This is the launch of egglog, straight out of egg in Seattle. It’s our reflection on and unleashing of the issues and ideas that matter to us — like the way people consume; the marketing of things that matter, and the power of marketing as a device for good change in a rapidly moving global landscape; the shift towards business models that can do well and good at the same time; the convergence of design and responsibility; the power of brands, and their responsibility to society. That’s a start.

To begin with, we have to acknowledge a recent article by Matthew Wheeland in GreenBiz.com, titled CSR Programs are Only as Good as Your Communications.

He writes about the discrepancies between the positive things that companies are doing, and how they are communicating it. The big question is what are they leaving on the table as far as brand value when they do not effectively reach consumers with this news and, I would argue, account for it in the brand platform.

The article goes on to mention an NMI report that considers the gap between a company’s CSR initiatives and the resulting value construed by consumers and investors. Unfortunately, little quantifiable evidence is given for the cases identified that attribute the actual value to a company of aligning their CSR with their communications and therefore, brand value.

But I will direct your attention to some more quantifiable data that is very positive news. On January 19th, 2007, in Beyond the Green Corporation, Pete Engardio of BusinessWeek Online writes of a study by New York’s Communications Consulting Worldwide that calculates that if Wal-Mart had a reputation like that of rival Target Corp., its stock would be worth 8.4 percent more, adding $16 billion in market capitalization.

I can only imagine that Wal-Mart is aware of this considering it’s movement towards sustainability. But I question the degree to which Wal-Mart can feasibly reconstruct its brand to successfully emit the green glow, and have it generate returns in the market from its consumers and investors. They have already baked in so many opposing attributes that it will be a challenge to offset the negative social (labor) and environmental associations that are hardwired. Nike has this problem, too. Smart brand managers realize this but are often impotent to the larger corporate powers that be, which define company practices. But many are catching on.

It is all reassuring for those of us who are evangelists of the “good company”, and the brands that communicate integrity and values.