It wasn't 20 years ago today, but close enough: About this time in 1990, my book, "The Green Consumer," hit the bookstores. The book -- the U.S. version of a 1988 U.K. bestseller, "The Green Consumer Guide," by John Elkington and Julia Hailes, which I substantially adapted for U.S. audiences -- began with a simple premise:
"You probably don't realize it, but every week you make dozens of decisions that directly affect the environment of the planet Earth. At work, at home and at play, whether shopping for life's basic necessities or its most indulgent luxuries, the choices you make are a never-ending series of votes for or against the environment."
I went on to note that: "The marketplace is not a democracy; you don't need a majority opinion to make change. Indeed, it takes only a small portion of shoppers -- as few as one person in 10 -- changing buying habits for companies to stand up and take notice."
From that opening gambit sprang 340-odd pages of overviews, insights, advice, lists and sidebars (including one cheery piece titled "How the American Way of Life Is Destroying the Earth"). And from that book sprang 1,001 magazine articles, syndicated columns, newsletters, speeches, interviews, panel discussions, books, reports, websites and more that have been the centerpiece of my professional life over the past two decades.
The world has changed dramatically over those 20 years. There's the Internet, for starters, as well as 500-channel cable TV, social media, globalization and the rapid growth of emerging economies, the current Great Recession notwithstanding. Environmental issues have gone from the margins to the mainstream. School kids, young adults, their parents and even some politicians today are well-versed in environmental problems, if not their solutions. And more and more companies continue to be engaged in more and more ways, addressing and reducing their environmental impacts. Many companies are going beyond that, creating innovative new products and services designed for a low-carbon economy.
But one thing hasn't changed all that much: green consumers. That is, there don't seem to be that many more today than in 1990, in terms of people making significant changes to their shopping and consuming habits in ways that move markets toward greener products and services, never mind actually "saving the Earth."
I won't bother to make the case that consumers -- in the U.S. but also elsewhere -- say one thing and do another. I've harped on that theme relentlessly over the years. (See examples here, here, here, here and here, among many others.) Suffice to say, the chasm between green concern, as expressed by consumers to market researchers, and green consumerism, as reflected in real-life purchase of products and services, remains vast, as much today as in 1990.
True, there are successes. In the cleaning products aisle, Method and Seventh Generation now compete to scrub market share from the likes of Clorox and Procter & Gamble. FedEx and UPS compete vigorously on who can deliver greener operations. So, too, Dell and HP, Coke and Pepsi, and a handful of other leading brands that compete to see who is greener. The notion of big companies competing, at least in part, on environmental performance represents progress, no question about it.
But all of this represents only a tiny fraction of the economy, and little of this is driven by consumer demand. Consumers, for all their good intentions, don't really want to change. They want what they want -- and what they feel they need and deserve -- with little regard for where it comes from, how it's made, how it's used and its impacts throughout its lifecycle.
To be sure, consumers haven't been overwhelmed with green choices. While hundreds of major companies have reduced their impacts in ways both large and small, few of their achievements are visible on supermarket shelves. As I've written in the past, the aluminum can containing a third less aluminum than its predecessor, the laptop computer that has eliminated toxic flame retardants, and the bag of snack food whose manufacturer now recycles its rinse water, all represent tangible environmental improvements. But these companies aren't typically messaging those achievements. Indeed, they're not even undertaking these measures to "save the Earth"; they're doing them because they save money, reduce risk and liability, improve quality and delight employees — and maybe win them a few reputational points.
That is to say, they're doing these things for all the right reasons.
The result: We've all become greener consumers in spite of ourselves. The stuff we buy is greener than it used to be, sometimes significantly so, even though its producers don't necessarily tout their achievements.
All of which raises the question: Are green consumers even necessary? Is much of this marketing and labeling activity a waste, a distraction from the business of running an eco-efficient business?
It's an open question. As I've mentioned in the past, green marketing represents a reputational risk for most big companies. Consumers, activists, bloggers and others are quick to dub things as "greenwash" when environmentally imperfect companies make green claims. That has led many companies to engage in, for lack of a better term, covert environmentalism, burying mentions of their green deeds in their websites or corporate responsibility reports, rather than tout them on products or advertisements and risk the wrath of critics.
I'm not quite ready to proclaim green consumerism dead (though I can't honestly say it's ever been alive and well). There will always be a small corps of true-blue green consumers ready to vote with their dollars -- at least for some products. But my 20-year-old premise -- that a relative handful of committed consumers will transform companies and markets -- hasn't really panned out, though I still believe it to be true.
What will green consumerism look like over the next decade? Will we be celebrating or mourning green consumerism when Earth Day 2020 rolls around? And if the former, how will we have gotten there? I welcome your thoughts.



















































































































20 years of Green Consumers
Joel,
I think you raise an interesting question - that maybe we should abandon the green label on what should be emerging as more responsible consumerism. I am a believer that green and sustainable are now used so frequently, most are jaded by the terms before they even know what they mean.
I have used this argument frequently with clients: that they should forget about sustainability and instead just focus on strategy. Strong antennae for the latter will naturally deliver the former, I believe.
From a consumer point of view - and specifically the persistent inability of brands to really engage the mainstream on these issues - I believe the answer is similar: abandon sustainability and green in communication efforts. Focus instead on building and nurturing social capital. Again, a focus on the latter will deliver the former, but in a far more innovative way. For this, brands need to build a compelling social capital strategy, pledging to underpin society not with cheap, short term social debt (which is the tried and tested method), but instead with high grade social equity, which undergirds structural (dialogue), relational (trust) and cognitive (thought) vitality. At the end of the day, where social capital is high, sustainability is high.
In essence, a focus on sustainability, is a focus on a symptom, rather than the cause.
So I think you are right. We should retire the green consumer label. Prescriptive, data-heavy instruction manual-like communications will never engage past the die-hard minority. But higher social capital (with benefits to protagonists and all constituents) will engage the mainstream, and result in better sustainability - more sustainable sustainability.
Guy Champniss
www.socialchime.com
Education and Information
I just put a short post on sustainableboston.com about this same economic activism from the business side. I think the main problem is that there is no clear, accurate, accessible standard for "greenness" and there may never be one.
Let's take a florescent light - it's energy efficient, but it contains mercury. It needs special disposal practices to avoid becoming toxic waste. When you're in the store, there's no way to know where it was made and under what conditions.
How can a manufacturer hope to encapsulate all of that information on a product label without assuming an in-depth understanding of environmental issues on the part of the consumer? The truth is that you can't have an empowered green consumer without significant education beforehand and an understandable way to convey product information.
Labels like Energy Star are a start, but as you say, they do not always convey the nuances of what goes into getting a product on the shelves. As methodology in the sustainable business community matures, I hope to see better reporting of achievements and more context for communicating them. If these reports are complemented by improved consumer education, maybe we'll get the effective green consumers you've been waiting for.
Comment
Hopefully Joel you're describing what Paul Saffo calls macro-myopiahttp://www.saffo.com/aboutps/interviews/frontline.php. "A pattern where our hopes and our expectations or our fears about the threatened impact of some new technology causes us to overestimate its short term impacts and reality always fails to meet those inflated expectations. And as a result our disappointment then leads us to turn around and underestimate the long term implications and I can guarantee you this time will be no different. The short term impact of this stuff will be less than the hype would suggest but the long term implications will be vastly larger than we can possibly imagine today."
I feel there is a generational shift underway that has been 20 years in the making. We're entering a time when the children of the '90s are reaching positions high enough within major companies to make a difference.
For instance I had lunch (organic/local of course!) with a 30 year old Senior Designer from Masco (a $5B building trade conglomerate behind such names as Delta Faucet http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=mas) and she was very clear about her role in advancing "cradle to cradle" design/manufacturing and reducing water usage while maintaining consumer experience. She has grown up with the other 3Rs and now she is actively involved in change-making across multiple divisions.
Here's to you and your colleagues providing her with the resources and inspiration she needs to make the changes we need to see.
Converting consumers
I can't comment on how things have changed since 1990 since I was only 5 years old back then, but what I would like to comment on is how things may change in the future. I've found that with people I know, personal advice on products tends to create new green consumers moreso than advirtising. Friends, collegues, coworkers of all ages will ask me a question about some type of product or service and I'll (hopefully) give them enough information to make an informed decision that includes environmental responsibility.
In short, all the information that we read on this great website only reaches the people who are looking for it. We need to find a way to bridge that gap. Maybe social networking will provide that answer in the next decade? Doesn't seem a perfect fit, but who knows?