Green Marketing: Suggestions and Future Predictions

In lieu of my previous post on greenwashing, I decided to explore the blogosphere and discover what others are saying about green business practices. In my search I came across two posts in particular that I felt examined this topic exceptionally well, prompting me to leave comments for both. The first can be found on the Green Options website written by Olga Orda, a print journalist whose previous work experience includes providing communication and social expertise to the UN Development Program, Prudential Realty, and the City of Vancouver. Olga also was employed at the global Public Relations firm of Edelman. In her entry entitled "Hippocratic Oath for Green Business Leaders-Beyond Ghettoized MBA Curriculums" she discusses the possibility of implementing a green Hippocratic Oath alongside the educational courses of young MBAs, thus shifting the focus of businesses to that of a more socially responsible one. The second came from one of my most frequented resources, TreeHugger. Jerry Stifelman (pictured below), a successful brand strategist and creative director of sustainable and green marketing organizations, including his own brand strategy and design agency The Change, created the post "Rebirth of the Producer" where he outlines the basic strategy sustainable businesses should employ in order to be considered truly environmental by the public. Both comments to their respective blog entries can be found by following the links provided to the posts, but as I have done before, I have provided my responses below.

Green Options "Hippocratic Oath for Green Business Leaders-Beyond Ghettoized MBA Curriculums"

Comment:

Olga, thank you for a well researched and interesting post. I can see from your background that you have extensive knowledge and experience in sustainable businesses. Your expertise comes across in this post regarding the possibility of a green Hippocratic Oath for business managers. My initial reaction was that this is a great move on the parts of business professionals to force others in their industry to be held socially responsible for the actions of their company. It is smart to incorporate these ideas in the MBA curriculum of young up and comers. I am sure that it is much more difficult to convince an older manager to change his ways than someone who has yet to enter the real business world. I agree with you that CESR practices have to be embedded into the courses rather than taught as a separate subject entirely in order to be effective. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that this may be an idealized proposition that will face strong opposition and probable failure. There is a reason why the Hippocratic Oath only exists in medicine and law and that is because these professions are centered on the general welfare of the people. In marketing, the focus is on profits and economy. Do social issues and economic issues have to exist on two different planes? Not in my opinion. However I am sure that many in the business world do view it in that manner. Even if young MBA professionals entered the industry with great plans and ideas for sustainable company practices, it is unlikely they will be able to enforce them as the “rookies” at their jobs. So long as older generation managers are reluctant to make any real green changes to their business, it will be nearly impossible for this new educational program to succeed. The issue with many companies is that they view things in a short term manner rather than long term. What may be good for the environment and planet overall may not necessarily be what is going to provide the greatest amount of profits right now. I am not a business major and cannot say that I understand the ins and outs of this profession, and perhaps I have become too jaded about the possibility for socially responsible companies. Do you believe this is something that will really work? I noticed that you also have some Public Relations background working for Edelman. Do you think that because many companies have found ways around being truly sustainable (i.e. through greenwashing techniques) there will not really be a need to honestly change one’s business practices? If you can successfully market and promote yourself as being greener than you really are than why bother making the effort to do any more? I am in no way advocating this. I would welcome a change to create more eco-friendly corporations and companies. I just have doubts as to the effectiveness a Hippocratic Oath would have in the business world. I am interested to hear your own thoughts on this.

TreeHugger "Rebirth of the Producer"

Comment:

Jerry, your post was both insightful and informative. I must say that TreeHugger is my favorite resource to use when researching sustainability news. I commend you on this latest post of yours regarding green business practices. I recently posted on my own blog about the negative consequences of greenwashing (devious greenwashing demon pictured left), a term I am sure you are familiar with. What I liked most about your post was how you chose not to focus on the negatives that exist out there, but rather on the positive changes that companies can make to be truly sustainable. It is easy to criticize and throw blame, but it is much more difficult to offer real and practical solutions as you have done here. Nevertheless, everything that you suggest seems incredibly simple and straightforward. It makes me wonder why more businesses have not chosen to adopt these methods. Will we ever see the day when businesses put a green priority above a profit priority? I guess the better question is: will companies ever stop seeing the two as separate and incompatible facets of the industry? To me, employing sustainable practices does not necessarily mean a loss in profits or an increase in expenditure. Even if it were the case that more money would have to be spent to convert to greener methods, it seems to me that consumers these days are more interested in seeing honest businesses that produce safe and well made products, and that alone would be enough to increase profits and make up for any extra costs acquired. Am I being overly optimistic when I say that?

Another reason I enjoyed reading your post is because I am planning on entering the realm of public relations upon graduation. It was really interesting to look at your suggestions from a PR perspective, and you truly do offer some very good advice. "I don't know" is probably one of the worst things a publicist can say because it is precisely their job to know everything about the company they work for. I definitely agree that the less that phrase is used, the better for all parties involved. However, it is troubling how businesses with even the most microscopic and immaterial green practices seem to tout it as one of their major platforms. I find it frustrating when being "eco-friendly" is more of a marketing ploy than a sincere attempt at helping the environment. What is perhaps even more irksome is the fact that as consumers, it is so easy to be misled. Companies publicize every green detail about themselves but never openly discuss any of their less sustainable actions. Ideally, there would be complete transparency, as you discuss in suggestion number five. However, we don't live in an ideal world and the truth is constantly being obscured by irrelevant facts that are meant to distract us from the reality of the situation. Do you actually know of any companies or corporations that follow all of your steps? Are there certain ways we can detect if a company is being completely open about their green behavior? As of right now, I cannot think of a single business or manufacturer that meets all those standards you have outlined . Do you think the day of the truly open and honest big business will ever arrive? I myself remain skeptical but hopeful.

Faux Green: The Deception of Greenwashing

As I was searching the internet recently, I came across Christopher Hawthorne's LA Times article regarding the new Whole Foods Market in Pasadena. The store utilizes many different types of sustainable building material such as Neapolitan bamboo and Fireclay tile, both of which are incredibly eco-friendly substances. So why is this architecture critic so unhappy? Apparently, Hawthorne sees the mega-mart as ineffective in its purpose to create a "greener" environment. By constructing an obscenely large grocery store with high ceilings and endless underground parking spaces, the executives at Whole Foods Market have succeeded in creating a very non-sustainable structure. This trend of overly hyping up a company's environmental aspects is known as "greenwashing" and can be seen more often with every passing day. But my question is, why exactly is "greenwashing" viewed so negatively? Greenwashing is essentially a marketing technique used by businesses to attract consumers on the basis of their sustainable practices, making it impossible to employ this strategy without first implementing the green practices to begin with. Should we not be applauding the efforts of companies to convert their old ways in order to approach the consumer market on a more environmental level? I was prompted to further delve into this topic to discover the answer for myself.

To the average person "greenwashing" may be a wholly unfamiliar term and was something even I was unaware of prior to reading Hawthorne's article. According to Greenwashing Index, the term functions on the same premise as "whitewashing," but in an environmental framework; it is "a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts." In other words, businesses spend more time, effort, funds, and energy in touting their "greenness" rather than actually implementing truly sustainable practices. This is done through visual or textual misrepresentations, obscure claims regarding their environmental impact, exaggeration of a product's sustainability, and a failure to provide a complete picture by leaving out essential information. Greenwashing Index also goes on to discuss what precisely the problem with this deceptive tactic is. It is true that not all instances of this marketing technique amount to the same level of unacceptability. Some companies may be unknowingly doing so in a very mild way while others may be purposefully misleading their customers. In general greenwashing poses potential risks to the environment, to the consumer, and to the business carrying out the act. It can be environmentally damaging if it encourages the public to support companies that actually do more harm than good, which in turn causes buyers of supposedly green products to invest their money into brands that do no such thing. Although businesses may initially profit from an increase in sales, they ultimately suffer when the truth is discovered about their practices, possibly marring the company's reputation and public standing beyond repair.

Looking back at the Whole Foods Market example in Pasadena, it is unlikely that this is one of the more severe cases of greenwashing, but as Hawthorne writes in his article, "Somewhere along the way, for both organic grocers and the corporate patrons of green architecture, the line between planet-saving and aggressive marketing became blurred." Nonetheless, Whole Foods loyalist will continue to shop there for the organic produce and goods, despite the fact that the existence of this giant emporium runs counter to the company's core beliefs, such as reducing resource consumption. In my opinion the decision makers at Whole Foods Market did not want to create a huge energy wasting building but realized that with their company expanding at a rapid pace, it was somewhat of a necessary evil to create this behemoth grocery store. As far as large structures go, it is fair to say that this is one of the greener ones that at least makes some attempt at sustainability. However, it is misleading to the public for the company to boast their use of eco-friendly materials when they have countless television sets turned on all day and all night long. What people need to be wary of in this instance is the negative impact the store could be causing despite their attempts to maintain a green building.

I came across a second instance of greenwashing on the Green Living Tips website where author Michael Bloch recounted his experience at a supermarket. The culprit this time was not the actual store, but rather a particular brand of eggs being sold at the store. Bloch stated, "It had an eco-type brand name in bright packaging and proclaimed how buying those eggs are good for the planet.... I was about to purchase a dozen but there was a big, but subtle, gotcha. In a color very similar to the packaging I saw the words 'Cage.'" This brand extolled its many green customs such as using recycled material for the egg cartons, using recycled water, and planting trees, but the one very significant detail that the company failed to display prominently on the package was the fact that their eggs came from caged birds. In many cases the conditions that caged hens live in are extremely barbaric and inhumane (see picture to the right); it may not have been the case for this particular company, as the author was unable to find any evidence of the living arrangements of the fowls through the company website, but the reproachful thing that still remains is the manner in which the brand conveyed this message to their consumers. Rather than placing it on their product in a way that was easily seen, as they did for every bit of green information regarding their eggs, they chose to disguise it, making the lettering nearly the same color as the package. This represents a clear example of a business's attempt to mislead through visual and textual means.

In the end, it is becoming painfully clear that the public is not as incompetent as marketing companies may believe them to be. Greenbiz.com reports that in a recent survey conducted by Brandchannel.com, readers did not think there was a single company that could be considered truly green or to be going green. "Almost 20 percent of the 2,000 survey respondents said no brand is serious about being green." One reader stated, "Very often, the 'green' aspect of the business is far outweighed by the 'non-green' areas." Sound familiar? Surprisingly enough, the respondents to the Brandchannel.com survey were mostly those who work in marketing. It is perhaps this familiarity within the field that makes them attentive to the greenwashing tactics of businesses. But as our society continues to grow and advance in the realm of sustainability, it is unmistakable that companies who are falling behind or who willingly choose to manipulate their customers into believing they are more green than they truly are, suffer from negative publicity and a downturn in consumer loyalty. Greenwashing may be evidence of a change in the market to meet the higher demand for environmentalism, but it is also indicative of a serious problem with businesses who try to use this platform in a false and deceptive manner. It is most certainly not something that should be applauded as progressive but rather chastised. The best way to counter this misleading tactic is for the public to be aware and alert in its consumer choices. It is something for us to all keep in mind the next time we decide to go out and spend money on a product we believe to be green.