Does It Pay To Be Good?

sloan_winter2009

Compliance is not just about complying with legal requirements. After all, legal requirements are just a minimum standard of behavior. Your company can (and probably should) operate at a higher level.

Sustainability and ethically produced products are are areas that some companies are spending extra resources. At some point you run into a business ethics conundrum. Are you losing too much in the way of profits for your company to justify spending the extra funds on these initiatives?

It would be great to be in the sweet spot where there is extra revenue to be made from customers willing to pay a premium for ethically produced goods. The company does good AND generates more revenue. That takes the ethical issues off the table.

Remi Trudel and June Cotte conducted some research on this topic and published the results in an article in the Winter 2009 edition of the MIT Sloan Management Review: Does It Pay To Be Good?

They ran two experiments: one on coffee purchasers and a second on t-shirts purchasers. For the coffee experiment, coffee-drinking adult consumers were divided into three groups with different ethical information manipulations.

Our results showed that the premium consumers would pay as a reward for fair trade practices was $1.40 per pound, while the punishment/discount for unfair trade practices was $2.40 per pound. Thus, negative information concerning trade practices had almost twice the impact of positive information on the coffee consumer’s willingness to pay.

For the t-shirt experiment, potential consumers of cotton T-shirts were divided at random into five groups.

The first (100% Ethical) read the following: “Conventionally grown cotton uses more insecticides than any other single crop and epitomizes the worst effects of chemically dependent agriculture. Each year cotton producers around the world use nearly $2.6 billion worth of pesticides — more than 10% of the world’s pesticides and nearly 25% of the world’s insecticides. Danisky is the leading textile and clothing company based in the European Union specializing in organic cotton outdoor wear for active people. Growing cotton organically entails using cultural practices, natural fertilizers, and biological controls rather than synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Danisky has been recognized for its outstanding environmental record. All of Danisky’s products are 100% organic.”

The second group (50% Ethical) had the same information, except that: “All of Danisky’s products are 50% organic.”

The third group (25% Ethical) had the same information, except that: “All of Danisky’s products are 25% organic.”

The control group was given no ethical information at all.

The results?

Consumers perceived (and rewarded) all levels of ethical production similarly. They did not reward increasing levels of ethical production with increasing price premiums. Our results suggest that once a certain threshold is attained, additional ethical acts or increased ethicalness simply affirms the target company’s position within that category and will not change consumers’ willingness to pay.

So in the end it pays to be good. I am sure that is a message that all companies should hear.

These are the authors conclusions:

Consumers are willing to pay substantially more for ethically produced goods than for unethically produced goods, suggesting that there is a financial reward for socially responsible behavior. The managerial implications of these findings are clear: Act in a socially responsible manner and you may be able to charge more for your products. Perhaps it is even more important to note that consumers will punish the producer of unethically produced goods to a greater extent than they will reward a company that offers ethically produced products. The negative effects of unethical behavior have a substantially greater impact on consumer willingness to pay than the positive effects of ethical behavior. Consumers may still purchase your products if they are unethically produced, but they will only do so at a substantial discount.

So, not only does it pay to be good, you may be punished if you are bad.

See:

Starting a Green Real Estate Fund

Lisa Michelle Galley of the Our Green Journey blog and Galley Eco Capital posts her notes from a panel of green real estate fund managers about why investors and development partners want these funds and the do’s and dont’s for building a green fund.

Does commercial real estate need pure green real estate funds?

  • Green real estate funds align capital more clearly with mission
  • JV development partners are seeking a green fund’s concentrated expertise.
  • Green funds benefit from the superior financial performance of green assets.

Best practices for building a green real estate fund

  • Your team must have sustainability expertise.
  • Pay attention to both the leasing team and lease structure
  • Establish the right partnerships
  • Proper reporting is crucial.

Tenant Notification of Indoor Air Contamination in New York

New York passed Chapter 521 of the Laws of 2008, signed into law by Governor Paterson on September 4, 2008, effective December 3, 2008 which adds N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law (ECL) Section 27-2405 (“Tenant notification of indoor air contamination”).

The requirements of the new law apply only to test results that have been provided to the property owner by an “issuer,” which is defined to include:

(a) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”);

(b) A municipality that has entered a contract with NYSDEC to undertake an environmental restoration project;

(c) A person subject to an order issued pursuant to New York’s hazardous waste and oil spill clean-up laws; or

(d) A “participant” in New York’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (“BCP”).

The definition of participant under the BCP is an applicant into the program who is liable for contamination as an owner or operator. A “volunteer” under the BCP is an applicant not liable for the contamination as a “bona fide” purchaser (i.e., an owner whose liability arises solely from ownership after the contaminants were released). In addition, the new law would not cover test results gathered during due diligence on a purchase or lease.

See also:


N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law (ECL)

§ 27-2405. Tenant notification of indoor air contamination.
1. For purposes of this section:
a. “test results” shall include the results of any tests conducted on indoor air, subslab air, ambient air, subslab groundwater samples, and subslab soil samples; and
b. “issuer” means:
(i) a person subject to an order issued pursuant to title thirteen of this article, article twelve of the navigation law, or title twelve-A of article thirteen of the public health law,
(ii) a participant as defined in subdivision 1 of section 27-1405 of this article subject to an agreement entered into pursuant to title fourteen of this article, or
(iii) by a municipality subject to a contract entered into pursuant to title five of article fifty-six of this chapter; or
(iv) by the department.
2. Any owner of real property or any owner’s agent to whom indoor air contamination test results have been provided by an issuer shall, in cases where test results exceed department of health indoor air guidelines or the occupational safety and health administration guidelines for indoor air quality, provide a fact sheet and timely notice of any public meetings required to be held to discuss such results to all tenants and occupants and upon request such test results and any closure letter, within fifteen days of receipt of such results. Generic fact sheets shall be prepared by the department of health and shall identify at a minimum the compound or contaminant of concern, reportable detection levels established by the department of health indoor air guidelines or the occupational safety and health administration guidelines for indoor air quality and health risks associated with exposure to such compound or contaminant and a means to obtain more information on the compound or contaminant.

3. For real property for which an engineering control is in place to mitigate indoor air contamination, or if the real property is subject to ongoing monitoring pursuant to an ongoing remedial program, the owner or
owner’s agent of real property to whom indoor air contamination test results have been provided by an issuer shall provide, or cause to be provided, fact sheets, and upon request any test results, or closure letter received by such owner or owner’s agent to any prospective tenant prior to the signing of a binding lease or rental agreement. Generic fact sheets shall be prepared by the department of health and shall identify at a minimum the compound or contaminant of concern, reportable detection levels established by the department of health indoor air guidelines or the occupational safety and health administration guidelines for indoor air quality and health risks associated with exposure to such compound or contaminant and a means to obtain more information on the compound or contaminant. Such notice shall be included in the rental or lease agreement and shall contain the following in at least twelve point type in bold face on the first page: “NOTIFICATION OF TEST RESULTS The property has been tested for contamination of indoor air: test results and additional information are available upon request.”

There is Money in Going Green

Lim Lay Ying wrote an article that popped up in iStockAnalyst: There’s Money in Going Green. The article traces the savings some companies it found in reto-fitting real estate properties to be more energy efficient.

“With existing buildings representing the largest portion of any city’s building stock – a situation that will continue to be long into the future – retrofitting them to meet sustainable standards and to revitalise the communities around them, promises to be the wave of the future for the real estate industry.”

SAFETY Act

The Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act) provides some legal liability protections for providers of Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technologies – whether they are products or services. The goal of the SAFETY Act is to encourage the development and deployment of new and innovative anti-terrorism products and services by providing liability protections.

You can read the text of the SAFETY Act and the final rule for the SAFETY Act.

The Department of Homeland Security has a website dedicated to the SAFETY Act.

The SAFETY Act provides some liability protection to the “Seller” of the “Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technology.”

  • First, the Seller has a rebuttable presumption that they are entitled to the Government Contractor Defense (§863(d)).
  • Second, there is a prohibition on punitive damages and prejudgment interest (§863(b)(1)).
  • Third, the Seller cannot be required to purchase more liability insurance coverage than is reasonably available (§864(a)(2)).
  • Fourth, a limitation on non-economic damages in an amount proportional to the responsibility of the defendant for the harm (§863(b)(2)).
  • Fifth, a bar on non-economic damages unless the plaintiff suffered physical harm (§863(b)(2)).
  • Sixth, any recovery from a plaintiff is reduced by the amount of any collateral source compensation