Environmental Leader

Hi Emily,

I enjoyed reading your post, but I must say as the owner of a green marketing agency, I disagree with several of your points.

First off, the green “space” is huge. You state that for a product to be considered environmentally friendly “the true test is the amount of carbon each product creates.”

Although I personally would like to see green products with reduced carbon footprints, that is more of a personal preference than the reality of the green consumer marketplace.

First off, 80% of all household purchasers are women, most of whom are Moms. When those Moms think green, they think of non-toxic products that will not interfere with the health of their home or their children’s bodies.

Second, there are many subniches within green. For many, the health of the oceans and the reduction of plastic use and waste is paramount. (Some call this blue rather than green, but for the sake of this argument, it is an important part of the definition of environmentally friendly products).

Moreover, most consumers are far more conscious of disposal issues – products that can be recycled or are upcycled from post-consumer waste – than of carbon miles.

Again, that doesn’t mean that as sustainable marketers we shouldn’t encourage our clients to reduce their carbon footprint – but to attempt to make that the sole benchmark for an environmentally friendly product is far too narrow a definition, in my opinion – particularly when it comes to the drivers of household purchasing – women.

Thanks for your post and look forward to hearing others’ thoughts!

Lynn

Lynn Anne Miller | July 28th, 2010

Emily: good overview. The fact is companies need to stop thinking about “green marketing” and “environmentally friendly” products — these terms have long associations with the superficial changes and exaggerated claims that you document. Instead, companies need to think about “sustainability communications” and your IKEA example touches on that: focusing on how they are substantively changing operationally to be truly sustainable. PR, communications and marketing agencies must upgrade the advice they give their clients. I’ll be hosting a webinar in a couple of weeks on the capabilities of 18 top agencies: http://www.verdantix.com/index.cfm/papers/Webinar.Home

Jim Nail | July 28th, 2010

We have just released a new packaging item for our plants to replace the 15 tons of plastic we used annually ..I am glad i found this link..I am determined to NOT over state..and have researched the water usage, energy usage in production, residues after decomposing..This ifformation was provided by a certied Lab in Europ. How ever I am seeking a US Lab to do the same testing and analysis for it..before I state any specific claims ..We DO Know the composition and I do Know, it is far superior than any plastic product..but again..I am concerned about the sceptical consumer..the name Green has been abused. Thge difference between compostable ans biodegradable are NOT the same ..How can we institue and educate ? whats the point of recycling plastic? what is the REAL environmental cost..convicning consumers that consuming billions of plastic bottles is ok? its sickenng Ideas? ( any Lab referrals?) thanks

sandee loeffler | July 28th, 2010

There’s one area of corporate Greenwash that really irks me and that’s the common claim from utility companies who say that getting bills on line is ‘better for the environment’.

Encouraging customers to get their bills online and also stating that this is better for the environment is increasingly being questioned. In the past two months, faced with being reported to the Advertising Standards Association, (ASA), several very large nationally known UK organisations have stopped similar messages, having accepted they were being made without adequate research, contravening CSR Europe and CAP (Code of Advertising Practice) guidelines.

Whilst the efficiency of electronic communication is clear and initiatives to reduce waste are to be encouraged, the Two Sides organisation, which exists to explore the Myths and Facts concerning the sustainability of Print and Paper, and has members spanning the whole Graphic Communications Value Chain, is concerned that incorrect and damaging impressions are being given if ‘go paperless’ initiatives are promoted as ‘green’ or seek to gain credibility by purporting to aid sustainability at the expense of the print and paper industry.

It is increasingly clear that electronic communication and in particular the energy requirements of the increasing worldwide network of servers which are necessary to store all the information needed for immediate access, has a significant and increasing carbon footprint. Electronic document storage must be recognised as delivering efficiency but not sustainability. In the UK it has been suggested that PC’s and servers may consume up to 50% of household energy requirements in the next 10 years. Greenpeace has reported that electronic waste is the fastest growing waste stream and there are extremely serious disposal costs emerging.

All those who encourage customers to switch to e-billing, or any other form of electronic communication, largely to reduce costs, should re-examine their messages as it is certainly questionable whether e-billing or e-communication has a lower carbon footprint. In fact, with all the environmental costs of electronic communication and with many customers printing out their bills at home for reference, (a recent US study has assumed this between 10% and 30 % depending upon whether you are a business or private consumer), at a possible higher environmental cost than a centrally produced and distributed bill, print and paper may well be the environmentally sustainable way to communicate.

Paper is a renewable and recyclable product that, if responsibly produced and consumed, is an environmentally sustainable media. It is often surprising to learn that in Europe, where 93% of our paper comes from, the area of forest has grown by 30% since 1950 and is increasing at a rate of 1.5 million football pitches every year.

And with 55% of the worldwide forest harvest being consumed for fuel and 34% for construction and other uses, only 11% is actually directly used for making paper.

So, if any organisation is using messages that e-billing, or any other form of electronic communication, is more environmentally friendly than traditional print and paper, they need to be challenged about the basis of their claim, their calculations used, and their exact assessment of the downstream consequential costs.

Misleading environmental claims are not only increasingly being examined by regulators but jeopardise the livelihood of the many thousands of people employed in the Graphic Communications Value Chain.

It is encouraging that responsible organisations are now thinking carefully about the statements they make and ensuring that they are not simply repeating old misconceptions.

Martyn | July 28th, 2010

Great article Emily and certainly environmental issues should be at the forefront of all our businesses no matter what we do. But educating the public is certainly a very tough job with all the misinformation available in the internet. That is why articles like your are very important and informative. Our business is bottling water in 100% RPET bottles for Private Labeling. While it is not as Earth-Friendly as drinking from the tap, it is much more beneficial to the environment than using virgin plastic for bottling water. Independent test have shown using 100% Post Consumer Recycled Plastic has a 65% smaller Carbon footprint than using virgin plastic. It’s a step in the right direction. – MNR Water

Baltazar Perez | July 28th, 2010

Hi Emily, Thank you for your article. Your background in science really comes through. However, the piece feels like it is lacking something from a marketing perspective. In fact the word ‘brand’ is not mentioned once in your piece or for that matter do any of the comments below it refer to the most fundamental of marketing pillars. I think it is safe to say that the debate shifted from Green Marketing years ago. Terms like ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘Green’ only serve to marginalise the message and the product in the mind of the consumer. Equally people do not understand the technicalities. Carbon, C02, GHGs it is all just jargon. In research we have looked at, only 13% of people understand what a Carbon Offset is for example. To position something as ‘lower carbon’ would be fundamentally wrong for most brands trying to get their sustainability messages out there. Instead marketing specialists focused on sustainability would be better to go back to the core principles of modern marketing communications. We need to get better at identifying how or audience lives, what they feel and what they need from a product perspective. Next we need to identify the most appropriate message. Finally we look for the most relevant and engaging communication channel to deliver our message. Sometimes the so called ‘green’ component of the message can simply act as a support for a much bigger and more interesting idea to build the brand and promote the product benefits. Research tells us that consumers have a pent up demand for more sustainable products and services. Their frustration is finding them easily. We also know through decades of brand and marketing communication practice that people want to be inspired and excited by the brands they buy. If you continue to push the ‘Green’ message you are missing the wood for the trees. ‘Green’ lacks differentiation and it is easily misunderstood. Instead we should be selling vision and leadership. This is what the most successful brands have been doing forever and yet the consumer is still very cynical about advertising and marketing (whilst at the same time loving the brands that they perceive are ‘good’). The fact that a sustainable product or service exists in a market place simply means it has a far richer and more engaging story to tell. So let’s tell that rather than rely on lazy cliches and confusing terminology. If you would like to see some examples of how you do this please visit http://www.republicofeveryone.com/portfolio
Yours Sincerely, Matt

Matt Perry | July 28th, 2010

Emily – great article! Don’t let the detracting comments on the web discourage you (i.e. being told not to use the word “green” as it is vague and seeing the advice comes from someone who uses the word green 3 times on the first page of their own website). Are people getting caught up in the details of the article and missing the point that marketing on sustainability needs to not just reach out to the target market but also be validated by a metric? I agree that carbon footprint may not cover all areas of sustainability 100% so I guess a suggestion for a follow-up to this article would be your thoughts on how to describe some of the other non-quantifiable aspects of sustainability. Maybe something similar to the microeconomic concept of “utility” – the satisfaction a consumer receives from consumption of the next incremental unit of a product.

Great article and again, don’t let the comments discourage you!

JP | July 29th, 2010

I enjoyed the article but….I’m with Lynn and Matt. I’m a mom so Lynn is definitely right on her points of how I buy as a consumer. I’m with Matt because I’m also a marketer. Even more so, I’ve led a global green marketing initiative for a European software company in B2B space. We NEVER communicated anything about reducing carbon footprints by metric tons–it means nothing to the average human. Instead we first showed our own corporate green credentials, our programs, values, actions and then we talked about our products in the language of benefits, economic and environmental, using language that was easily consumed and appreciated by the buyer. It was actually quite simple and successful.

Next April, my book profiling REAL innovators in the green economy, small business owners, entrepreneurs, engineers, etc will publish. This book is the opposite of greenwashers…my interviewees are the folks creating sustainable businesses, new technologies and green jobs every day. http://www.latinnovating.com

Grace

Graciela Tiscareño-Sato | July 30th, 2010

I think the most important thing to remember is that at the end of the day, we need to get greener products into the hands of consumers and the best way to do this is to highlight primary benefits –e.g., that organic products simply taste better, or CFLs save money, etc.–and if we don’t mention green at all, so be it. Businesses will relish minimizing risk of greenwash. Consumers won’t be skeptical of green claims. Bottom line: let green drive innovation and inspiration, but let consumer benefits, not environmental attributes, drive communication. More detail about this in my soon to be released book, The New Rules of Green Marketing http://www.greenmarketing.com/our-book

Jacquie Ottman | July 31st, 2010

Emily – Great article. This is a tough subject to talk about because of the various “greenwashing” that is going on. It is also hard to market to the consumer in this economy. The consumer wants to be eco-friendly and lessen their footprint, but they are also hesitant to spend too much money. It is important for companies to stand by their claims and not overstate. I look forward to hearing more from you. A superb person to also gain Green Marketing perspectives is from our CEO, Paul Hannam. He is an Oxford fellow and very successful entrepreneur who has really taken the online green marketing to a whole new level!

Jane Phelps | August 2nd, 2010

A great indication of true sustainability can be found not in expenditure, but in initiative and commitment. There are some groundbreaking efforts in finding innovative ways to reduce waste to landfill, like NISP and Wastivity.com, although like natural monopolies, unless there is scale there is no value.

Simon | August 8th, 2010

And these plastic pallets, could be from recyclabe from HDPE grocery bags and other sources, aren’t they ?

José Rabello | December 1st, 2011