Green Corporate Communications: The Unstoppable Urge to Talk the Talk

I've spent the past few weeks on the road talking about the State of Green Business, listening to the questions and concerns of audiences at the companies and conferences I've addressed. There's one constant query: In a world gone green, how does a company make itself heard, credibly and authentically? And how does it do this in a way that minimizes the risks of being charged with greenwash, or worse?

The questions themselves represent a sea change. For years, companies have been satisfied to walk more than talk — that is, do more, environmentally speaking, than they'd publicly disclose. It's not that these companies were being virtuous, or that they didn't care about the world knowing of their green commitments and achievements. Far from it. But the corporate risks of sticking one's neck out, calling attention to what a company is doing right, often unwittingly illuminates environmental problems about which the public wasn't aware. (You're using 10% organic cotton? Why? Oh, because growing cotton requires intensive pesticides, harming groundwater, farmworkers, and wildlife? Gee, why only 10%? Why not 20%?)

So, being humble was a virtue. Of course, companies maintained hope that some enterprising reporter or activist would catch them in the act of being good and lead to positive press or word of mouth. It happened from time to time, but not often enough.

Now things are changing. As the conversation has ratcheted up in recent months, being quiet is no longer an asset. Companies are being pressed to talk about what they're doing — and not doing — by customers, employees, investors, activists, and others. Previously reclusive companies are rethinking their taciturn strategies.

Suffice to say, shyness isn't something that becomes a lot of companies, many of which have no problem shouting their stories from the rooftops. Some of these stories are worthy of attention; many aren't. Unfortunately, there's no correlation between signal and noise, as a recent study by the U.K. firm Genesys Conferencing found out:

U.K. companies are failing to match fine words with positive action in implementing green policies throughout the business, with fewer than one third of respondents believing that they are moving strongly or very strongly to adopting 'green' policies in their organisations.

"Visitors to any company's website today are almost certain to find a stated commitment to the environment," says Jerona Noonan, sales director, Genesys Conferencing.  "Yet, as this survey shows, to-date in most businesses this has not been put into practice in the form of positive environmental initiatives.

The need to align the walk-talk ratio has caught the attention of those in the business of helping companies tell their stories. They, in turn, are sharing their insights with the rest of us. A sampling of what's crossed my in-box in recent weeks:

A new report on Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Communications (Download — PDF) from the PR firm Edelman covers the CSR landscape, explaining how employees and socially responsible investors increasingly drive companies' communications strategies, though these same stakeholders often criticize companies for the difficulty they have in communicating with companies on CSR issues. The report, based on a survey of companies, investors, and NGOs, cites case studies from Chiquita, Gap, IKEA, JPMorgan, Reuters, Timberland, and others.

 

Bite PR this month published a report on Greenwashing (Download — PDF), subtitled "A Perfect Storm," where, it maintains, "environmental impacts, public interest, media attention, and public policy combine to rapidly heighten skepticism and challenge the grand corporate environmental gestures of 2006 and 2007." To say nothing of 2008 and beyond. That greenwashing itself is a moving target "has created a threatening backdrop for ecologically conscious [company] efforts," it states. It counsels authenticity and describes four steps companies need to climb up the "leadership ladder" to garner green legitimacy "while preempting greenwashing threats."

 

Marketing agency EcoAlign has published an "EcoPinion Survey" entitled The Green Gap: Communications and Language (Download here — registration required), based on a survey of U.S. citizenry. The survey

confirms the existence of a green gap between the communications and language commonly used by companies and stakeholders in the energy and environment space and customers' understanding, acceptance and perceptions of value around terms such as energy efficiency, energy conservation, demand response, smart energy and clean energy. The green gap in communications contributes to a growing misalignment between customers' stated intentions, e.g., their desire to be more green or frugal with energy consumption, and their actual behavior

Translation: When it comes to energy and environment, companies don't speak to consumers in a language they understand, undermining green behavior.

For example, most consumers can't articulate the difference between the "energy conservation" and "energy efficiency" and only one in three Americans understands the term "smart energy." Four in ten don't know what "demand response" refers to (and the rest are probably lying — it's pretty geeky terminology).

And then there's Getty Images, which recently published its annual MAP Report on Going Green (cost is $750, but free excerpts here — PDF). The study attempted to look at the images that most resonate with consumers on environmental topics. Getty assessed 2,500 advertising campaigns from last year and concluded that many of the conventional images used to promote green campaigns were in danger of becoming visual clichés. Getty also surveyed consumers about which shade of greens they most associated with the environment, showing them four samples: forest, kelly, olive, and lime. For what it's worth, forest green won, hands down. (I interviewed Getty's Denise Waggoner on the topic a few months ago for GreenBiz Radio, which you can listen to here.)

What does it all mean? The sum of all of these reports is pretty clear: Talking the green talk is no simple matter, what with the lack of definitions, the high expectations, and the countless critics and watchdogs ready to pounce if you don't get it right. The public is hungry for companies to look up to, but they don't trust what they hear. Like an oft-spurned lover, they are cautious and wary of being seduced — though always hoping that this time it just might be the real deal.

Comments

[Peter]

Joel, it's always great to read your comments.
One thing I cannot quite understand yet, is with all the attention to global warming, unsafe plastics, chemicals found in every household products from toys and baby bottles to cosmetics, yet the average person in the USA lives his life, like all these issues don't even exist. Even with all the "Eco-noise" from major news agencies, I see very little actual response from the average American.
I own an Eco-boutique in MA, and while I have a loyal but small customer base, I heard it from several people to generalize my store a little bit to make it more fitting to a larger customer base. My passion is having a true green store, and not a watered down version of it.
Do you have any suggestions?

[Michael]

Joel - great column. Particularly interesting for me because I'm a corporate communications and marketing consultant - one of "those in the business of helping companies tell their stories." You make a strong point that, "The public is hungry for companies to look up to, but they don't trust what they hear." Sometimes I'm surprised they hear anything at all. Too much of the good stuff happening in many companies still gets lost in the din of corporate-babble and self-congratulatory backslapping!

[Mark W. McElroy]

But Joel, there are definitions -- not to mention generally accepted principles that we can embrace and rely on. Things need not be as dire or confusing as you suggest.

Indeed, I think you know this. You know that there is an interpretation of sustainability (or "green", if you like) that is crystal clear. We either act, individually and collectively, in ways that preserve levels of natural capital required to maintain human (and non-human) well-being, or we don't.

Why carry on in your commentary as if such clarity in theory and practice does not exist? You know how I feel about the power of your journalism. And I know how much you know about the subject you cover. What puzzles me is why you persist in taking the seemingly ignorant, or neutral view, as if you didn't know damn well what the stroy was. You do. Tell it!

Regards,

Mark

[Dave]

Interesting blog post about the surge in the "green" marketing of products.
http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/2008/01/31/green-posers/

It does seem that everybody has some kind of sustainability report anymore and that they try to show that they have always been green.

[Arboga]

'the silent word is heard a thousand times louder than the spoken word'
-chinese proverb

the noise of greenwashing is deafening.

my belief is that in a few years the real 'winners' (i.e. the most sustainable brands) will be the ones who focused on doing the right thing and who designed a new world of what could be based on insights and their own beliefs - without the hoopla of weekly press releases. they did not gas up the PR machine and/or hire communication consultants to trumpet their small steps, but rather they took inspiration and rewards from simply doing the right thing. i firmly believe that we we will soon 'discover' these brands in a way that gives them long-term loyalty and trust.

p.s. do we really understand the essence and meaning of sustainability? are we looking at things through a lens of systems thinking?

[Bob Difley]

I would like to think that today's consumers can look beyond the hoopla of press releases and corporate self-praisers and see the real effects. Or am I naive?

[Burt Klein]

Joel,

Thank you for the diligent examination of the ever changing business environment. I do see consumers making better decisions when they perceive that it impacts their health and businesses when it impacts their bottom line or gives fodder for their PR machine. Unfortunately, the vast majority of consumers and business are not willing to make their decisions based on sustainability. Yes there needs to be more education to help them make the right decisions but until they feel the urgency, I fear we will continue to move at this speed.

[Laura Sapelly]

I believe the ONLY way that companies can get their true 'green' story out is by using marketing/PR writers who will...

dare I say it? have the passion and integrity to help "tell their clients' stories" to the public.

Yes, I agree that most PR/marketing/advertising lacks any real substance...

but I for one am committed to a hybrid business of not only being a journalist and spreading the word about sustainable building projects but also promoting those businesses in any way I can..it's the only way a green business can expand its audience and influence.

Green businesses deserve the same exposure as the rest, and getting your name, product, project, whatever...out in the world is the way to do it.

[Dr. Al]

I agree with the assessment of all of the subterfuge, but part of the problem lies within the current market structure that only rewards huge mega-conglomerates for baby steps towards going "Green" while quality products, such as seen at, http://www.physicslablh.com/futureDesign.htm simply don't get the publicity or funding they deserve on pure merit.

[Lisa Toller]

Joel, thanks for pointing out that organizations can either "walk the talk" or "stumble the mumble" when it comes to green practices. NewLevel Group believes that sustainability initiatives fall flat unless embedded deep into the company culture. Sure, the supply chain might be green, or an organization might support environmental causes, but if employees drive gas-guzzling vehicles to work every day, fail to turn off the lights (at home and at the office), and print every email, it isn't green from the inside out.