Home

Lecture 01

Lecture 02

Lecture 03

Lecture 04

Lecture 05

Lecture 06

Lecture 07

Lecture 08

Lecture 09

Lecture 10

Lecture 11

Lecture 12

Lecture 13

Lecture 14

Lecture 15

In April 1970, the first Earth Day was held. It launched a new era in American consciousness, a new era of respect for "Mother Earth." In 1970, people wore "earth shoes" as a political statement, and sought to enter into harmonic convergence with their planetary home.

In 2001, Earth Day is still observed, but people no longer wear "earth shoes." Instead, they wear (or use) items that are made of postconsumer recycled waste, and actively look for products that will not harm their environment. Whereas the first Earth Day was a product of the "flower children" era, today the earth-consciousness is called Green Marketing, and is becoming a huge force in the promotion of goods and services.

This lecture explores the Green Marketing phenomenon, and how companies should respond to the opportunities it presents. A thorough listing of "green" products from the 1990s and 2000s is presented, including the bad along with the good, the successes and the failures.

There is momentum in the "green" movement. The numbers have spoken, and have said that "green" is good. For example:

• 82-percent of US voters think that the environment is an important long-term issue
• 53-percent of the adult US population consider themselves to be committed environmentalists
• 90-percent of consumers would go out of the way to buy environmentally-friendly products, if they are available
• 60,000 environmentally-oriented businesses in the US and Great Britain produced more than $200 billion in revenue in 1992
• 30 million people spent $1 trillion on alternative health products in 1993

(These stats from various 1992-1994 studies by LA Times, Simmons Market Research, Green Market Alert, Environment Opinion Study, and the Gallup Poll.)

The Harwood Group recently found that 82-percent of Americans believe that most of us buy and consume much more than we need. Fifty-eight-percent responded that it would be good for the environment if we instructed our children to be less materialistic. Finally, an estimated 15-percent of consumers have traded off the money and prestige of high-powered jobs for a simpler way of life so that they can have more time to relax, visit with family and friends, and enjoy personal activities (i.e., hobbies, fitness, etc.)

On the other side of the coin, there is increasing pressue for Green Marketing coming down from various levels of government. Concerns over limited landfill space, groundwater contamination, and finite resources have caused legislative bodies to take a proactive stance on the environment, and have influenced consumers either by suggestion or outright mandate.

But back to the statistics: one must ask the inevitable question. How valid are these findings? Are these statistics merely "lip service," or are they legitimate results? When push comes to shove, will people really go out of the way to find "green" products? Will shoppers pay more to have a "green" product? How many people really are willing to give up top jobs so they can pursue the good life and open a B&B in Vermont?

For that matter, what about the companies who provide "green" products? One must consider the range of possible motives for doing so. For example:

• Some companies are required by law to be "green." For example, auto parts stores in some cities must collect deposits on car batteries and alternators. Lead-acid cores have proven to be detrimental to the earth, and many communities have outlawed their disposal in landfills.
• Other companies are "green" because of political and social opportunism. In other words, the motive is merely to look environmentally responsible, when in fact it is "business as usual." This can range from the supermarket that gives the option of "paper or plastic," to mass merchandisers who offer a token selection of "green" products just they can proudly say that they are "green." McDonald's, with their stryfoam-to-paper transition earlier this decade, is a good example of publicity hounding masquerading as altruism.
• A smaller group of companies have a legitimate concern for the environment, and are willing to produce high-quality "green" products for what is often a limited market. Tom's of Maine (discussed below) is a prime example. These companies are often small, struggling firms, frequently with a somewhat long if unremarkable corporate history. Many were launched back in the 1960s and 1970s when the first environmental concerns were being voiced. For the past three decades, these firms have labored silently in the shadows, hoping that someday their message would be embraced by the masses.

1. A Shift From Solid Waste to Materials Use. The amount of trash generated by individuals and companies is staggering. With only a limited amount of space that can be dedicated to non-biodegradable trash, everyone is now becoming more aware of the long-term ramifications of solid waste.

 

 
 
 

This trend is becoming manifest in many different ways. The advent of electronic mail is very "green," for it replaces the physical letter delivered by the Post Office. "Junk E-mail," for all its annoyance, is a "green" trend. Websites are an earth-friendly form of advertising, as opposed to handbills, inserts, and Yellow Pages ads.

But this trend is not just limited to the electronic sphere of influence. Many manufacturers have begun selling concentrated versions of cleaning fluids, allowing consumers to buy much smaller packaging. PolarTec has become a very popular fabric (made from recycled 2-liter soda bottles), and is used in fleece pull-overs and blankets. And various other plastic and rubber products are being transformed into playground equipment that will last forever.

2. From Selling to Stewarding Products. With new laws (and fears of other laws) governing landfill contents, many manufacturers are adopting a modified "crade-to-grave" philosophy as they prepare reverse channels for spent products, a circular path that witnesses the manufacture and recycling of goods, often by the same firm.

 

 
 
 

A prototype of this was test-marketed in October 1985 in Columbus, GA. In a joint venture between Coca Cola and the PET Container Company, Coke began selling its products in recyclable plastic cans. The joint venture built a factory for the manufacture, reclamation, and recycling of the plastic cans. The cans were all "blanks," transparent plastic cylinders with cellophane labels for the respective brands (Coke Classic, New Coke, Diet Coke, and Sprite).

Unfortunately, the experiment was an abject failure. After six months, the products were pulled from the shelves because one vital link in the process had broken down: consumers. The entire process depended on consumers being willing to save their plastic cans, and then return them to a reclamation center. There was nothing in it for consumers (in terms of short-term compensation), so consumers felt no compulsion to participate. They saw the plastic cans as novelty, not as environmental friend. Today, the plastic cans fetch up to $10 on the collector market. The factory was dismantled and sold to a Japanese firm who shipped it half-way around the globe to its new home.

3. From Modifying Products to Modifying Behavior. While this may sound a bit subversive, the entire future of the "green" movement depends much on everyone's behavior being modified. People and companies alike must learn a new way of life. Recycling at home does take more time than simply throwing everything into a non-biodegradable plastic trash bag. Composting lawn clippings is more difficult than bagging them and dropping them at the curb.

 

 
 
 

Of course, this re-education must occur at corporate levels, too. WTAMU launched a paper recycling campaign several years ago. The familiar yellow bins are for paper products only, which are purchased by a paper recycler. The university profits from its "greenness."

Not everyone has a crystal-clear view of the "green" movement, though. Robert D. Rice, in a web link that is no longer available,  has a fairly jaded view of the Green Marketing. He contends that our current environmental sensitivity is a result of the recognition that the damage we have collectively done to the environment is too great to be ignored any longer. Thus, companies must create a myth showing how this happened, and who is to blame. And guess who is to blame? The consumer, of course.

Rice's view is that Green Marketing "...diverts attention from the real causes of environmental destruction by placing responsibility on the consumer instead of the producer." This eco-destruction can only be solved by shrewed consumption. But, as Rice argues, "...do natural resources really need to be wasted in the manufacturing of endangered species trading cards or board games?"

Green marketing distorts reality, Rice says, by focusing on the periphery of the problem, encouraging people to participate in feel-good exercises like aerobics and household recycling. While he says these in themselves are not bad, "...the twisted logic of green marketing is that in order to change a flawed system you must keep participating in it."

Rice's final blow is delivered below the belt: "...green marketing may come disguised as the way to save the planet, but it is nothing more than the latest spin to sell more products."

Fortunately, not everyone has such a negative view of Green Marketing. Even if the phenomenon is occasionally based on hedonistic corporate goals, the results are still beneficial to the environment. In other words, a bad ulterior motive can still produce a social "good."

For manufacturers to survive in the Green Marketing era, a number of essential strategies must be followed. They are:

1. Focus on the price/quality relationship. Consumers still want value and quality for their money. They must be convinced that they are getting their money's worth. Rechargeable batteries have a huge cost advantage in the long run, and this needs to be touted. Whatever the price or product advantage, if needs to be promoted heavily.
2. Stress tangible benefits. While consumers certainly want to know the environmental benefits of the product, they also need to know what's in it for them. This is where the Coca Cola experiment failed. Consumers saw no direct benefits; furthermore, the price of the plastic cans was higher than that for aluminum cans. What were the benefits to consumers? Coke never said. They paid the price, though.
3. Sell environmental benefits creatively. Add drama to the eco-benefits, but do this aside from the traditional 4Ps Marketing efforts.
4. Be credible. Consumers must believe in you for your "green" side to be believable. Intent and motive must be pure, or else your hedonism will eventually be apparent.
5. Don't go overboard. Be careful to not serve yourself accolades and pats on the back. A humble, straightforward approach is best.
6. Seek support from others. If it is possible for an alliance to be formed with an environmental group, do so. These lend further credibility to your effort, and also allow for synergy between the allied organizations.
7. Be proactive. Don't wait for others to take the lead, or, worse yet, for the government to force action. By being at the forefront of corporate responsibility, your actions will likely be viewed in a more positive light than otherwise. Don't wait for a total ban on propellants refrigerants to be enacted. Start today developing alternative solutions.
8. If you've got it, flaunt it. If your product is "green," don't conceal this fact. If your product is 90-percent postconsumer recycled waste, then advertise this fact.

While the facts and figures may sometimes contradict, and while motives may sometimes be in opposition to nature, the trend is still very clear: Green Marketing has arrived. It may be a little bit uncomely at times, and even gangling and rough around the edges, but it is here and must be reckoned with.

Marketers still have much to learn about this phenomenon. For the last century, producers and consumers alike have lived as if there were nothing to be concerned about in the environment. But we now understand that this lifestyle cannot continue unabated. For all its ability to withstand all manner of eco-disasters, the earth is still vulnerable and fragile. Eco-systems are affected by even small actions, and we must learn to see the big picture.

The responses thus of Marketers have been mixed. There have been some legitimately useful "green" products. There have also been some abysmal failures, and even insults to consumer intelligence. This is to be expected, though, as business and commerce sorts things out and charts its course through the "green" tide.

The next section, in Part 2, examines in detail many of the different "green" products that have been available in the 1990s and 2000s. Included are the entire range of "green" products, ranging from the very best to the very worst.

Part 2

Back to Welcome Page