Home » How We Think » Three Ps » Green
Even though they are voluntary, the Federal Trade Commission’s “Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims” are highly influential with marketers trying to decide how to promote the eco-friendliness of their products and services.
The so-called “Green Guides” were first issued in 1992 and were revised in 1996 and 1998. They’re undergoing revision again, and public comments on the latest revisions are due to the agency by December 10, 2010.
Some of the “Green Guides” updates are noteworthy and could significantly impact marketing, including more specific definitions of certain terms:
Degradable: The “reasonably short period of time” for complete decomposition of a product or package is defined as one year.
Free of: Use of this term may be considered deceptive if (1) the item has substances that pose the same or similar environmental risk as the substance not present; and (2) the substance has never been associated with the product category.
Made with renewable energy: Marketers should not use this term if any part of the product was derived from fossil fuels and they should specify the source of renewable energy.
Carbon offsets: Marketers should disclose if the emissions reductions from the offsets purchased will not occur for two years or longer.
FTC cautions marketers “not to make blanket, general claims” using terms such as “environmentally friendly,” “eco-friendly” or “green" (apparently with a big exception for the name of its own guides).
On the other hand, the agency took no position on the use of “sustainable” or “sustainability” because it “lacks a sufficient basis to provide meaningful guidance.” Maybe retaining the flexibility to use such terms is good. On the other hand, this is “the elephant in the room.” Perhaps a term that is apparently so undefinable may also be unsustainable? Isn’t this how “green” lost its credibility?
Two recent studies – one a professional marketing study and the other a college honors thesis – make a strong case for the value of green marketing.
In the professional study, 33 percent of respondents said green marketing was more effective than their normal marketing efforts, with just 7 percent saying it was less effective, according to a study of 370 marketing executives for Environmental Leader. Other findings include smaller firms tend to spend more, on a proportional basis, on green marketing, and the Internet is by far the most popular green marketing medium. The full study is available for $479.
In the college study, Wittenberg University student Lukas Treu (currently an intern here at Dix & Eaton) found that Chevron’s green marketing (its Untapped Energy commercial) is paying off in building the Company’s trustworthiness, goodwill on the environment and overall credibility. Lukas also found that environmentally involved people are more likely to believe and trust Chevron than those who are not as interested in environmental issues. His psychoanalysis of the results is enlightening: People who care most about the environment have an increased motivation to process the messages. The more they care about a topic, the more attention they pay; the more attention they pay, the more a message can persuade them. This study is available here for free.
Interesting findings all the way around. If you have a story to tell, and you tell it well, the people who matter most will believe and trust you. And probably reward you with their business.
Virtually every publication – local, trade, business, consumer – has special issues or sections on sustainability or “green.” And trade and professional associations have committees, working groups and task forces.
In other words, sustainability has become big business, and many businesses and industries are embracing it. And some are profiting from it, which is why there are 3 P’s. Invariably, there are many critics – people who question the motives. Despite some notable exceptions such as the World Wildlife Federation, many environmentalists don’t want to give credit even where it’s due.
From my seat, the problem with many activists is all they talk about is an organization’s motives. But what about actions and results? They should count more than motives and words.
Greenwashing is bad business, but bashing companies making good environmental progress is bad behavior by activists. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
