Transparency Is the New Green
In today's post-"Inconvenient Truth" world, companies of all shapes and sizes have rushed to get onto the "green" train, but many have missed the whole point: It's not about (in)convenience, it's about truth.
These days, announcing your company is "green" is like offering up your sleeve for a scarlet letter to be placed on it. In fact, a recent survey done by marketing consultancy Ipsos Reid showed that nearly 70% of Americans contend that being labeled "green" is merely a marketing gimmick.
These days, announcing your company is "green" is like offering up your sleeve for a scarlet letter to be placed on it. In fact, a recent survey done by marketing consultancy Ipsos Reid showed that nearly 70% of Americans contend that being labeled "green" is merely a marketing gimmick.
Another part of the problem stems from the fact that in moving so fast we don't have a standard lexicon for understanding our new reality. Words often associated with the Green Movement such as "organic" or "natural" are not required to fall within any specific parameters controlled by government standards. In other words, one company's definition of "organic" can be a lot different from another's with both being technically accurate.
With consumers becoming more skeptical - and rightfully so - the burden falls on corporations to prove that their claims are accurate. Many just don't hold up to even cursory examination. The Academy Awards supposedly went "green," but celebrities still drove up in Hummers and had limousines idling for hours. CNN's contribution to the Green Movement was a green logo and anchors wearing green ties. While installing energy-saving light bulbs and enacting a wardrobe change as a means of awareness is a step in the right direction, it is not saving the environment.
These superficial changes just muddy the waters for consumers overloaded with information, while at the same time hurting those companies that have taken legitimate steps to lower their carbon footprint or reduce energy consumption. Companies such as the clothing brand Nau based in Oregon and Parducci winery in California have taken the next steps in designing for sustainability throughout their whole business cycle from source, to production, to transportation, and through to destruction. Funny thing is, you'll notice they don't mention anything on their respective sites about being "green," but they do openly and honestly share with customers their business practices even when they may fall short of what they aspire to accomplish.
Sure it's easy to look at fledgling companies who were raised in this era of heightened awareness of the environment, but even more interesting is what implications this has on more established brands, specifically brands whose mission is not necessarily environmentally focused. Take Honda for example - a strong brand in an industry constantly under fire for their impact on the environment - has taken the carbon emissions initiative upon themselves by setting their own goals and metrics, which are more stringent than any governmental policy and creating a plan to meet those goals far ahead of their competitors.
The underlying truth here is that this is not just about the environment. This is about a major shift in cultural behavior, one that emphasizes a much broader idea of social responsibility. People want to know how both individuals and companies are working to create a better quality of life for each other and future generations. For example American Apparel, known for their racy advertising, has publicly taken on a broad range of social issues relating to workers' rights and has truly built their business culture upon their social beliefs. Their outspoken CEO, Dov Charney, is both loathed and praised, but the fact is whether you agree with what the brand is about or not, at the very least you know what you are (and are not) buying into. Now THAT's a concept!
So if you firmly believe that your company is committed to the environment, to workers' rights, to fighting heart disease, or to even just excellent customer service, then you can't just talk about it in some altruistic tone using vague corporate language. You need to show how you will do it, do it, and then provide details as to what you learned and how you'll work to improve. Because, in the end, we all know that no one or no corporation is perfect, but consumers will respond to an authentic and transparent commitment.
So here's to transparency: It's not a trend, it's just the truth.
With consumers becoming more skeptical - and rightfully so - the burden falls on corporations to prove that their claims are accurate. Many just don't hold up to even cursory examination. The Academy Awards supposedly went "green," but celebrities still drove up in Hummers and had limousines idling for hours. CNN's contribution to the Green Movement was a green logo and anchors wearing green ties. While installing energy-saving light bulbs and enacting a wardrobe change as a means of awareness is a step in the right direction, it is not saving the environment.
These superficial changes just muddy the waters for consumers overloaded with information, while at the same time hurting those companies that have taken legitimate steps to lower their carbon footprint or reduce energy consumption. Companies such as the clothing brand Nau based in Oregon and Parducci winery in California have taken the next steps in designing for sustainability throughout their whole business cycle from source, to production, to transportation, and through to destruction. Funny thing is, you'll notice they don't mention anything on their respective sites about being "green," but they do openly and honestly share with customers their business practices even when they may fall short of what they aspire to accomplish.
Sure it's easy to look at fledgling companies who were raised in this era of heightened awareness of the environment, but even more interesting is what implications this has on more established brands, specifically brands whose mission is not necessarily environmentally focused. Take Honda for example - a strong brand in an industry constantly under fire for their impact on the environment - has taken the carbon emissions initiative upon themselves by setting their own goals and metrics, which are more stringent than any governmental policy and creating a plan to meet those goals far ahead of their competitors.
The underlying truth here is that this is not just about the environment. This is about a major shift in cultural behavior, one that emphasizes a much broader idea of social responsibility. People want to know how both individuals and companies are working to create a better quality of life for each other and future generations. For example American Apparel, known for their racy advertising, has publicly taken on a broad range of social issues relating to workers' rights and has truly built their business culture upon their social beliefs. Their outspoken CEO, Dov Charney, is both loathed and praised, but the fact is whether you agree with what the brand is about or not, at the very least you know what you are (and are not) buying into. Now THAT's a concept!
So if you firmly believe that your company is committed to the environment, to workers' rights, to fighting heart disease, or to even just excellent customer service, then you can't just talk about it in some altruistic tone using vague corporate language. You need to show how you will do it, do it, and then provide details as to what you learned and how you'll work to improve. Because, in the end, we all know that no one or no corporation is perfect, but consumers will respond to an authentic and transparent commitment.
So here's to transparency: It's not a trend, it's just the truth.
since we posted this, i've noticed a few other great things that also describe this move from just environmentally-conscience to a broader and more encompassing social-conscience or social-responsibility.
Check out this recent report: Medinge Group's 2008 Brands with a Conscience. My favorite part and most notable, is that they are assessing a brand on how it can effectively help create a "better and more sustainable world".
in the nytimes article from 1/18/2008 discussing american apparel's recent advertising about immigration. ceo, dov charney, states: “This [immigration] is at the core of my company, at the core of my soul,”... and continues by adding "I don’t think supporting immigration reflects negatively on my brand, and in fact, it makes it look like we’re a responsible business."
while this is a particularly hot button issue in america, the point is not whether or not you support the cause, it is that a brand has to be responsible for what they believe in and what is at its core, for american apparel it's immigration policy, for other brands it can be customer service.