Many of these companies that get high "green marks", like Proctor & Gamble and Clorox, have been working on greening their operations since the 1990s. They should have taken the efficiency gains by now, and probably have, but now they are just moving into the newest phase of gleaning additional marketing mileage out of further cost reducing measures. While transparency is good, we also need to be juxtaposing information for the consumer to truly define what company has the best interests of life in mind. For example, how many of these "green companies" also have lobbyists in DC fighting against Take Back legislation? How many fund efforts to prevent labeling food products with GMO information? How many companies support legislation eliminating workplace safety standards? If these companies were interested in real "green" efforts, we would see all photocopiers with a default setting for double-sided copies and wouldn't be charged more for this feature. We would see all cellphones able to use the same recharger and headsets without having to buy new ones when we change phones. But that isn't the economic model we are working with. I agree with Jay Tompt, it is an unsustainable economic system that will never be made sustainable through "greening" our consumption.

This is a very interesting discussion for me, since the focus of my work is Eco Marketing; marketing sustainability, cleantech and green IT. So, let me provide my own definition of "green marketing." I maintain that green marketing is the promotion of an organization's product or service, in a way that incorporates its social and environmental features and benefits.

Green marketing is not over. But it is evolving. It may not make sense to generate a press release based on 1 action that you're taking to be green. However, if that 1 action solves a customer problem that no one else (that you're aware of) can do, then it can be a great story.

As I state in my blog post -- "Eco Marketing is like regular marketing, just nuanced" (http://www.ecomarketingonline.com/blog/marketing-and-branding/103/) -- it's critical to understand your market first, then articulate your message in a way that addresses your client's pain points.

In order to be credible and compelling, it's essential to be accurate in your claims, and to explain to your audience WHY and HOW something you're doing that is "green" is beneficial to them. It is also extremely helpful to have proof points in the form of reliable and verifiable statistics and/or testimonials.

The other aspect of green marketing that no one else has mentioned here is that promoting "green" actions can inspire your employees. By making people internally and externally aware of your "green-ness," you can improve employee retention and acquisition, as well. Plus, you can inspire employee engagement, as well as improve employee productivity overall. So, green marketing includes internal messaging and promotion as well as external.

Let’s keep the conversation going!

All this talk about "green" marketing is, at the end of the day, mostly a muddle. I agree with Joel's longstanding point that transparency, honesty and authenticity are the values upon which successful marketing efforts are built. To be a "green" marketer, you've got to start with a "green" company with products or services that actually deliver value with minimal negative environmental, health and social consequences. And, obviously, most "green" marketers, don't.

And if we're talking about mass produced products, well, you've got consider the very business assumptions behind such a model. Mass production NEEDS mass consumption. This fact lies at the very core of what makes so much business, as it is practiced globally, not just unsustainable, but directly responsible for a fair share of the destruction of the biosphere. No amount of marketing, green, blue or whatever catchy new color of the day, can make Walmart, for example, what it isn't. Of course, what it can do is co-opt and redefine the term "green", and this "green marketing", especially how it is practiced at the large corporate level, has done rather well, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, "green" marketing or sustainable branding or whatever, has become a "practice" unto itself. Its origin is the attempt by marketing agencies to differentiate themselves to gain clients in what became, for awhile, a full-on "green" and "sustainability" feeding frenzy, not unlike the dot com daze when companies were looking to add ".com" to their names so they wouldn't be left behind in the New Economy. Looking back, it's easy to laugh at their foolishness. We'll soon look back on these last 5 years and laugh, perhaps at ourselves, for being deluded by the hype that we could somehow buy our way to "greener" world.

I agree with Whimpster that the rabid environmentalists need to stand aside. Fundamentalism in any form has a tendency to polarise and an all or nothing approach does little to address consumers barriers to purchasing green. It takes the behaviour change from something that is relatively simple in small steps to being way too difficult and confronting.
I disagree that people will eventually have a lightbulb moment and realise for themselves / make changes quickly enough. Marketers need to take a step back and realise 'green' is one attribute of a broader set of product features and benefits for most consumers (Intenders but not Buyers).
Potentially green marketing has not delivered in that most marketers have, myself included, been led astray at times by the significant numbers of intenders in many surveys without processing that intent does not in most cases lead to action. Or, really taking the time to understand and market non-green attributes alongside green attributes. As marketers we are therefore also guilty of overinflating what is currently a very small audience, hence delivering lower than expected results.
We have also not taken the time to educate people and relied in many cases on the base argument that this product will save the world/wildlife/environment. With this one consistent and tired claim, we have created greenwash.
Lets walk the world along by listening and understanding, addressing the perceived barriers to purchase, and, take them along our journey one step at the time from intent to action rather than lecturing.

P.S. When I speak of we, I speak of the whole industry, not necessarily the more learned amongst us. Generalising saves space.

When everything is "Green", greenness no longer provides differentiation and becomes less useful, and even confusing, as a marketing message. See this earlier post on the subject: http://docsgreen.blogspot.com/2011/05/end-of-green-products.html.

I remember when some movie theaters had big signs advertising that they were air conditioned. But once all movie theaters had air conditioning the sign were a waste of space, and even gave the theater a dated image.

This is a mentality transformation. It takes decades to change how people think about the planet, the economy, and their place in it. There are starts and stops along the way. Earth Day was triggered by among other things, the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. There are catalytic events that push us into a higher awareness of the problems.

Today concern over jobs in West Virginia prevent curtailing coal mining, jobs in New Orleans push for more offshore drilling, etc... The economic downturn is hitting the public hard. Public consciousness has not yet attained the planetery awareness that gets people to equate ecological health with personal interest.

Green marketing must adapt, not disapppear. Transparency and accuracy in how green claims are made is enough to reform the marketing of green tech. At the same time we need more ecological reform everywhere as fast as we can get it.

Joel:

The market sexyness has wained from "Green Marketing" and the accountants, who help the CEO provide priority listing to revenue investments, have taken a step back from Sustainability, and are more cautious today, than say 2 years ago.

The same spark that ignited Obama's campaign during his presidential race, also was that of Green Marketing and Sustainability. Jobs and investments have increased in that market sector by three-fold over 2 years and the LEED Certification process for office buildings and public municipalities became a much more prevalent service offerring in the AE Trades, being mandated by the Owner, that the Architect would be have his/her LEED Accreditation.

During this same time-frame, we have witnessed major catastrophies of "Green Washing" a-muck...............ie from the failed 5 year pilot investment of $400 Million Tax Dollar due to 2007 Energy Bill Stimulus into Cellulosic Ethanol, mandated by EPA, to.........the end of the Incandescent Light Bulb and Ajax, as a popular cleaning agent.

Basically, Gov't has shouldered the position of leading it's constituents down the "Greener Path" and albeit a very unpopular one. Involvement by Gov't entities in what chemical we clean our floors with, and what light we read by was considered more of an intrusion into taxpayers lives. The envinromental benefit, on such a large scale application has been overshadowed by "Green Movement" politburo trumpetting their chest, and focusing on the negative impact of those who decide not to adapt and change, will not be part of the "New World".

Also, the increased expense of corporate earnings in Sustainable Venues, relative to the performance apect of implementation of these increased expensed deliverables has not been realized by fiscal managers, responsible for post-benefit metrics.

These are only but a few of the major reasons for dillution of the Green Initiative invoking our US corporations over Green Marketing.

Environmentalists must take a few steps back, similar to Dune Lovers and let the Golf Courses and Party People who want to play and run the dunes, have their fun. Soon the tide of this unsustainable activity will truly teach those non-conformists a hard lesson, for the error of their ways, because the forthcoming of the "end of days" are upon us.

Sincerely;
Whimpster