Browse
Engage
Research
Well, dreams do come true! Today it seems that just about everyone is either “going green” or planning to do so.
Type the word “green” into your Web browser. With the exception of just a few people with the last name of Green, nearly every link that pops up has something to do with sustainability and environmental issues. My “green” search produced about 966,000,000 hits. Even Wikipedia, the Web-based encyclopedia, describes green as more than just a color: “… groups have taken on the color as a symbol of environmental protection …”
Since its inception in 1997, the ACS Green Chemistry Institute has been a leading advocate of the move to a more sustainable future. In the ensuing 12 years, corporations, government entities, educational institutions, special-interest groups and millions of individuals have been jumping on the green bandwagon in ever-increasing numbers.
But, with all of this attention, we are seeing a bit of backlash. For example, look at Lake Superior State University’s 2009 “List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness.”
This year, “green,” “going green,” “carbon footprint,” and “carbon offsetting” all made the list. In fact, "green" and "going green" received the most nominations, according to the school’s website.
The banished words list started more than 30 years ago as a tongue-in-cheek publicity stunt to help draw attention to the school. It turned out to be even more successful than anyone had hoped. Newspaper editors found the annual list struck a chord with readers; enough so that every year, the list gets wide coverage by the media.
This year’s banished words list is not the only example of green backlash. Far from it. There are many reports, news articles, and even books that cite examples of growing public angst and pushback about environmental issues. Type “green backlash” in your browser and you will find page after page of links about the topic.
Another term we often hear is ”greenwashing,” a reference to the use of misleading green marketing tactics designed to convince consumers that a company’s products have a low or negative impact on the environment, frequently despite evidence to the contrary. You’ll also get plenty of hits if you do a Web search on that phrase.
So, should we be concerned about this bit of unflattering focus? On one hand, you could say it is simply the price of success and we shouldn’t get too excited about it. On the other hand, we would be smart to pay attention to public sentiment and look at possible ways to counter the backlash. After all, it is a credibility issue for scientists who believe green chemistry and engineering is the key to a sustainable future.
Although it doesn’t appear that progress toward greater sustainability is under any great coordinated threat at the present time, we definitely need to keep the prospect of green backlash on our radar screens.
Dr. Robert Peoples is the director of the ACS Green Chemistry Institute.
Victims of Own Successes
Perhaps the lack of credibility comes from the fact that while green has grown its exposure to the public rapidly, the growth has outpaced a concensus among advocates about what they want to achieve. The resulting diversity of claims, aims and posturing must seem to the casual observer to be confusing at best.
MarkM Green marketing
Communications need to demonstrate credibility
You are right to identify credibility as a key issue. Businesses, advocates and others communicating about sustainability products and approaches need to use fewer buzzwords and show how they are addressing sustainability. That means clear, concise explanations; plenty of proof points; and specific claims that can be supported (and evaluated).
We have the public's attention; we need to educate and show merit, not confuse and obfuscate.
Sandra Stewart, www.thinkshiftcom.com
Green industry needs to learn the language of investment
The green industry needs to learn the language of investment if they want to be taken seriously.
For instance, when talking about renewable energy, one has to understand the term ROI (return on investment). Investors want to know their rate of return before they will invest their millions or billions in capital.
Another term to review is investment risk. Investment risk states the likelihood of receiving the stated return on investment. Investment risk is numerically stated as a standard deviation. For instance, investing in the S&P 500 hundred statistically offers a return of plus or minus 27 percent 95 percent of the time (right now we're in that 5 percent situations where returns are much lower!)
Most businesses have to weight several different projects with different rates of return and levels of risk. Given that capital is usually scarce or has a reasonably
high cost, not all projects are funded immediately. Only the most worthy projects are selected. So, green projects will generally be funded when their ROI compares with or exceeds other projects needing capital.
So, when a politician states "we need more renewable energy" in this country, then the first questions to be asked are "at what cost, what return, and what risk?". Most politicians don't have those answers. It's up to the banks and the financiers to perform a detailed analysis to determine if these undertaking should be financed (unless your the Federal Government, where you can put billion dollar line items into a bailout package with no more justification than what could fit on a paper napkin).
Many green entrepreneurs need help and advice regarding how to write a business plan that can attract outside capital. Many entrepreneurs are amazed that investors are only attracted to plans that offer investors outstanding returns and low risk. This is the nature of the business. The very best investors are a good judge of ideas and people and are happy to to invest in projects that meet their investment criteria.
When the green industry can frame their discussions in business/investor terms, they will have more credibility. Other than that, it's just a discussion of ideology, needs and opinions.