to exist if society and the planet are to meet environmental
54
challenges. It will take a new coordinated effort of CSR and nonprofit campaigns to give
salience to critical issues – such as bottled water waste – to put them on the agenda, to raise
awareness and to promote pro-environmental behavior change. The old ways of being
unwilling to compromise will no longer be acceptable and will not allow society to make the
critical changes that are needed to reduce carbon emissions and sustain the planet. Nonprofit
organizations may have the moral authority to frame issues and give them salience but
corporations have the scope, impact and resources to effect sweeping change. Together,
salience and sweeping changes are needed now.
55
Chapter V: Conclusion
Each year, 38 billion empty plastic bottles end up in landfills in the United
States. In 2007 several organizations launched campaigns to raise awareness of the
tremendous environmental impact caused by consumption of bottled water. After two
years, the issue of bottled water waste is just beginning to find itself on the
mainstream media agenda. There are two main themes in the media stories and in the
campaigns: environmental impact and cost to consumers. A devastating downturn in
the economy starting in late 2008 forced consumers to look at their disposable
spending. Bottled water was one of the first things to go. Financial analysts report a
one percent decrease in the sales of bottled water. That decrease is a drop in the bucket
compared to the double-digit increases in bottled water sales for the past two decades.
Therefore there is much work to do to curb bottled water use.
This study examines two campaigns that both sought to raise awareness about
the environmental costs of bottled water: Brita’s FilterForGood and New American
Dream’s Break the Bottled Water Habit. Although one campaign was sponsored by a
large corporation and the other a non-profit, both campaigns focused on a similar
issue. Therefore, the study posed as its central research question: What would be the
advocacy benefits of combining and coordinating the two campaigns?
This study explored the advocacy benefits of combining and coordinating
campaigns to curb bottled water waste in order to strengthen private-public
partnerships and to achieve civil society objectives for environmental change. The
study examines how communication strategies and campaigns are applied by Brita and
56
New American Dream in their respective campaigns to curb bottled water waste. The
study paid particular attention to efforts to set the media agenda, how message framing
is used to motivate target audiences, and the importance of public-private partnerships
to make meaningful social change.
This study is significant because it demonstrates an obvious solution to overcoming
social and environmental problems. That obvious solution is to combine and
coordinate campaigns. By combining messages and campaign tactics, it would cause
the greatest impact in order to motivate sweeping positive behavior change for a wide
range of audiences. The environmental movement has taken some steps to work with
corporations and vice verse. However both groups seem to be skeptical and concerned
about compromising their control and voice on these issues. This study is significant
because it demonstrates how message frames from these two campaigns compliment
one another. It also shows how coordination would greatly improve the chances of
both organizations to secure stronger positioning on the media agenda. It shows that
finding common ground in corporate and nonprofit campaigns is the best way to truly
find a solution to the problem of bottled water waste.
This analysis found that each campaign has particular strengths and weaknesses.
For FilterForGood, its strengths are its ability to advertise, ability to begin to set the
agenda and attain some solid media coverage; strong environmental messages geared
to many audiences; and corporate social responsibility authenticity. FilterForGood’s
weaknesses are that it needs the credibility of a strong environmental nonprofit, the
message focuses more on environment rather than consumer benefits and that it is
threatened by its authenticity being tested.
57
On the other hand, Break the Bottled Water Habit strengths are its consumer
focus and solid message frames and ability to advocate for policy change among
stakeholders such as mayors and governors. Break the Bottled Water Habit’s
weaknesses include that it has received no media attention. The consumer message
about bottled water waste is not as strong on the media agenda as it could be. Its
campaign is insular and is not reaching the potential audience with whom its message
would resonate – consumers who are looking for ways to trim their budgets.
The study analysis identified benefits as well as obstacles of combining and
coordinating campaigns. The benefits would be to create a more holistic approach to
solving an environmental problem by engaging audiences on both key themes:
environmental stewardship and responsible consumerism. The obstacle would be to
overcome ideological differences. The recommendation is that finding common goals
and common ground will be the only way to motivate audiences to change their
behavior to curb bottled water waste.
This study shows that the strong message framing of each campaign could
benefit from being combined and coordinated. Strong message frames about the
environment and about consumerism need to be join forces in order for this movement
to reach its full potential. Nonprofits and corporations needs to overcome their
ideological differences to make the kind of environmental changes that are needed at
this time in history.
Public communication scholars will need to study how corporate social
responsibility impacts civil society as our systems go through transformation. Now,
more than ever, all organizations need to find common goals and focus on them,
58
instead of on ideological differences. Scholars will also need to study and explore
guiding principles for the most productive private-public partnerships during this era
of societal transformation.
When observing the panorama of problems facing our environment, bottled water
waste is just one issue that needs to be addressed. As a microcosm it shows the
interplay between how consumers are manipulated and misled by marketing: bottled
water is not better for your health. Our planet cannot sustain the type of consumption
that bottled water use represents. If there were greater cooperation between all sectors
of society – corporations, nonprofits, academic institutions and citizens – there would
be fewer opportunities for unethical marketing to drive huge environmental and social
problems. Perhaps social media will foster such a collaborative effect. If we find each
other in the common spaces of cyberspace, then perhaps conversations can occur that
might prevent problems – like the rise of bottled water use – to emerge in the first
place.
59
References
Dorfman, L. (2005) More than a message: framing public health advocacy to change
corporate practices. Health Education & Behavior. Vol:32 Iss:3 pg:320
Brita, www.brita.com/us and www.filterforgood.com
Center for a New American Dream (March 2009) www.newdream.org and
http://water.newdream.org/
Chianello, Joanne. (April 11, 2009) The Backlash Against Bottled Water: Environmental
concerns have made hitting the bottle increasingly unfashionable. CanWest News Service.
www.canada.com
Clorox Company New Release (August 13, 2007). ―Take the FilterForGood Pledge to Help the
Planet.‖
Corporate Accountability International www.stopcorporateabuse.org and
www.thinkoutsidethebottle.org
Entman, Robert M. (1993) Framing:Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication 43, pp. 51-59.
Fishman, Charles (July 2007). "Message in a Bottle." Fast Magazine: 110.
Frazier, Mya (October 5, 2008). ―Pressure is on to Recycle Water Filters.‖ New York Times.
GreenBiz http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2007/08/15/brita-nalgene-launch-plan-promote-lesswasteful-water-use
Gunther, Marc. (2004) Faith and Fortune: The Quiet Revolution to Reform American Business.
Crown Business.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39,
341-350.
60
McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972) The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public
Opinion Quarterly. pp. 176-187
McGowan, Drew (October 8, 2008). Interview with senior group manager for marketing
communication, Clorox Company (parent to Brita)
Middlemiss, N. (May 2003) Authentic Not Cosmetic: CSR as Brand Enhancement. Journal of
Brand Management. pg. 353
Amy O’Connor, Michelle Shumate, and Mark Meister. (June 2008, Public Relations Review)
Walk the line: Active Moms define corporate social responsibility
Scheufele, Dietram A. and Tewksbury, David (March 2007, Journal of Communication)
Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models
Sutherland, Max and Galloway, John. (Oct. 1981) Role of Advertising: Persuasion or Agenda
Setting. Journal of Advertising Research. New York.Vol. 21, Iss. 5, P. 25 – 29
Zerillo, Nicole( September 24, 2008). ―Brita Goes to College in Environmental Initiative‖ PR
Week.
61
Appendix
Figure 1: FilterforGood Homepage
Figure 2: Map of the FilterforGood Pledge:
62
Figure 3: Break the Bottled Water Habit Homepage
Figure 4: Bottle Water Cost Calculator
63
Figure 5: FilterForGood Partners
Figure 6: Break the Bottled Water Habit Partners
64