Phatgnat, responding to a prior post, seems like an idealist who has found an interesting niche. Kids care about the fate of the planet. They are willing to shift their purchases accordingly. Companies can make more money by being more socially conscious. So Phatgnat will work with the companies to create a win/win situation, for the company, the kids, and the planet, and make a living himself at the same time, presumably by taking a good green corporate dollar.
Yet, we all know that some companies will game the system. They will ask, what is the cheapest way, Mr. Phatgnat, we can create the beleivable impression that we are good and get the biggest possible bang for the corporate buck through a nicely burnished brand image?
We do need independent objective third parties who are not in the pay of the companies to do an indepdendent assessment of just how socially responsible the company is overall. It does matter who pays for the assessment since people get what they pay for. You can't last long as a consultant taking Brand X's dollar and publicly drawing attention to their shortcomings. Instead, if you take their dollar you had better pull the punches and "emphasize the positive."
I would assume that from a sophisticated marketer's perspective Phatgnat is a usefull tool, providing access to a naive market easily gamed. I want to thank him for keeping the conversation going, it should be illuminating. I would be interested to hear - in the spirit of transparency - who is paying him how much money to do what. What role does Candidia Cruikshanks play in all this?