Going green needs to take a lot less gray (matter)

In reading this article today, I was brought to the site of an agency (TerraChoice) that has developed a laudable, inspired program to cut down on the act of "greenwashing." What is greenwashing, you ask?

Greenwashing is "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service." To that end, the agency has created a nifty campaign titled, "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" and you can download the report in full...as well as a wallet card that will aid in greener purchasing.

The wallet card is especially neat as it breaks down the information into an easier format featuring six questions--that map to the "six sins"--for consumers to use as a guide when making product purchases.

Overall, the campaign is darn cute, well-intentioned and handy. In other words, all the oh-so-clever things I rave about.

And here comes the BUT.

Problem is, even in a great format, we are still asking consumers to do a lot of critical thinking. According to the six questions, consumers will need to assess areas like (1) hidden proof, (2) vagueness, (3) irrelevance, (4) fibbing and a few more.

That's a lotta action points.

With. Every. Single. Purchase.

What's more? We're asking consumers to do this critical thinking when they're at places like the supermarket.

And at the hardware store.

At WalMart.

But navigating through the metropolis that is your local WalMart--with two kids in tow, no less--demands an abundance of focus and energy on its own, no?

Yet what so many marketers--the six sins being but one example--are expecting of consumers is to assess if the product they're about to buy is really green, just sorta green, too suspicious to be green...or the same product with a tree next to its logo for good measure.

Not gonna happen. (I'll bet green money on it)

With big-ticket, high-involvement purchases--like cars--then, sure, people are prone to run through a battery of internal Q&A before acting. But that is the purchase exception and far from the rule. The rule is that people don't have that type of bandwidth when making every day, split-second purchase decisions.

And it's those everyday, split-second purchasing decisions that will have the most impact.

The fact is, besides large companies making viable choices in how they can operate more efficiently--and getting global buy-in from major energy economies like China, too-- it's the gazillions of actions and billions of purchases that consumers make day-in/day-out that are going to make the BIG differences.

Some of those actions include unplugging your cellphone charger when not needed, decreasing AC and heat usage by a few degrees or bringing your own re-usable bags to the grocery store. Others will be to buy more efficient light bulbs and greener cleaning supplies.

The other problem? Marketers (of course).

Marketers pore through hours of copy and brainstorming sessions to plot how their product can claim green-ness. Some marketers can easily claim this, others have to bend the truth. And others outright lie.

Even the agency's CEO knows we're asking much too much--this is how the article ends: "With such a barrage of eco-messages slapped on products these days even McDougall concedes that "the six sins of greenwashing" might be too much for consumers to remember when out shopping.

So, in a nutshell, what's his advice? 'The most essential guide I can offer consumers is; choose the product that appears to be doing its best to educate you, to offer you information and in precise language.'"

Ergo, winning the green fight--or winning "green revenues," depending upon how you look at it--is an object lesson in simplicity (and, I'd argue, believability). That does not mean it can't be creative, but it needs to be simply so.

Regulatory agencies are going to need to lay down the law of what can be green-stamped and what constitutes greenwashing. But marketers need to make this process easy if they want for consumers to buy in and, um, buy from them.

Because if I can't spend the time vetting six questions--and I'm a marketer in the 1% who obsesses over product messaging in my local supermarket--I can promise you that the remaining 99% won't either. Sustainable strategies for greening the mainstream is what I seek (and in marketing Mother Earth, simple is my mantra.)

PS: As for fellow marketers? The wallet card and that full report are very much worth checking out right here.

Comments

[Mario Vellandi]

Scot Case is the author of the six sins, and his article was the poster story for late last year (I think the numbered list plus the graphic made it stick). Terrachoice was hired by the Canadian government to put together a guidelines & certification process. But most definitely yes, it shouldn't be a consumer's job to sort this out...that's just deferring responsibility and obviously not feasible.

So is the collective marketing community supposed to do a much better job? Nice thought, but it's idealistic because there's no incentive (reward/punishment) for vague and unsubstantiated claims.

Here's the deal. Much of the 'green' product marketing space is now akin to the health food and natural supplement sector. But the latter is a specific product category, for which certain claims MUST include a disclaimer by the FDA.

But across all categories there remain vague copy like "all natural", which have no essentially no meaning. So, the main idea is to try and educate consumers to be aware of subjective & irrelevant language. Ever hear of stickers placed on fruit that say "low-carb"? That's the kind of tricks to look out for.

So in actuality, there is no such thing as a 'green' product. Only healthier, non-toxic, alternatively manufactured (ex: organic cotton), or other attributes including product modifications that make the packaging more sustainable.

The Green Guides were developed as a set of product marketing guidelines by the FTC in the nineties. They provide some very basic protection in upholding claims like false advertising. But since 2000, they had been openly acknowledged by the FTC as ineffective and insufficient for consumer protection...and as a result have been sitting duck.

These guides were supposed to be reviewed in Spring 09, but as a result of industry pressure and citizen concern, they are now currently under review with solicited comments.

It's a tricky topic that IMO requires consumer education, product certification (single & multi-attribute), competition, and some better guidelines. Mama mia

[CK]

"So is the collective marketing community supposed to do a much better job? Nice thought, but it's idealistic because there's no incentive (reward/punishment) for vague and unsubstantiated claims."

Thanks for the good feedback, Mario.

If marketers did a better job--in that they more easily/simply explained the brand's green benefits and asked less of users' time--than consumers could easily buy...which is a financial reward. The rest needs to be left up to regulators to battle it out and draw some strong lines.

I agree it's tricky and I wholly (and fervently!) agree that terms like 'All Natural', 'Organic' and 'Low-Carb' are just, well, meaningless.

But wait--look at what Burt's Bees is doing with "All Natural", that company is taking a stand to adequately explain what All Natural is (and isn't) so they cater to the passionate segments (who will read and assess such purchases).

And for the majority of everyday, no-time-to spare on reading a lot, Burt's Bees is a brand that simply looks the part, easily speaks the part and, more to the point, is the part. And that brand has done so well, due to keeping it simple and believable. As a result, it gets revenues from all-natural focused market segments--and the mainstream.

And, when regulators hunker down more on "All Natural", Burt's Bees won't need to change a thing--that brand will remain consistent, to boot.

[Mario Vellandi]

Yup; so while some vague claims may be legal, it is within a company's opportunity to go further and use creative copy & graphics that are specific and relevant. Heck, make some short video clips for company website and social media that explain the unique benefits of a product. 30 seconds max.

Burt's Bees (now part of Clorox) has some great print ads that do a neat side by side comparison of the active ingredient. Ex: Pomegranate something versus the Chemical norm. I'll have to find a still and send it over.