05.01.08
I have always been a pessimist when it comes to businesses acting ethically and in the best interest of consumers. I just don't think it's possible, at least for a majority of companies. This isn't because I think they're inherently evil, but because a lot of companies in reality are just too busy or too large to do the right thing. So when the so-called "Green Revolution" really started to take hold of consumers I automatically thought: "Companies are going to 'change their ways' not to help the planet or consumers, but because it will help them sell more products to appear as if they care." As I shelved that thought for a minute, I had another revelation: What exactly does it mean to be "green" in the environmentally friendly sense of the word?
The truth is being "green" doesn't mean a thing. It's like calling something "all-natural." (By the way, where are we with that debate? Last I heard, there was an outcry about some companies calling their chicken natural) In other words, there are no standards companies need to adhere to in order to claim their products are "green." The result: companies may be giving themselves a "greener" halo than they deserve.
A survey released on April 15th confirmed the confusion among consumers. It found that almost four in 10 (39%) Americans are preferentially buying products they believe to be "environmentally friendly." At the same time, almost half (48%) of the population erroneously believes a product marketed as "green" or "environmentally friendly" has a positive (i.e., beneficial) impact on the environment. And only 22% understands these terms more accurately describe products with less negative environmental impact than previous versions or competing products.
The survey also found that 47% of consumers trust companies to tell them the truth in environmental messaging; 45% believe companies are accurately communicating information about their impact on the environment; and 61% of Americans say they understand the environmental terms companies use in their advertising.
In response to these findings, Mike Lawrence, executive vice president of corporate responsibility, Cone LLC, which carried out the survey, said this gap in understanding creates significant risk of embarrassment for companies and disillusionment for consumers. Furthermore, he said, "Activists are closely monitoring green claims and can quickly share information online about the actual environmental impact of a product. The result can be accusations that a company is engaging in 'greenwashing' and is misleading the public."
Mr. Lawrence is not alone in his opinion. In revealing its top trends for 2008, The Natural Marketing Institute pointed to the issue of sustainability as being the most significant movement of our time. "It will permeate every aspect of consumers' lifestyles, business infrastructures and other societal constituencies," the market research firm said. But NMI cautioned, as Mr. Lawrence did, that, "Consumers are overwhelmed with many sustainability initiatives with significant 'greenwashing' fall-out expected as consumers learn to discern its true meaning (and impact)."
While being green holds no meaning right now, it may not be that way forever. The Cone survey found that nearly 60% of Americans support a move by the government to ensure the accuracy of environmental messaging. They also support the involvement of third party certifiers. As this issue went to press, FTC was getting ready to hold a public workshop to discuss how to regulate environmental marketing claims. The current guidelines date back to 1998, so they are definitely due for a makeover.
I admit I'm a skeptic when it comes to this stuff, but the good news is I'm in the minority. According to the Cone survey, only 14% of the population says environmental messaging makes them either feel cynical or overwhelmed. The rest of them say they feel empowered and inspired by these messages. I hope someday I will too.
Rebecca Wright
Editor
rwright@rodpub.com
The truth is being "green" doesn't mean a thing. It's like calling something "all-natural." (By the way, where are we with that debate? Last I heard, there was an outcry about some companies calling their chicken natural) In other words, there are no standards companies need to adhere to in order to claim their products are "green." The result: companies may be giving themselves a "greener" halo than they deserve.
A survey released on April 15th confirmed the confusion among consumers. It found that almost four in 10 (39%) Americans are preferentially buying products they believe to be "environmentally friendly." At the same time, almost half (48%) of the population erroneously believes a product marketed as "green" or "environmentally friendly" has a positive (i.e., beneficial) impact on the environment. And only 22% understands these terms more accurately describe products with less negative environmental impact than previous versions or competing products.
The survey also found that 47% of consumers trust companies to tell them the truth in environmental messaging; 45% believe companies are accurately communicating information about their impact on the environment; and 61% of Americans say they understand the environmental terms companies use in their advertising.
In response to these findings, Mike Lawrence, executive vice president of corporate responsibility, Cone LLC, which carried out the survey, said this gap in understanding creates significant risk of embarrassment for companies and disillusionment for consumers. Furthermore, he said, "Activists are closely monitoring green claims and can quickly share information online about the actual environmental impact of a product. The result can be accusations that a company is engaging in 'greenwashing' and is misleading the public."
Mr. Lawrence is not alone in his opinion. In revealing its top trends for 2008, The Natural Marketing Institute pointed to the issue of sustainability as being the most significant movement of our time. "It will permeate every aspect of consumers' lifestyles, business infrastructures and other societal constituencies," the market research firm said. But NMI cautioned, as Mr. Lawrence did, that, "Consumers are overwhelmed with many sustainability initiatives with significant 'greenwashing' fall-out expected as consumers learn to discern its true meaning (and impact)."
While being green holds no meaning right now, it may not be that way forever. The Cone survey found that nearly 60% of Americans support a move by the government to ensure the accuracy of environmental messaging. They also support the involvement of third party certifiers. As this issue went to press, FTC was getting ready to hold a public workshop to discuss how to regulate environmental marketing claims. The current guidelines date back to 1998, so they are definitely due for a makeover.
I admit I'm a skeptic when it comes to this stuff, but the good news is I'm in the minority. According to the Cone survey, only 14% of the population says environmental messaging makes them either feel cynical or overwhelmed. The rest of them say they feel empowered and inspired by these messages. I hope someday I will too.
Rebecca Wright
Editor
rwright@rodpub.com