Delivering the Green

Jeff Wells January 30th, 2009

Shoppers have made it clear that they want to eat healthier and adopt a greener lifestyle, and companies have tried to oblige them. There’s a problem, however: People don’t trust the system. Many of them want to eat less fat, use less packaging and more, but they’re not convinced a label claim will take them there.

A recent study bears this out. According to marketing firm Brandspark International, which surveyed more than 50,000 shoppers, 70% of consumers feel motivated to buy environmentally friendly products — but only 40% of them are willing to pay extra for these. Why? Because they don’t think manufacturers and retailers are delivering on the promises they’re making. Three quarters of those surveyed believe that some companies are abusing environmentally friendly claims, and 78% believe that they aren’t even close to reducing the amount of packaging they need to.

Attitudes regarding health were similarly bleak. Sixty-eight percent say they’re increasingly concerned about their wellbeing, but 71% said they’re skeptical of health claims on products.

So what to make of all this? Well, chalk up some of this disconnect to the nature of surveys and consumer attitudes in general. People have good intentions for themselves and the environment (or at least they want to believe they do), but when the rubber hits the road, many shy away from making the necessary sacrifices.

But it’s also true that the massive number of whole health products and claims out there are confusing people. Everyone’s gotten swept up in the fervor — more green products, more certification programs, more companies getting involved — and now consumers find they’ve got one big green headache. They don’t know enough, they don’t know who to trust, and they’re begging for the simplicity that, really, retailers and manufacturers should be able to give them.

ShareThis

Email This Post

5 Comments to “Delivering the Green”

Bob Comis Says:

February 1st, 2009 at 6:15 am

I think one thing you also need to consider is the problem of historically “non-green” companies “going green” for the sake of chasing consumer trends or profiting on a burgeoning niche. Much of this greening is transparently disingenuous and smacks of an effort to go as little “green” as possible for the highest return. This calculation is one of the reasons retailers and manufacturers aren’t able to give us the simplicity you suggest we need. We don’t trust them because they don’t deserve to be trusted. They are offering us a marketing gimmick, a ploy, not a substantial commitment to “green-ing” the marketplace.

Simplicity requires honesty, forthrightness, and deep commitment, not half truths, double-talk, dissimulation, and capriciously chasing consumer trends.

How is this for a simple honest green campaign?: After listening to the environmental and health concerns of our customers, we, as a corporation, have begun to agree with them, so we are greening the corporation across the board, from our buildings and transportation vehicles to the offerings on our shelves, offerings which will also be more health conscious. Such greening and health consciousness will result in a short and long term net reduction in our profitability of 10% to 15%. We think it is worth it.

Of course, such a thing would never and could never happen in an American corporation, especially a publicly traded one, because American corporations act according to the capitalist principle of a-moralism, with profit above all. Greening and health consciousness are not a matter of ethical or moral concern for American corporations, they are mere marketing categories that are more or less embraced and exploited depending on perceived consumer trends, and this transparently so, so it is no wonder that consumers, who feel they are making a deeply ethical/moral and/or personal choice, just don’t buy it.

“Delivering the green” indeed.
Stephen Moore Says:

February 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 am

Eating healthier is a wonderful goal and many of us do just that but while that is going on, there are many school districts implementing policies to battle obesity. The fitness culture continues to grow but with packaged goods pricing appears to be far more appealing.

My daughter is all about the Food Channel and eating meals with fresh ingredients yet the price for many of her favorite recipes are sometimes prohibitive. Although the free market tends to adjust on its own, the initial price schedules can delay sales as packaged goods often fit better into budgets especially during this current economic climate.
Jeff Wells Says:

February 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 am

Thanks for writing, Bob. I am in complete agreement with you that “simplicity” in this case does not mean cutting corners. It requires, as you say, an honest commitment to reducing energy consumption, relying less on unsustainable inputs, and more.

When a business does make this genuine effort, I think people can tell. You’re right that there are a lot of companies out there who are only co-opting “green” practices when it’s convenient for marketing purposes. This is the sort of dishonesty that, I think we can both agree, is at the heart of the confusion.

But there are companies out there who are making a genuine effort. They’re using fewer building materials, reducing packaging, promoting sustainable agriculture, and they’re encouraging their customers to do the same. I know what many out there would say — that it’s not enough. Keep in mind, though, that this is a slow process. Businesses can’t be expected to shift from an industrial model to a sustainable one overnight. It stinks that the input-heavy, wasteful model is what dominates right now — but that’s what we have to deal with.

This is not all, as you say, driven by moral concerns on the part of these companies. But neither is it driven purely by marketing. Rather, I think it’s driven by the realization that sustainability can be truly profitable. You use less, you spend less, you make more. Hey, it may not be the most virtuous of motivations, but progress in any guise is progress nonetheless.
Stephen Moore Says:

February 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am

‘Green’ is the result, as I understand it, of the idea that man is somehow responsible for the current global climate changes we have experienced recently. Although, this idea has only been proven through computer modeling, it seems to be that awareness of our life styles hasn’t done us much harm. Man’s impact on global climate change is certainly arguable but the desire to be healthier isn’t new nor is it something that will ever go away.

Quality vs. pricing isn’t new either. Food cannot escape this market conditions anymore than quality dress shoes vs. discount dress shoes. With prices of quality, fresh foods being a challenge to healthy buyers, this may actually help in the other eating consideration – portions. Eat less and eat the good stuff sure sounds as though it would go a long way to be healthier. Then there is the ‘feel good about yourself’ factor. We sure shouldn’t discount that component of ‘green’ eh?
Jeff Wells Says:

February 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm

One of the threads running through your comments, Stephen, seems to relate to the price premium found with healthy and sustainable products. Indeed, explaining to people why they should pay up to twice as much for one product over another has always been difficult for retailers and manufacturers. Oftentimes, organic or fair trade goods taste and function the same as their conventional counterparts. It really goes against the scale of value that so many of us possess, which equates price with quantity and quality. The key seems to be trust — and, judging by the results of this survey I’ve mentioned, that trust isn’t very high.