Interesting that most of your statistics come from a year or two ago because, in a Businessweek article dated September 29, 2008 it was noted that a recent survey of 72 companies by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business found that chief marketing officers ranked environmental issues lowest on a list of five priorities over the coming 12 months. Even Wal-Mart, they noted, is going “easy” on green advertising, mentioning green issues in 12 of its press releases through September 11, 2008 compared with 29 during the same period last year.
It could be, as your article notes, one of the big reasons companies are finding it hard to “sell” green products is the continuing decline in purchasing power of consumers is making even the die-hard tree huggers make choices about what’s essential and what’s good for the planet. With the continuing slump showing no signs of relief for over-taxed consumers (ala the Bailout Blues), green products will likely take longer to become more mainstream on mainstreet.
The consumer faces a bewildering array of products making claims to be environmentally friendly. Many are dubious or trivial. An authoritative seal of approval from an organization such as Consumer Reports that is well known and respected is needed. Consumers often want to do the right thing, but don’t have the time to determine what that is.
So if I’ve read the article correctly, and it suggests that companies wanting to go green should do the following (to be honest, I’m a bit skeptical of the voila! follow our recommendations and the green paradise shall come):
1. Educate Consumers
2. Build Better Products
3. Be Honest
4. Offer More
5. Bring Products to the People
But more importantly, there are two critical questions that haven’t been addressed.
1. Is it the companies themselves that should go green? Or is there a need for a third party certification group? I don’t see how a company who educates consumers and tries to sell a product can effectively convince a consumer that it has built a better product, is honest, and offers more given the amount of skepticism there is because of greenwashing. Instead of making blanket recommendations, I think it would have been more useful to hear about the challenges of companies trying to go green themselves and the opportunity for third party companies to help consumers get better information about green products, whether they be nonprofit certification schemes or for-profit consumer sites.
2. More importantly, by following these five recommendations, will businesses be able to succeed in selling green products? And will businesses be able to improve their profit margins as a result? I find the analysis on this point extremely lacking - the example of Whole Foods seems unusual since at the beginning of the article, they mention how people buy organic food more for health reasons than environmental; Whole Foods could probably get away with being environmentally irresponsible as long as it had healthier food. By not being exceptionally clear on how businesses can really profit from being green (the recommendations are somewhat useful, probably necessary, but insufficient), I feel the article is just another if-you-go-green-you-can-make-money article.
The true insight will be convincing companies that there is additional profit to be made in being green (which I find questionable, especially if consumers are irrational and want green products to be equally priced and as good as their non-green counterparts) or identifying opportunities where going green makes economic sense independently of being green.
>> Tony Wang : Concerning your question nr 1,
sustainable certification indeed offers the necessary objectivity for the customer to be able to make a green consumer act.
On the production side I believe it is far more complex/absurd. First of all, being good is in a lot of situations = to being (a bit) more expensive. Paying decent wages, avoiding environmental damage mostly has its price. I mean ofcourse only the unavoidable green extra manufacturing cost, not pricing premiums for green marketing.
On top of this relative (shortterm) competitive disadvantage, another organisational cost & time handicap is being imposed to “the good” by expecting “the good” to get certifications of all kind. While “the bad” do not have to worry about auditting, costs of personal doing check and balances on all kinds of green & social parameters… And ofcourse a labeling company does not run on thin air aswel…
Thus I believe that the whole certification philosophy must be reversed, seen from another angle : Free the ethical companies of the burdon of bureaucracy, and make sure that the unethical are punisched/handicaped with a lot of auditing & studies paperwork… (eg how they are compensate for the global social and environmental damage caused by their non- organic / non-fair trade products,
The impactstudies are thus payed by those who do not comply, instead of the actual situation where taxpayers need to pay for proving / finding the unethical companies.
>> to Dr. Nicholas Hild. Concerning the suggestion to bring relief on the overtaxed consumers.
Most Developed country consumers have more than they need to be happy, buying the lates/big TV, cellfone, SUV, i-phone… does not make us more happy / higher level of welbeing (see eg : index of sustainable welfare, happy planet index, ) Above 10000 - 15000$ yearly earnings, incremental welbeing, satisfaction flat out, or even drop if we push on with GDP growht beyond environmental and social barriers.
Thus I do not believe that enlarging (even more) the purchasing power of consumers is not the best strategy to solve problems on the long run. Certainly not by cutting taxes that are (re)distributing unevenly generated wealth towards the people that do need “a break”.
Educating customers to know the difference between greed, gadgets, and welbeing is hard in a system that runs/floats on consumption. Besides, the gains of avoiding the latest hyped gadget compensates largely the green / social premium for ethical manufactered goods and services. The peace of mind comes free…
Thank you for this informative article and thoughtful comments. In my opinion consumer’s choices are 90% based on economics - can we afford it? Yet a growing number envision the bigger “we”, want to do the right thing or even see a payback in the long term ( ~ 7 years in Japan for switching to an inverter refrigerator or a heat-pump washer/dryer).
Uncertainty prevents purchase decisions. Thus, business can and should do more to make clear what environmental aspects claims mean for the consumer. The worn-out “environmentally friendly” is false on its face! It is misleading and untenable for most products. Think about it, does a product so labeled do anything to improve the environment? ISO 14021 shows ethical ways to word environmental claims.
Your article talks about the issues of developed countries where there is comparatively enough awareness about environmentally friendly products and corporate are trying to use this as a competitive advantage also. But in developing countries like India where corporate are standing on the threshold of transformation to fit into the globalization and that is why adopting green, and not because of the consumer demanding green, the question is will any amount of greening help to woo the customers. Here only if the products are competitive enough and are available with almost all the benefits of a nongreen one, probably then one would choose a green product over the other.Or rather flood the market with green so there is no choice but to buy a green product.
Thank you for your interesting and informative article.
You mention that the top 3 ways a consumer can reduce her own carbon emissions is to drive a more fuel-efficient car, improve home insulation, and reduce consumption of beef. What about reducing overall consumption and waste? There is so much useless purchasing going on that I suggest that dealing with over-consumption should be taken into account.
The onus would be on companies to produce longer lasting, cost-effective, high quality goods. What kind of impact might this have for the marketplace? Do you have any thoughts on this?
great i like the topic on the hybrid cars and i would like to see more articles about that part i want to read auto parts of the hybrid cars but the article was great!
The truth is that most consumers will ‘go green’ on a small scale or periodic purchases but making a commitment to buying green (more expensive) products on the whole is harder to come by. It’s touch to rehab oneself from inexpensive, mass produced goods.
I partially agree with Bernd, consumer decisions are based primarily on economics. But I also feel that word of mouth, reviews, etc. are still a very important part of the decision making process.
The movement toward going green is stalling and a bit misguided in my opinion. While consumers say they want to go green, implementing daily changes is at a minimum is most of the country.
Penny Auctions offer an alternative but it’s hard to say whether they will help either.
Good day I am so glad I found your blog, I really found you by error, while I
was browsing on Digg for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would
just like to say kudos for a tremendous post and a all round
interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have
time to read it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and
also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back
to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the awesome work.
My wife and I have been trying to make an effort to buy more green and eco-friendly products. It can hard sometimes to know what products are actually more responsibly produced. I appreciate your article because it gives some of the basics about going green and some of the barriers to that. I can see why many people don’t want to use a green product if they think it is inferior. Proper education seems like the first step. Thanks for the info!
I had to stop reading when I saw the statement that organic foods were better for the environment.
They are not.
They require much more agricultural land than other foods and result in far smaller harvests. It’s not only bad for the environment - but for citizens of the earth
COMMENTS
BY Dr. Nicholas Hild
ON October 2, 2008 04:47 PM
Interesting that most of your statistics come from a year or two ago because, in a Businessweek article dated September 29, 2008 it was noted that a recent survey of 72 companies by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business found that chief marketing officers ranked environmental issues lowest on a list of five priorities over the coming 12 months. Even Wal-Mart, they noted, is going “easy” on green advertising, mentioning green issues in 12 of its press releases through September 11, 2008 compared with 29 during the same period last year.
It could be, as your article notes, one of the big reasons companies are finding it hard to “sell” green products is the continuing decline in purchasing power of consumers is making even the die-hard tree huggers make choices about what’s essential and what’s good for the planet. With the continuing slump showing no signs of relief for over-taxed consumers (ala the Bailout Blues), green products will likely take longer to become more mainstream on mainstreet.
BY David Latham
ON October 3, 2008 09:22 AM
The consumer faces a bewildering array of products making claims to be environmentally friendly. Many are dubious or trivial. An authoritative seal of approval from an organization such as Consumer Reports that is well known and respected is needed. Consumers often want to do the right thing, but don’t have the time to determine what that is.
BY Tony Wang
ON October 4, 2008 11:39 PM
So if I’ve read the article correctly, and it suggests that companies wanting to go green should do the following (to be honest, I’m a bit skeptical of the voila! follow our recommendations and the green paradise shall come):
1. Educate Consumers
2. Build Better Products
3. Be Honest
4. Offer More
5. Bring Products to the People
But more importantly, there are two critical questions that haven’t been addressed.
1. Is it the companies themselves that should go green? Or is there a need for a third party certification group? I don’t see how a company who educates consumers and tries to sell a product can effectively convince a consumer that it has built a better product, is honest, and offers more given the amount of skepticism there is because of greenwashing. Instead of making blanket recommendations, I think it would have been more useful to hear about the challenges of companies trying to go green themselves and the opportunity for third party companies to help consumers get better information about green products, whether they be nonprofit certification schemes or for-profit consumer sites.
2. More importantly, by following these five recommendations, will businesses be able to succeed in selling green products? And will businesses be able to improve their profit margins as a result? I find the analysis on this point extremely lacking - the example of Whole Foods seems unusual since at the beginning of the article, they mention how people buy organic food more for health reasons than environmental; Whole Foods could probably get away with being environmentally irresponsible as long as it had healthier food. By not being exceptionally clear on how businesses can really profit from being green (the recommendations are somewhat useful, probably necessary, but insufficient), I feel the article is just another if-you-go-green-you-can-make-money article.
The true insight will be convincing companies that there is additional profit to be made in being green (which I find questionable, especially if consumers are irrational and want green products to be equally priced and as good as their non-green counterparts) or identifying opportunities where going green makes economic sense independently of being green.
BY Kris Moonen
ON October 12, 2008 02:50 PM
>> Tony Wang : Concerning your question nr 1,
sustainable certification indeed offers the necessary objectivity for the customer to be able to make a green consumer act.
On the production side I believe it is far more complex/absurd. First of all, being good is in a lot of situations = to being (a bit) more expensive. Paying decent wages, avoiding environmental damage mostly has its price. I mean ofcourse only the unavoidable green extra manufacturing cost, not pricing premiums for green marketing.
On top of this relative (shortterm) competitive disadvantage, another organisational cost & time handicap is being imposed to “the good” by expecting “the good” to get certifications of all kind. While “the bad” do not have to worry about auditting, costs of personal doing check and balances on all kinds of green & social parameters… And ofcourse a labeling company does not run on thin air aswel…
Thus I believe that the whole certification philosophy must be reversed, seen from another angle : Free the ethical companies of the burdon of bureaucracy, and make sure that the unethical are punisched/handicaped with a lot of auditing & studies paperwork… (eg how they are compensate for the global social and environmental damage caused by their non- organic / non-fair trade products,
The impactstudies are thus payed by those who do not comply, instead of the actual situation where taxpayers need to pay for proving / finding the unethical companies.
>> to Dr. Nicholas Hild. Concerning the suggestion to bring relief on the overtaxed consumers.
Most Developed country consumers have more than they need to be happy, buying the lates/big TV, cellfone, SUV, i-phone… does not make us more happy / higher level of welbeing (see eg : index of sustainable welfare, happy planet index, ) Above 10000 - 15000$ yearly earnings, incremental welbeing, satisfaction flat out, or even drop if we push on with GDP growht beyond environmental and social barriers.
Thus I do not believe that enlarging (even more) the purchasing power of consumers is not the best strategy to solve problems on the long run. Certainly not by cutting taxes that are (re)distributing unevenly generated wealth towards the people that do need “a break”.
Educating customers to know the difference between greed, gadgets, and welbeing is hard in a system that runs/floats on consumption. Besides, the gains of avoiding the latest hyped gadget compensates largely the green / social premium for ethical manufactered goods and services. The peace of mind comes free…
All the best
BY Bernd Nurnberger
ON October 26, 2008 07:28 PM
Thank you for this informative article and thoughtful comments. In my opinion consumer’s choices are 90% based on economics - can we afford it? Yet a growing number envision the bigger “we”, want to do the right thing or even see a payback in the long term ( ~ 7 years in Japan for switching to an inverter refrigerator or a heat-pump washer/dryer).
Uncertainty prevents purchase decisions. Thus, business can and should do more to make clear what environmental aspects claims mean for the consumer. The worn-out “environmentally friendly” is false on its face! It is misleading and untenable for most products. Think about it, does a product so labeled do anything to improve the environment? ISO 14021 shows ethical ways to word environmental claims.
BY Aasha Sharma
ON October 29, 2008 03:34 AM
Your article talks about the issues of developed countries where there is comparatively enough awareness about environmentally friendly products and corporate are trying to use this as a competitive advantage also. But in developing countries like India where corporate are standing on the threshold of transformation to fit into the globalization and that is why adopting green, and not because of the consumer demanding green, the question is will any amount of greening help to woo the customers. Here only if the products are competitive enough and are available with almost all the benefits of a nongreen one, probably then one would choose a green product over the other.Or rather flood the market with green so there is no choice but to buy a green product.
BY Nicole Helwig
ON April 14, 2010 09:42 PM
Thank you for your interesting and informative article.
You mention that the top 3 ways a consumer can reduce her own carbon emissions is to drive a more fuel-efficient car, improve home insulation, and reduce consumption of beef. What about reducing overall consumption and waste? There is so much useless purchasing going on that I suggest that dealing with over-consumption should be taken into account.
The onus would be on companies to produce longer lasting, cost-effective, high quality goods. What kind of impact might this have for the marketplace? Do you have any thoughts on this?
BY Mark Smith
ON February 10, 2011 12:49 AM
great i like the topic on the hybrid cars and i would like to see more articles about that part i want to read auto parts of the hybrid cars but the article was great!
BY Rehab from Mass Consumption
ON May 13, 2014 06:00 AM
The truth is that most consumers will ‘go green’ on a small scale or periodic purchases but making a commitment to buying green (more expensive) products on the whole is harder to come by. It’s touch to rehab oneself from inexpensive, mass produced goods.
BY Espresso Man
ON May 24, 2014 06:01 AM
I partially agree with Bernd, consumer decisions are based primarily on economics. But I also feel that word of mouth, reviews, etc. are still a very important part of the decision making process.
BY Penny Lane
ON August 10, 2014 08:26 AM
The movement toward going green is stalling and a bit misguided in my opinion. While consumers say they want to go green, implementing daily changes is at a minimum is most of the country.
Penny Auctions offer an alternative but it’s hard to say whether they will help either.
BY Lakeisha
ON November 27, 2015 03:38 PM
Good day I am so glad I found your blog, I really found you by error, while I
was browsing on Digg for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would
just like to say kudos for a tremendous post and a all round
interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have
time to read it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and
also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back
to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the awesome work.
BY Nathan Johnson
ON March 23, 2016 09:12 AM
My wife and I have been trying to make an effort to buy more green and eco-friendly products. It can hard sometimes to know what products are actually more responsibly produced. I appreciate your article because it gives some of the basics about going green and some of the barriers to that. I can see why many people don’t want to use a green product if they think it is inferior. Proper education seems like the first step. Thanks for the info!
BY Curt Fiers
ON February 18, 2019 05:15 PM
I had to stop reading when I saw the statement that organic foods were better for the environment.
They are not.
They require much more agricultural land than other foods and result in far smaller harvests. It’s not only bad for the environment - but for citizens of the earth