January 9, 2008
Consumers Question Retailers’ Claims to be ‘Green’
A new study of U.K. consumers finds many are skeptical of the green claims made by retailers. Closer to home, another report suggests that 2008 will become the year when a variety of groups put the many environmental claims made by companies to the test.
According to researched conducted by Datamonitor and YouGov for BT, only three percent of consumers in the U.K. believe retailers are being straight about their environmental initiatives. One in three said companies exaggerate the extent of their programs to impress consumers into shopping in their stores.
As a report on SmartPlanet.com pointed out, this sentiment is not what retailers want to hear. Fifty-six percent of businesses think they are making significant strides on the environmental front.
Separately, a report on the Brandweek website said private groups and the Federal Trade Commission are more likely to be looking at company claims to determine if they represent real green initiatives or are “greenwashing.”
Steve Price, former CEO at Publicis Mid America, told Brandweek, “The more marketers that jump on this green bandwagon, the more likely it is that someone will abuse it. The trick is to leverage it in a way and to make sure the communication is sincere.”
Deborah Morrison, professor of advertising at the University of Oregon, said, “Right now, there is some self-monitoring in the ad industry. We always have to pay attention to the baseline of what is truth and what isn’t. But this is a whole new area.”
Discussion Questions: Do you think American consumers are more or less skeptical of green claims compared to their counterparts in the U.K.? Does the complex nature of assessing the true environmental impact of products and companies make it nearly impossible to determine the legitimacy of green claims? What does this all mean for retailers and brands looking to promote their eco-initiatives?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
We have gone through these cycles with the initial publication by the Federal Trade Commission (many years ago) of the “Green Guides” and the “Made in the U.S.A.” campaigns.
The perceived environmental focus has led to a flood of green advertising, with many of the claims lacking credibility. In addition to the FTC looking at the area, I would expect plaintiffs’ attorneys to become a bit more active bringing false advertising claims (especially in California and Massachusetts). Those companies that are credible and honest in their claims will gain the most traction with customers.
I think while the green in retail is definitely gaining steam, American consumers are not as savvy as their European counterparts when it comes to sorting out “green” retailers (and I use that term generously) from the green-washing dished out by marketing companies. And I don’t know that they are all that interested yet in understanding the difference.
7-up comes to mind with a label and big press about going “100% natural” and I heard lots about it from folks, that suddenly 7-up is a better product. It still has high fructose corn-syrup which many “green” consumers wouldn’t consider natural, yet it gets to wear the natural label and the conventional shopper thinks they are getting something more than they were always getting before. Cage-free is another one…it’s not like Chicken Run on a cage-free farm…many raise chickens inside buildings and the chickens never see the light of day.
Green labeling, since much of it isn’t regulated, provides a false sense of security about where food comes from, but I think it’s enough for the American consumers. But then, my perspective also is jaded by the Whole Foods-shopping moms in my neighborhood who drive there in their Hummers!
I think we are focusing on the wrong side of the issue–the question should not be whether or not retailers are being truthful about their green claims, the question should be “what percentage of consumers are aware of the carbon footprint of retailers in general and how important is the carbon footprint to their choice of retailer?” If consumers are more conscious of carbon footprint, it will have an impact on the retailer policy.
Trust information efficiency and consumer activism to sift out which retailers are being honest and which are not. When CEOs and COOs of big retailers like TESCO and Wal-Mart push the ‘green initiative’ they are putting their reputation at stake so you can expect at least a 60-70% factuality to their green claims. That is big given the share of goods these guys move.
It will be incumbent upon retailers to back up “green” claims with facts and proof. The facts will speak for themselves. Consumers are naturally skeptical of claims made by brands and retailers. With everyone rushing to get onto the green bandwagon, consumers are right to be skeptical.
American consumers are far less engaged in green issues than their European counterparts. That said, they’ll be at least equally as skeptical–especially those old enough to remember the last wave of “green” products.
Personally, I am very skeptical of a business who claims to be “Green.” My first thought is always “just another marketing ploy.” I also don’t think most consumers consider it when making a purchase. It doesn’t seem to resonate with Joe Six Pack. It’s more of a media/political driven thing.
Most efforts to become “green” actually produce no meaningful results that the consumer can realize a noticeable direct benefit. Therefore, most “green” efforts are simply going through the motions. I doubt the American consumer believes any of the “green” claims and simply puts them in the same category as the claims made by late night infomercials.
I think the idea is well-meaning, though. It’s like Santa Claus coming to the mall. Consumers don’t really expect Santa Claus to come down their chimney at Christmas, but they like to believe he will.
Retailers who make “Green Claims” without believable backup are looking for trouble. The sustainability fans have memories and once burned, they’re not likely to easily forgive or forget. Like most management challenges, it’s better to underpromise and overdeliver.
Consumers are going to become very skeptical for one simple reason; nobody can define what “green” is. What one person defines as being “green” another person would define as being wasteful. To somebody living in Oregon a “green” lifestyle might be seen as radical by somebody living in Kansas simply due to their perspectives, lifestyles, demographics, geographical environment.
I like Wal-Mart’s approach to sustainability.
This past November Lee Scott was quoted as saying “We make no claims of being a green company. And we’re not saying we’re better than other companies. But what we are saying is we’re doing sustainability in a way that’s real and right for Wal-Mart…”
Wal-Mart has made very public their sustainability goals, some of which have deadlines and some aspirational. Those goals are to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste and to sell products that help sustain resources and the environment. In addition they have invited some pretty strange bedfellows to the party, companies like GreenPeace, Sierra Club and Environmental Defense are among those who have been invited and are participating in crafting their approach.
For companies who are setting “Green” or other goals related to sustainability they would be well advised to be sure that they are measurable and should not over promise and under deliver.
Setting goals, making them public and then reporting on progress towards achieving them are a pretty concrete way to approach the issues and to keep at bay charges of green washing.
Sustainability is everyone’s challenge and we, manufacturers, retailers and consumers, must all work together to make progress towards a cleaner tomorrow.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
We have gone through these cycles with the initial publication by the Federal Trade Commission (many years ago) of the “Green Guides” and the “Made in the U.S.A.” campaigns.
The perceived environmental focus has led to a flood of green advertising, with many of the claims lacking credibility. In addition to the FTC looking at the area, I would expect plaintiffs’ attorneys to become a bit more active bringing false advertising claims (especially in California and Massachusetts). Those companies that are credible and honest in their claims will gain the most traction with customers.
I think while the green in retail is definitely gaining steam, American consumers are not as savvy as their European counterparts when it comes to sorting out “green” retailers (and I use that term generously) from the green-washing dished out by marketing companies. And I don’t know that they are all that interested yet in understanding the difference.
7-up comes to mind with a label and big press about going “100% natural” and I heard lots about it from folks, that suddenly 7-up is a better product. It still has high fructose corn-syrup which many “green” consumers wouldn’t consider natural, yet it gets to wear the natural label and the conventional shopper thinks they are getting something more than they were always getting before. Cage-free is another one…it’s not like Chicken Run on a cage-free farm…many raise chickens inside buildings and the chickens never see the light of day.
Green labeling, since much of it isn’t regulated, provides a false sense of security about where food comes from, but I think it’s enough for the American consumers. But then, my perspective also is jaded by the Whole Foods-shopping moms in my neighborhood who drive there in their Hummers!
I think we are focusing on the wrong side of the issue–the question should not be whether or not retailers are being truthful about their green claims, the question should be “what percentage of consumers are aware of the carbon footprint of retailers in general and how important is the carbon footprint to their choice of retailer?” If consumers are more conscious of carbon footprint, it will have an impact on the retailer policy.
Trust information efficiency and consumer activism to sift out which retailers are being honest and which are not. When CEOs and COOs of big retailers like TESCO and Wal-Mart push the ‘green initiative’ they are putting their reputation at stake so you can expect at least a 60-70% factuality to their green claims. That is big given the share of goods these guys move.
It will be incumbent upon retailers to back up “green” claims with facts and proof. The facts will speak for themselves. Consumers are naturally skeptical of claims made by brands and retailers. With everyone rushing to get onto the green bandwagon, consumers are right to be skeptical.
American consumers are far less engaged in green issues than their European counterparts. That said, they’ll be at least equally as skeptical–especially those old enough to remember the last wave of “green” products.
Personally, I am very skeptical of a business who claims to be “Green.” My first thought is always “just another marketing ploy.” I also don’t think most consumers consider it when making a purchase. It doesn’t seem to resonate with Joe Six Pack. It’s more of a media/political driven thing.
Most efforts to become “green” actually produce no meaningful results that the consumer can realize a noticeable direct benefit. Therefore, most “green” efforts are simply going through the motions. I doubt the American consumer believes any of the “green” claims and simply puts them in the same category as the claims made by late night infomercials.
I think the idea is well-meaning, though. It’s like Santa Claus coming to the mall. Consumers don’t really expect Santa Claus to come down their chimney at Christmas, but they like to believe he will.
Retailers who make “Green Claims” without believable backup are looking for trouble. The sustainability fans have memories and once burned, they’re not likely to easily forgive or forget. Like most management challenges, it’s better to underpromise and overdeliver.
Consumers are going to become very skeptical for one simple reason; nobody can define what “green” is. What one person defines as being “green” another person would define as being wasteful. To somebody living in Oregon a “green” lifestyle might be seen as radical by somebody living in Kansas simply due to their perspectives, lifestyles, demographics, geographical environment.
I like Wal-Mart’s approach to sustainability.
This past November Lee Scott was quoted as saying “We make no claims of being a green company. And we’re not saying we’re better than other companies. But what we are saying is we’re doing sustainability in a way that’s real and right for Wal-Mart…”
Wal-Mart has made very public their sustainability goals, some of which have deadlines and some aspirational. Those goals are to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste and to sell products that help sustain resources and the environment. In addition they have invited some pretty strange bedfellows to the party, companies like GreenPeace, Sierra Club and Environmental Defense are among those who have been invited and are participating in crafting their approach.
For companies who are setting “Green” or other goals related to sustainability they would be well advised to be sure that they are measurable and should not over promise and under deliver.
Setting goals, making them public and then reporting on progress towards achieving them are a pretty concrete way to approach the issues and to keep at bay charges of green washing.
Sustainability is everyone’s challenge and we, manufacturers, retailers and consumers, must all work together to make progress towards a cleaner tomorrow.