“The golden opportunity you are seeking
is in yourself. It is not in your environment;
it is not in luck or chance, or the help of others;
it is in yourself alone.” meaning? help.thanks

Its about taking responsibility for your own ‘destiny.’ Hoping and praying for something to come along is not likely to get you anywhere. If you focus on yourself, and what you need to do to get what you want, then you are almost guaranteed to get it.

A similar quote that I love is by the man David Hawkins.
"By believing that the source of power lies outside oneself, one becomes powerless and vulnerable… true success originates within, independent of external circumstances."

Alright so heres the deal. I need to come up with the top 10 best i deas on how to go "green". But i mean beyond the, dont run water while brushing teeth, or take short showers, or recycling. I mean beyond that! I mean i need challenges the greatest ideas you can come up with. Share them all right here. (This goes to a very good cause)

Renting goats instead of running lawnmowers

In analyzing dozens of partnerships, some successful — and some less so — we’ve identified the following series of fundamental lessons.

1. KNOW YOUR OWN SITUATION WELL BEFORE PICKING AN APPROPRIATE PARTNER
Be clear on your environmental issues when you sit down with others. AUDIO analysis is a good place to start. Then educate yourself on your business’s key problems, and learn which groups specialize in the issues you face.

2. KNOW WITH WHOM YOU’RE DEALING
All partners, especially NGOs, are not created equal. Sustainability expert John Elkington has developed a playful, but useful, typology of NGOs. He breaks them into sharks, orcas, sea lions, and dolphins. Sharks are always on the attack, smelling blood and weakness from miles away. Orcas use fear and bullying. Sea lions play it safe and stay close to issues they know well. Dolphins are intelligent, creative, and can help fend off sharks. The point is that some NGOs are easier to work with than others. Avoid the sharks.

3. BE PATIENT
If we could share only one lesson, this would be it. Trust builds over time. It can take years to make the case internally for reaching out. As Chiquita’s Dave McLaughlin says, “We aren’t making Tang here. It isn’t just ‘add water and stir.’” Nurture long-term relationships.

4. LEARN EACH OTHER’S CULTURE AND VALUES
IKEA spent six months with World Wildlife Fund just discussing values before launching a partnership. The differences between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations can be large, but different values and cultures are not insurmountable. Still, it takes effort to learn to talk the other guy’s language.

5. SET WORKABLE GOALS
Partnership goals need to be carefully developed and specified. They must achieve environmental progress that satisfies all the partners but also be relevant to and supportive of core business objectives. Set modest short-term goals and exceed them. And never overpromise publicly.

6. ESTABLISH CHAMPIONS
Each partner needs a clear operational leader for the project and relationship. Backing from the highest level is also vital. IKEA reports regularly to the CEO on its World Wildlife Fund partnership. You also need critical line managers to climb art board. McDonald’s work on its supply chain took off only when the supply chain managers, not just the corporate responsibility people, stepped into the process.

7. THINK BIG, BUT START SMALL
The commitment to green the supply chain is a worthy goal, but it can’t be done overnight. Pilot programs provide a way to test assumptions, establish trust, and build base for bigger and broader future partnership initiatives.

8. COORDINATE COMMUNICATIONS
Great partnerships can turn sour very quickly when one side prematurely declares victory. NGOs see greenwashing and companies hear gloating. You can’t assume that the way you would talk about an issue is how the other side would. In the same spirit, don’t announce environmental breakthroughs until you have credible evidence of progress.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston

Author Bio
Daniel C. Esty, co-author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1), is the Hillhouse Professor at Yale University and Director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale (www.yale.edu/CBEY).  Author and editor of nine books and dozens of articles, Dan is one of the world’s leading corporate environmental strategy experts with twenty years of experience working with companies of all sizes and across many industries worldwide.  He served as senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1990s and is presently Chairman of Esty Environmental Partners (www.EstyEP.com).

Andrew S. Winston, co-author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1), advises some of the world’s leading companies on how to profit from environmental thinking.  He is also a highly respected and dynamic speaker, exploring the business benefits of going green with audiences around the world.  Andrew’s earlier career included corporate strategy at Boston Consulting Group and management positions in marketing and business development at Time Warner and MTV.  See www.andrewwinston.com for more information.

Daniel C. Esty And Andrew S. Winston
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/eight-lessons-learned-on-partnering-738709.html

other drivers are:
predictable
unpredictable
consistent
manageable

Yes, it does.
I ride a motorcycle all the time. Things that are not very hazardous to a car are dangerous to me, such as gravel in the road.
I live on a winding road where some drivers will hit the dirt in the corner and send gravel into the bend. I also have a sand pit just down the road. The road may be clear when I leave for the store, but it may not be 10 minutes later.
Other drivers are only predictable after many years experience learning what to look for.
Some are still unpredictable.
Consistent? As a herd of cattle.
In general, like cattle, they are manageable. Yet, there will always be one or two that aren’t.

My comments on the predictability of drivers come from over 20 years of riding motorcycles among them. I have driven longer.
My comparison to cattle comes from actually having to control the road as an escort rider.

This is the second question of yours that I’ve noticed.
Please don’t try to get us to do your homework for you.
MY life won’t depend on it because I’ve learned to avoid drivers like you.
Yet, cagers crash every day.

Green design agency. It does exist. Private businesses and government institutions in the UK (as elsewhere in the world) have a number of requirements. Profit is a key driver, as are its people. The planet is the third. The “triple bottom line: as it is called (People, Profit and the Planet) underlines the need for sustainable design within the drivers of any business.

The remit of a green design agency is creating visual impact with less environmental impact, while encouraging clients to consider the environmental impact of their production.

Malcolm Buttel is director of Oxygen Creative, a graphic design agency based in Tiverton Devon.

“We took control of our environmental impact as a business, applying practical environmental management techniques to what we do. Our environmental policy details how we use less energy at work, how we only use paper from sustainable sources with bio inks in our production, and how simple things like a car sharing scheme have helped us save 1000 litres a year in petrol alone.

“I am now a member of the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, and our business meets the criteria of BS8555 – the British Standard that is an equivalent to ISO14001. If nothing else, our clients know that they’re dealing with someone who takes being green seriously.”

So internal practices are important, but so is the output. It’s important that an agency considers the use of recycled paper stock with a high Post Consumer Fibre (PCF) recycled content, especially using recycled paper stock that has not been de-inked as well as unbleached or non-chlorine bleached paper stock which releases harmful toxins that could affect marine life. Think about using vegetable based printing inks such as soy inks which are renewable and emit less toxic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

So, less ink is better – but a good designer can use less ink and still create maximum impact!

Green papers could be: 100% Post-Consumer Waste (PCW)
Processed Chlorine Free (PCF)
Uncoated
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified.

Even a graphic design agency web design agency can contribute. In addition to their own green living they can host websites on greener servers where energy and CO2 is offset.

Considerations for any “marketing product” include:

* reducing the amount of materials required for production
* using paper and materials made with recycled, post-consumer waste
* printing with low-VOC inks
* what production methods require the least amount of transport
* which vendors use renewable energy
* if the product can fulfill more than one purpose
* if the end-product is biodegradable or recyclable
* if the end-product can be replaced by a digital, rather than printed, format
* just-in-time production to reduce number of units produced and warehoused
* which vendors sell products certified by third party NGOs.

Always as a design agency to show you its environmental policy and look for their certification to BS8555 or ISO14001 which shows they have independent accreditation of their dedicated to environmental management; an environmental graphic design agency such as Oxygen Creative in Tiverton, Devon serves as a benchmark.

Steve Lodge
http://www.articlesbase.com/graphic-design-articles/green-design-agency-you-can-achieve-sustainable-graphic-and-web-design-735989.html

If you need additional detail, just ask.

WHMIS is the most important and vital information system to workplace safety because people needs to know the right on the potentially hazardous products they are working on, know the proper measures to take in case of a potentially dangerous incident and the availability of MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) that workers must read before handling any hazardous products.

MSDSs must be updated every three years. Employers must be responsible on obtaining up-to-date MSDS sheets provided from the manufacturer.

You can watch the videos about WHMIS at these links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvjpwYOsTvQ (WHMIS overview)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnWixPrFzn4 (WHMIS classification)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46Z4sHfS9e0 (WHMIS labels)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEhEZOGCI (WHMIS MSDS)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxsfMavMLvE (WHMIS education and implementation)

Here’s another video about WHMIS:

Further information can be founded at this link:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/whmis-simdut/index-eng.php

You can also obtain more information about WHMIS from your provincial Workplace Safety Board in your home province. In Ontario, it’s the WSIB (Workplace Safety Insurance Board), while in BC, it’s WorksafeBC.

I hope this helps.

Societal marketing: McDonald’s
Business executives are often perplexed by the continuous expansion of society’s expectations of corporations. For example, in the corporate world, numerous laws and extensive government regulation affect virtually every aspect of business activities. They touch “almost every business decision ranging from the production of goods and services to their packaging, distribution, marketing, and service” (Carroll, 1979, p. 98). Thus, not only are companies held responsible for maximizing profits for the owners and shareholders and for operating within the legal framework, they are also expected to support their employees’ quality of work life, to demonstrate their concern for the communities within which their businesses operate, to minimize the impact of various hazards on the global environment, and to engage in purely social or philanthropic endeavors.
Among researchers, this issue has provoked an especially rich and diverse literature investigating the role of business in society. Research in this area has followed two major streams. The most popular of these studies have focused on the relationship between a firm’s social responsibility and its financial performance (McGuire, J., Sundgren, A., & Scheeweis, T., 1988, p. 858). The other stream of studies has examined the effect of board members’ demographic and non-demographic characteristics on their individual corporate social responsiveness orientation (Wood, 1991, p. 389).
Since the societal marketing involves some kind of corporate response to social demands, the first step is to identify and classify the numerous social needs. There are three categories of such needs. First, survival needs consist of the various needs that are necessary for individual members of the social segment to survive, such as food, shelter, and the preservation or restoration of one’s Health.
A second category is concerned with safety needs. These are the needs that are necessary to protect the members of the social segment from external and internal threats. Not only do nations have defense establishments for protection from external threats, but they also enact and enforce laws to protect individuals and groups from others in society. Such laws cover numerous areas ranging from environmental protection to safeguarding individual liberties.
The third category is composed of various growth needs which, in turn, can be broken down into material needs and spiritual needs. The former are concerned with the enrichment of the social segment through economics (the allocation of limited resources) and technology (the use of tools and techniques to generate wealth). Spiritual needs are related to the spiritual growth of the social segment; they include metaphysics, education, science, arts, and entertainment.
Social segments expect different agents to fulfill these needs. These agents can be an individual (e.g., a parent who supports a family), a group (e.g., political parties and interest groups who represent their members), a business organization (e.g., a corporation which supports inner city revitalization), a not-for-profit organization (e.g., a hospital that provides services to the community), and government (e.g., for protection from external threats). Both the type and extent of the needs to be fulfilled and the agent who is expected to satisfy these needs will depend upon the social segment’s culture and ethics, the legal environment, and the degree to which the members of the social segment perceive that such needs are not fulfilled.
As a key member of society, a corporation should take into account the societal needs that are expected to be met by business. These needs constitute a social demand. Thus, social demand incorporates not only demand for a firm’s products and services, but also extends to the fulfillment of other societal needs. With this framework in mind, it can be stated that the scope of a business organization, i.e., what products and services it provides, is determined both by the organization itself and by society’s expectations. In other words, it can be said that a given firm operating in two different social segments has, in effect, two different scopes. Failure on the part of an organization to understand and satisfy the various demands of the social segments within which it operates will lead to its rejection by society and its eventual demise. Consequently, a firm’s mission and objectives should not only address traditional organizational concerns such as profitability and markets served, but should also be concerned with determining and meeting various societal expectations.
One of the aspects of the societal marketing includes alliances that have arisen between environmentalist groups and businesses in the last decade. The new relationships have been described as path breaking and innovative (e.g., Long & Arnold, 1995; Wasik, 1996). Typically, they are distinguishable from the prior charitable (e.g., donations to or sponsorships of environmental causes) and commercial relationships (e.g., calendars, T-shirts produced for environmental groups) because they engage the expert knowledge of the environmental group and involve it, to varying degrees, in joint problem solving or strategic decision making with the corporate partner (Clair, Milliman, & Mitroff, 1995, p. 188). In this category are green product endorsements, audits by environmental groups of business programs or practices, and joint projects of the type engaged in by green alliance between McDonald’s and Environmental Defense Fund, where the corporate partner’s business practices are evaluated and improved according to ecological criteria.
Green alliances also function rhetorically in a more complex way than traditional business-environmentalist relationships. Here I follow Levy who has pointed out that environmental management – that is, corporate practices to reduce the ecological harm of economic processes – serves symbolic and political purposes by helping to construct business as green and thus to legitimate its role as manager of the natural environment (1997, p. 127). Green alliances, a strategy within corporate environmental management, also have symbolic and political value – for both partners. The corporation borrows not only the environmental expertise, but also the credibility, of the ecology group, which by its allegiance implicitly or explicitly endorses company actions – e.g., producing earth-friendly products and services or operating in pollution-free ways (Ottman, 1994, p. 86). The partnership also brings corporate actors into the group of those to be entrusted with the work of saving the earth.
McDonald’s is the leader of the fast-food industry, with worldwide operations employing approximately 500,000 people in 11,000 restaurants and serving 22 million customers a day. At the time Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) approached McDonald’s, its entanglement in controversy over its packaging frustrated the company. From EDF’s perspective, McDonald’s leadership position, its problematic history of waste management, and the iconic value of waste management as an environmental issue made the company an attractive candidate for partnership. EDF saw significant opportunity for both environmental action and a major, high visibility, opportunity to test its innovative approach to environmental problem-solving through corporate partnerships.
With environmentalism on the rise among the general public in the 1980s, consumer-driven businesses were particularly subject to and sensitive about public pressure (Livesey, 1993, pp. 2-4). Plastic had been demonized by several environmentalist organizations including the grassroots groups Greenpeace and CCHW. The use-and-dispose philosophy at the core of McDonald’s business and its distinctive plastic clamshell sandwich boxes, which helped to make the company one of the largest single users of polystyrene in the United States, had made McDonald’s a continuing target of ecology groups (Livesey, 1993, p. 4).
Throughout the late 1980s, McDonald’s instituted and publicized a number of environmentally positive steps in its domestic operations. It reduced consumption, for instance, by using lighter weight paper in straws, paper bags and other items and recycled paper and cardboard packaging. In 1987, it switched from polystyrene (used for the clamshells) blown with CFCs, the family of chemicals which destroy the ozone layer, to plastic foam that used hydrocarbon blowing agents (Annual Report, 1989, pp. 10-15). In 1989, the company instituted a pilot program in 450 New England stores to recycle its plastic clamshells (Livesey, 1993, pp. 12-14). In April, 1990, it committed $100 million, or one quarter of the company’s annual building and remodeling budget, to buy recycled materials for restaurant construction, remodeling, and operations under a program called “McRecycle” (Livesey, 1993, pp. 13-14).
In 1989 and 1990, McDonald’s bolstered its environmental management practices with a proactive public relations campaign. The centerpiece was the 1989 Annual Report, which highlighted the issue of the natural environment. McDonald’s also offered in-store flyers to educate customers about the company’s environmental management practices, policies, philosophies, and positions on particular issues such as rainforest beef and the ozone problem. Brochures on environmental topics, including packaging, were available from its public relations department. In addition, McDonald’s worked with several different environmental and nonprofit groups (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund and the Smithsonian Institution) to coproduce elementary school materials on the environment.
McDonald’s 1989 annual report represents an aggressive attempt by the company to manage the public discourse around the company’s role as an environmentally responsible corporate citizen and construct itself as green. The report belongs to the category of epideictic advocacy, the discourse of praise and blame that is commonly used to establish or consolidate value premises, especially in corporate issue management campaigns; such discourse often serves as a basis for later persuasive efforts (Cheney & Vibbert, 1987, p. 183). Epideictic rhetoric works by building on shared premises and borrowing from values and beliefs embedded in the common culture. In this case, given the new ecological awareness of the public, McDonald’s positions itself as having concerns ecological and practical, social as well as economic.
As described by the media, the 1989 Annual Report looks “more like an Audubon Society brochure than a financial statement” (Horovitz, 1991, p. D2). Nature pictures, poetry, and quotations from national and international figures prominent in the environmental movement (e.g., Gro Brundtland) are interspersed throughout the report, along with product and financial information. The cover contains a four-page foldout picture of the Northwest American forest with a quotation from Chief Seattle about man’s proper relationship to the earth. The report itself is “dedicated” to a “discussion of the [environmental] challenges which lie ahead” (McDonald’s Annual Report, 1989, p. 2). The discussion is contained in a 10-page supplement.
The themes of dialogue, rational discourse, pragmatic solutions, the value of individual effort, and stewardship or shared social responsibility for the earth that are played out in the supplement are initially articulated in the shareholders’ letter. This letter is as notable for what it omits as for what it says. It at once implicates the reader, inviting dialogue, and yet leaves the situation ambiguous, particularly vis-a-vis the company’s responsibility and intentions.
The supplement contains several distinct parts: an answer to a letter from Dan Getty, an 11-year-old boy who calls for responsible action from McDonald’s (Annual Report, 1989, pp. 7-8); a general outline of McDonald’s philosophy and historical commitment to “responsible [environmental] conduct,” including company founder Ray Kroc’s mandate to crews to clean up litter near McDonald’s restaurants (p. 9); three sections addressing facts and expert opinions about solid waste management, resource conservation, and recycling (pp. 10-15); and a collective call “to Help [sic]” in solving the challenge of the environment (p. 16).
The letter of response to 11-year-old Dan Getty illustrates several of the rhetorical strategies McDonald’s uses to achieve a symbolic identification with its customers and the general public. First, McDonald’s constructs itself as a naive, non-expert, and innocent individual actor. Like Dan Getty and “people of all ages,” McDonald’s is “asking questions about our environment” and learning that the answers to environmental issues are “complex” (Annual Report, 1989, p. 7). It eschews inaction in the face of complexity: “It’s easy for each of us to claim we’re not responsible for these complex forces. But then we have to ask, ‘Who is?’ “(p. 8). At the same time, it sounds a cautionary note: It is important “to do what is environmentally sound, when the responsible course of action becomes clear” (p. 7). Who or what will provide clarity leading to action is left ambiguous.
Second, McDonald’s positions itself as one of a community of stewards of the earth: “Each of us, knowing what we have at stake, must make a commitment to a course of action that will preserve and enhance the environment we hold in trust for future generations. . . . You can count us in” (p. 8). Through appeal to the words of Gala theory originator James Lovelock – “It’s personal action that counts” (quoted in McDonald’s, 1989, p. – and founder Ray Kroc’s dictum – “None of us is as good as all of us” (quoted in Annual Report, 1989, p. – the boy’s call for help from McDonald’s is transformed into a call for everyone to act. The actions and identification that it invites are personal. Identifying with its customers, McDonald’s asks that they identify with it. McDonald’s puts itself on a level with the 11-year-old. Thus, through rhetorical sleight, of-hand – in Cheney’s (1992) words “the sheer juxtaposition of images . . . as a substitute for reasoned discourse, for argument” (p. 174) – McDonald’s equates natural persons with the corporate persona, and power differences – the differences between producer and consumer, corporate giant and small child – are made to disappear: The people at McDonald’s, no different from people everywhere, must act to save the earth. Of course, at one level, McDonald’s people are like people everywhere and, like them, probably hold a range of opinions about the problem of the natural environment. However, at another level and at the same time, McDonald’s people constitute a corporate body.
McDonald’s defends its environmental record by listing specific actions that it has taken to manage waste and conserve resources by reducing, reusing and recycling materials. It cites experts who support its position on plastic packaging and who point out the small contribution of the entire quick-service restaurant industry to America’s waste. It also criticizes “the ‘Not In My Back Yard’ syndrome – or NIMBY” (for instance, people in McDonald’s communities who opposed company incinerators in their neighborhoods) as posing barriers to responsible waste solutions (Annual Report, 1989, p. 11).
Also, McDonald’s emphasizes individual personal action: Plant a tree, switch off a light, recycle a clamshell. Yet, it also describes itself as a proactive corporate actor looking for opportunities to work with individuals, public officials, and other companies, as well as with the communities we serve.
The more McDonald’s constituted itself as “green,” the more it was required to accommodate environmental issues affected by its business practices. McDonald’s attempts at recycling, resource reduction, incineration, and the like were not simply symbolic. The company was both the subject and the object of its own eco-discourse. The emerging storyline it constructed had positive environmental effects at the material level, in addition to opening the company to potential dialogue with EDF.
In April 1991, the McDonald’s-EDF joint task force released its final product, a corporate waste reduction policy and a comprehensive waste reduction action plan with 42 initiatives. Many real environmental improvements were generated by the task force. For instance, environmental criteria were integrated into corporate packaging decisions which before had been driven by quality and cost criteria (see McDonald’s Final Report, 1991). The media mostly praised the results of the alliance (Reinhardt, 1992, p. 14), and the story was recycled over several years (e.g. Gutfeld, 1992). Ultimately, the partnership entered the green business literature as a milestone marking a change in the relationships between business and environmental groups (Long, F. J., & Arnold, M. B., 1995, p. 80).
Thus, McDonald’s steps in managing environmental issues are the examples of societal marketing. People become increasingly aware of the damage that can be caused to the environment by products, packaging, by-products and production processes. They may gradually learn to adopt more environmentally friendly products and, in particular, reject throwaway products. Green issues are increasingly seen as important by consumers and this is being reflected in the types of products consumers want to use. Organizations have to change the nature of their products to meet these requirements. Many companies appear to possess a social conscience or see the benefits of meeting the demands of green issues; this is the case with McDonald’s.
The belief that environmental responsibility is now a corporate function is based on research indicating that consumers want such changes and will theoretically repay industry investments by accepting higher prices. In a survey by Dagnoli (1990), 82% of the respondents claimed to have changed their purchasing decisions because of environmental concerns. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed also reported that a company’s environmental reputation influenced their choice of brands. Environmentalism is enough of a concern that 78% of the respondents said they would switch to an environmental container if it were priced 5% higher than a less-environmentally friendly container. Another 47% said they would pay as much as 15% more for environmental packaging.
Businesses currently involved with the environmental movement have noticed the increasing number of markets influenced by environmentally concerned consumers, and naturally are hoping this trend can boost their companies’ long run profits. Proactive companies like McDonald’s are attempting to take leadership roles in the area of environmentally friendly products in order to gain a competitive advantage (Smyth, 1991, p. 70).
For McDonald’s, environmental marketing has become one of the primary societal marketing tools. Although much confusion still exists concerning the specifics of green marketing, one thing that has been learned is that consumers will not always pay more for green products (Winski, 1991, p. 3). Despite consumer claims to the contrary, the initial sales of environmentally friendly products and packaging have been slow (Reitman, 1992, B1). Recent trends indicate a lack of willingness to actually pay premium prices for such products (Wasik, 1992, p. 17).
Thus, today’s market for environmentally-friendly goods is greater than ever. To capitalize on this movement, managers and marketers, as McDonald’s case shows, must promote the environmental benefits of their products and maintain prices in a range near that of their competitors that do not emphasize environmental concerns. Promoting the environmental friendliness of products will be most attractive to some customers, while attributes aimed at convenience will be attractive to others. Although these aspects of the product mix are important, competitive pricing of environmentally-friendly goods may be the key to capturing a significant market share. Once high market shares are reached, cost reduction programs should allow producers to increase profit margins from green products.

Andrew Sandon
http://www.articlesbase.com/marketing-articles/societal-marketing-mcdonalds-75498.html

Those are both describable in one word – corrupt.

If a company has enough Indian rupees to bribe officials, they can do whatever they want.