Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category

European group produces sustainable marketing guide

When it comes to sustainability, Europe is ahead of the US on many fronts. Marketing seems to be one of them. I am always on the lookout for fellow marketers who are giving serious thought to sustainability, and my research often points back to Europe.

One example is this guide on sustainable marketing produced and published recently by CSR Europe. The focus of this first guide is on how to minimize environmental impacts through the influence of marketing. A subsequent booklet will be produced that looks at marketing’s role relative to social issues such as human rights, equality and diversity.

The first guide offers a sustainable marketing toolkit that its authors say “has been created to show you how you can integrate the principles of sustainable marketing into your day job quickly and simply.” There are indeed some useful suggestions and tools, but I’m not so sure about the quick and simple part, as I’ll get into in a moment.

The toolkit contains an example of a decision tree a marketer might use when evaluating the marketing of a particular item. Here are some of the questions that would help you assess the potential environmental impacts of the item:

  1. Is this item useful or desirable?
  2. Would you want and/or value this item?
  3. Is it durable? Will it last for a long time?
  4. Is it made from recycled materials or sourced from sustainable sources?
  5. Have you included information on the item to tell the customer what it is made from or how to dispose of it after use?
  6. Do you know where your product was made and how it was transported?
  7. Has packaging been minimized?
  8. Is the packaging reusable or easily recyclable?
  9. Is the item itself reusable, refillable or recyclable?

I’m certain most marketers don’t want to ask questions like these because so few products today stand up to this level of scrutiny. But if all businesses were to face these questions head on and attempt to answer in the affirmative, imagine the revolutionary effects on the global economy. We might be looking at a world in which businesses would only make and promote products that are:

  1. useful, long-lasting and reusable or recyclable
  2. made from sustainable sources
  3. transported short distances and/or using renewable fuels
  4. clear in how they should be disposed of after use

Sounds nearly ideal. And a long ways off. Here’s where the toolkit’s promise of helping you integrate sustainability into your marketing “quickly and simply” may be a stretch. The authors don’t delve into what to do when faced with an employer or client that answers “no” to all or most of the questions above. And we know that most businesses would. This creates a not-so-simple dilemma for the marketer: Can I or do I want to use my influence to move my employer or client toward sustainable business practices? If not, do I just continue my role in supporting “business as usual”? Or do I part ways with my employer or client?

Every marketer has to answer these tough questions for him or herself. But as CSR Europe’s guide makes plain:

We only have one planet and the Earth’s resources are finite…The further we stretch these scarce resources, the more uncomfortable life will become for those in the developed world and the harder it will become for those in some developing countries to survive at all. In short, the situation is unsustainable.

Share

There’s no consuming our way to green

I find it difficult to avoid the topic of Wal-Mart when speaking of sustainability and marketing. The company came up again today at a breakfast presentation by two professors of business from the University of Portland, sponsored by the Oregon Natural Step Network. And once again I find myself bristling at the notion of Wal-Mart playing any part in the ultimate sustainability solutions for our planet.

Professors Diane Martin and John Schouten conduct research related to sustainable marketing. Included in their work is the study of Wal-Mart’s aggressive sustainability initiatives. They receive no payment from Wal-Mart as part of their research. Nor do they shop there.

Martin and Schouten peppered their presentations this morning with examples of what Wal-Mart was doing to lessen the environmental impact of its business operations, the products it sells and the global supply chain that feeds its stores. Schouten says the company is so serious about its sustainability efforts it has reached out to detractors such as the World Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club and Conservation International to involve them in their green initiatives.

But when asked whether she was aware of Wal-Mart actually encouraging their customers to consume less, Martin quickly replied, “No.” Schouten said the mindset that “growth is good” is still very much present in Bentonville, although its managers are all evaluated by metrics of sustainability. He didn’t say what those metrics were, but clearly they don’t involve helping Wal-Mart customers buy fewer products. Wal-Mart doesn’t plan to relinquish its role as the world’s largest retailer — indeed, its revenues make it the equivalent of the world’s 19th largest economy, Martin said.

This raises what I believe to be the fundamental question for companies and marketers embracing sustainability principals: Can humans consume their way to green? In other words, can we simply switch from brown products to green products across the board and create the sustainable future we all want? 

Wal-Mart and most other companies can’t envision a future where their customers dramatically lessen the amount of goods they buy. After all, what would happen to their growth ambitions and their need to create adequate shareholder return? Their solution is to get us to consume differently: less brown, more green. 

I don’t believe we have the luxury of simply shifting to green products. In fact, I can’t imagine a sustainable future where humans — at least in the developed countries — don’t reduce their consumption many fold. That’s a prospect few in business, including those of us in marketing, want to either accept or condone. Where’s the money in non-consumption?

Last week, I heard author and Boston College Professor Juliet Schor speak for the second time in several months, this time at the national conference of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) in Boston. Schor is a well-known critic of over-consumption by the middle/upper classes of developed countries. She cited new data that illustrate how the growing scale of consumption among higher-income people is swamping virtually all the product greening steps our society is taking. 

The de-materialization of our economy is not happening. For example, in what Schor calls “the Ikea effect,” American consumption of furniture in material weight increased from 6 billion kilograms in 1998 to 12 billion kilograms in 2005. Our population increased 10 percent in that time, but our furniture consumption doubled. We consumed 2.9 billion kilograms of ceramics in 1998 and 5.7 billion kilograms in 2005. Our electronics consumption — despite the ongoing miniaturization of digital gadgets — increased from 3.8 billion kilograms in 1998 to 6.2 billion kilograms in 2005.

Schor’s solution is to engage people in redefining the good life. One where we acquire more time and far less stuff. A life in which we work fewer hours, and use that time to reconnect with ourselves, our families, our communities and nature and rediscover our happiness. Schor didn’t say it, but I’m pretty sure you won’t find even a green Wal-Mart in her picture of the good life. You certainly won’t in mine.
Share

The accidental benefit of higher gasoline prices

There’s going green. And then there’s saving green. We’re seeing the difference now as gasoline prices climb over $4 per gallon. 

In the post-“Inconvenient Truth” era, many Americans are finding ways to drive less or volunteering to trade in their gas guzzlers for gas sippers to do their part for the environment. That’s going green. Lately, people are selling gas hogs and driving less for a different reason. To save green. Whether the motivation is to save the environment or to save money, the results are the same: fewer gallons of gas consumed and fewer greenhouse gases emitted. 

But the environmental benefit rarely gets mentioned when reporters cover the broader economic and personal financial costs of expensive gasoline. As much as it pains me to say it, an economist quoted in the New York Times is probably right when he says:

“Al Gore came out with a movie called ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in 2006, when Hummer sales were still good. The inconvenient truth, in fact, is that prices are what matter. With gas prices soaring, Gore is going to get his collapse in Hummer sales, not because people went green, but because they wouldn’t spend the extra green to buy the gas.” 

 

My hunch is a lot of Americans have wanted to do the right thing for our warming climate by downsizing their automobiles, but have waited for financial incentives. When gas was closer to $3, the incentive wasn’t great enough. At $4 and climbing, it is.

Sustainability marketers should take note. There are a certain number of eco-minded customers who choose the environment over saving money. But most customers are guided by their pocketbooks and probably always will be. In the case of gasoline, they find ways to consume less, so they can save money. Period. The environmental benefit is unintentional or, at best, icing on the cake. 

Not that enviros should be complaining that Americans drove 4.3 percent fewer miles in March 2008 than March 2007. We’d just all feel a lot better if we knew environmental values, more than economic reactions, explained the drop. Maybe then, we’d trust that Americans are serious about fighting climate change. 

Share

Another attack on Wal-Mart’s green claims

Earlier this month, I asked the question, “Is a green Wal-Mart good enough?” Author and big-box retail critic Stacy Mitchell certainly doesn’t think so. In a post for Beacon Broadside last Friday, Mitchell says, “The best case scenario for Wal-Mart’s sustainability initiative is to make a highly polluting operation somewhat less so.”

She dismisses most greenwashing efforts as “clumsy and transparent,” but acknowledges that Wal-Mart is different. The company, she says, “has developed a far more sophisticated, and ultimately much more dangerous, approach to manipulating environmental sentiment for its own expansion and profit.”

Thanks to Jessica at Beacon Broadside for the heads up.

Share

Greenwashing companies aren’t the only villains

Nothing like Earth Day to focus attention on greenwashing.

The Center for Media and Democracy, no fan of the PR industry, is a good example. Its authors define greenwashing as “the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.” A bit wordy, but sounds about right.

An East Coast PR executive cites a study by TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm, that found 99 percent of the 1,753 claims of green consumer products they recently reviewed were “guilty of greenwashing.”

As prevalent and disturbing as greenwashing is, many in the media and environmental groups may be too focused on the actions of those who want us to believe they are doing some good for the Earth, when they’re really not. I’m equally disturbed by the vast numbers of businesses that make no effort or claim to be green. Some of those guilty of greenwashing are at least trying to improve their practices. Wal-Mart, for example.

I can’t cite statistics, but I would wager that most businesses have still done little or nothing to become more Earth friendly. Instead of spending inordinate time fact-checking green claims, we should be urging, cajoling or, if necessary, shaming offending businesses into cleaning up their acts. Not to defend greenwashing, but companies that make green claims open themselves up to public scrutiny. That’s more than can be said for the green-avoiding majority who are happy no one’s asking them the hard questions.

Share

Bottled water: When it’s time to say no to branding

Several years ago I attended a conference on branding. One of the keynote presenters began his talk by holding up a bottle of water. If marketers can successfully brand water, they can brand most anything, he quipped. His comments were meant to get the creative juices flowing among his audience. Hell yes, we can brand anything! And indeed, we do.

I thought of that marketer’s attempt at inspiration yesterday when I was listening to a talk by Maude Barlow, author of “Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.” Barlow, a Canadian, is known internationally for her tireless advocacy for every human’s right to water. When asked what people could do to help solve a water crisis that is worsening by the day, her first response was, stop buying bottled water. (She also encouraged her audience to check out Food & Water Watch, where you can find many of the issues and facts Barlow cites to make her arguments.)

Like I suspect most everyone else who hears Barlow speak, I left yesterday with a vastly heightened concern for the world’s clean water sources. The water crisis is no less urgent than climate change. “The issue of water is an issue of life and death,” Barlow said. “Without water, you die.” And without clean water, you die. The number one killer of children worldwide is dirty water. “In every single case, it was preventable,” Barlow said.

If the marketing superstar I heard a few years back were back on the podium today I would hope he’d hold up the bottle of water and deliver a cautionary tale. We have the know-how to take nothing more than packaged tap water and persuade others it really is different and better than — your tap water and the tap water of every other bottler. In fact, the average American consumed 29 gallons of bottled water in 2007.

With the ability of marketers to brand anything also comes great responsibility. It may give marketers a great sense of accomplishment when their creativity helps produce a multi-million dollar brand from something as basic as tap water. But they must also own up to their role in exacerbating the global water crisis (and adding to pollution from non-recycled plastic bottles).

Marketers committed to sustainability need to constantly ask: For whom and for what are we going to use our skills today? Just because we can brand anything doesn’t mean we should.

Share