About Joel
 

« China, India, and the 'State of the World' | Main | The True Cost of Our Daily Bread »

Green Marketing and the '4/40 Gap'

The notion of "sustainable consumption and production" continues to be one of the more persistent and vexing challenges on the sustainability front. The challenge, of course: how to balance global consumers' seemingly infinite needs, desires, and aspirations with the planet's decidedly finite resources. Aligning production and consumption at a sustainable level will require some combination of fixes on both the supply side (technological innovation that produces radical levels of efficiency, for example) and the demand side (promoting and incentivizing responsible and appropriate consumption).

While there seems to be steady progress on the supply side, the demand side of the equation seems unchanged -- and stubbornly unchangeable. Consumption levels in both the developed and developing world keep rising, with no end in sight. And consumers seem to continually say one thing and do another, a phenomenon known as the "4/40 Gap": roughly 40% of consumers say they're willing to buy greener products, but only 4% actually does, at least according to some surveys.

A new publication from the United Nations Environment Programme, Talk the Walk: Advancing Sustainable Lifestyles through Marketing and Communications, attempts to close the 4/40 Gap by promoting the use of mainstream communications and marketing strategies to change consumer attitudes. Say the authors: "The key to overcoming barriers to sustainable consumption while making a profit definitely constitutes the Holy Grail for marketers, with potential for delivering double-digit growth for years to come."

Such bottom-line-enticing come-ons, the authors' earnestness, and the publication's slick graphics notwithstanding, it's a tough sell.

Sure, there's some good stuff here, including a gallery of advertising approaches promoting some aspect of sustainability, from the subtle to the not-so-subtle (see above). Some of these are even laudable, such as the efforts by Grupo Pão de Açúcar, Brazil's largest retailer:

It aims at promoting small Brazilian producers by introducing their products to mainstream retail circuits. Products selected for promotion also demonstrate social and/or environmental value-added. . . . As a result, some 60,000 products from 69 different small suppliers have been sold in a little over a year, generating sales of US$220,000 and accounting for between 0.04% and 0.23% of sales of each participating store.

It should be pointed out that $220,000 represents about one-half of one percent of Grupo Pão de Açúcar's $43 million advertising budget.

And then there's the inspiring story of a campaign by Kia, the Korean car maker, to promote its Sedona model in the U.K. As a new kid on the block in the U.K. market, Kia seized on the public debate on climate change to differentiate itself from competitors -- including a daring campaign to encouraging walking instead of driving for short trips. Kia promoted the notion of a Walking Bus -- in which "a group, or 'bus', of children walk from home to school each morning quickly and safely under the guidance of trained adult supervisors." The campaign launched in 1999 and is still active.

But, speaking as a corporate communications strategist, Talk the Walk doesn't reveal many secrets -- and the insight it does offer often seems more sinister than sincere. One example is its notion of the "green Trojan horse":

As exemplified by organic and fair-trade products or first hybrid vehicles, the ultimate role of green products in shaping sustainable consumption patterns probably consist in changing consumers' attitudes, building confidence in new solutions or technologies, and acting as a Trojan horse in mainstream groups' marketing approach, to finally contribute to level the playing field, without necessarily going mainstream themselves.

That is to say, "Make consumers be greener in spite of themselves" -- my paraphrase, not theirs.

That's a less-satisfying conclusion than one would hope. Ideally, consumer product companies and their customers would engage in a robust conversation about how the former can profitably serve the latter's needs in a way that honors people and the planet -- and not simply sneak greener products into the mainstream. It would involve ads and marketing messages that inform, inspire, and incentivize us to change our buying habits -- and to understand how and why we should.

And it would involve more than just the companies themselves. In a briefing book on sustainable consumption and production that I co-authored a few years ago, we laid out five key strategies that would be necessary to accelerate meaningful change: Increasing consumer awareness and choice; promoting innovative policies; accelerating demand for greener products; demanding corporate accountability; and encouraging sustainable business practices. All of these need to work in concert to address the fundamental issues at hand.

It's not that our everyday shopping trips need to be deep-think exercises that ponder the nature of everything we buy -- not that this wouldn't be Nirvana. But the frustrating problem inadvertently raised by Talk the Walk is that fomenting a robust green consumer movement will take much more of a thoughtful, holistic approach to moving the marketplace than most companies are willing to take.


CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

January 14, 2006 in Green Marketing | Permalink

Comments

Facinating stuff Joel. We have just launched a flushable diaper on the west coast and are facing the 4/40 challenge ourselves. Will check out your sustainable consumption and production piece.

Cheers

Jason

CEO - gDiapers

Posted by: Jason Graham-Nye | Jan 22, 2006 8:33:19 AM

re: the "Trojan Horse" metaphor.
Without seeing the entire passage in context I'm not sure who is doing what regarding "Trojan Horses" but since it cited a sector my co-op focuses on (organic, Fair Trade goods) I'll weigh in.

In my 10 years in this field (CSR, natural foods, marketing) I know I've seen 2 versions of “Trojan Horse” efforts, and I've a strong hunch there's a third.

Version #1 - Committed entrepreneurs, almost always small businesses, with the occasional large company like Interface, introduce eco/socially responsible products to the conventional customer base, and try to educate them about the relevant issues, etc. (There's ALOT of this among small food companies. Nature Path and their cereal boxes are a good ex.)

Version #2 - Conventional bottom-line focused corporations introduce a few high-profile eco/socially responsible products as a Trojan Horse to cast a green glow that (they hope) blots out the other 99% of their unreformed operations.

Version #3 - (the one I THINK exists) progressive—but not senior—employees in conventional corporations introduce eco/socially conscious products or services into their offerings (maybe in a below-the-radar way) with the hope of engaging and gradually gaining support from their bottom-line minded bosses.

Do these 3 versions line up with your impressions?

Lastly, while some companies ARE trying to “make consumers greener despite themselves” I think just as often consumers are trying to “make corporations despite themselves”, too. Certainly in my business (organic/Fair Trade foods) a number of companies have been dragged into the category, often clearly against their will. Thankfully, most of them have come full-circle from openly criticizing organics & Fair Trade to actually promoting their commitment to the very same thing. Admittedly some of their advertising exaggerates that commitment – but that’s another story.

Regards,

Posted by: Rodney North | Jan 31, 2006 6:10:23 AM

i think that it is hard to say considering i am an american citizen but good luck with it all

Posted by: tom | Apr 24, 2006 7:53:07 AM

i think that it is hard to say considering i am an american citizen but good luck with it all

Posted by: tom | Apr 24, 2006 7:53:08 AM

Regarding, "Ideally, consumer product companies and their customers would engage in a robust conversation about how the former can profitably serve the latter's needs in a way that honors people and the planet -- and not simply sneak greener products into the mainstream."

While this is a lovely idea, I wonder where we could find examples and case histories of this strategy. In my limited understanding, I see the latter 'sneaking' of products and services into markets as the dominant market strategy through recent industrial history.

I have found novel examples of the ideal customer-company dialog mentioned above in "The New Principles of a Swarm Business" by Peter A. Gloor & Scott M. Cooper published in MIT Sloan Management Review, Reprint 48312:

"BMW posts numerous engineering challenges on its Web site, where customers and company designers network and collaborate to arrive at innovative solutions. After the company made a toolset available to help consumers design features of future cars, it received thousands of responses, and some of those ideas are now being implemented.”

“Migros owes much of its success to its swarm of devoted customers who have helped it expand into a wide range of markets, including banking, insurance, travel services and gasoline stations. In fact, the company has deployed the principles of a swarm business for decades to transform itself into one of the largest enterprises in Switzerland. Ironically, a growing number of high-tech and Web companies are only now rediscovering these same core principles.”

“MySpace.com of Santa Monica, California, became one of the most successful social-networking sites on the Web. MySpace allows users to create their own personal identities in the ways they want. This freedom is a large part of why the site has become so central to youth culture in the United States, allowing the company’s founders to complete a $580 million sale of the business to Rupert Murdoch’s New York-based News Corporation. Contrast this with Friendster Inc., a San Francisco-based company that began a similar site but with preset notions of how users should be compelled to create their profiles and what those profiles would have to include. From its launch, Friendster was a hot socialnetworking portal that grew rapidly, but it was soon eclipsed by MySpace. The difference: Friendster sought to control its users, whereas MySpace gained power by empowering them.”

Posted by: John Douglas Archer | Aug 21, 2007 1:37:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.



home :: about :: blog :: book:: advising :: speaking :: contact

© Joel Makower, all rights reserved

fioricet. Best gardening and landscape at gardenplaza.org