filter by tag: labels
Americans Value Honesty Over Perfection In Environmental Marketing
Three years after Cone conducted its 2008 Green Gap Survey, the latest look at Americans’ perceptions of environmental marketing claims proves not much has changed. Sadly, consumers are still confused and overwhelmed, according to the 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker.
The data reveal many consumers misinterpret common phrases used in environmental marketing – thinking terms such as “green” or “environmentally friendly” indicate a positive impact on the environment (41%) – giving products a greater halo than they may deserve. Despite their misinterpretations, consumers don’t take environmental claims lightly. Most say they will punish a company by boycotting a product (71%) or even a company’s entire suite of products (37%) if they find an environmental claim to be misleading.
A recent controversy at risk of consumer backlash is the case of S.C. Johnson’s “Greenlist” label on its Windex and Shout products. A civil lawsuit raised questions about consumer deception, saying the Greenlist label implied third-party verification, when in reality it is a self-imposed label and rating system. Although the 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker found that a majority of consumers (51%) interpret an environmental “certification” on-pack to mean it has been verified by a credible third party, the Greenlist case proves this is not always an accurate assumption.
There is hope for marketers taking an authentic look at their companies’ environmental impacts – a majority of consumers (75%) say a company does not need to be environmentally perfect, as long as it is honest and transparent about its efforts. But consumers do want companies to help them better understand the environmental terms they use (75%), even by providing detailed information on-pack so they can make informed shopping decisions at the point of purchase (79%).
Americans today are interested in environmentally responsible products, yet they clearly need more information to make the right decisions. Generic claims will no longer cut it among discerning consumers; therefore, corporate claims must be accurate and properly aligned with consumer perceptions. Companies must be transparent to garner trust or risk facing the consequences.
The full 2011 Cone Green Gap Trend Tracker is free to download on the Cone website.
Posts under the Knowledge Leadership byline come from Knowledge
Leadership team members Sarah Kerkian and Casey Brennan. Follow us on
Twitter: @ConeLLC, @SarahKerkian, @CaseyB
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency environment sustainability marketing labels research cone
Did you like this post? Please share it:
 |  |  |  |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Out with Transparency: In with Transparent Brands
This week the Sustainable Apparel Coalition – comprised of big brands such as Patagonia, Timberland and H&M – announced efforts to build a database of the environmental impacts along the apparel production supply chain. Eventually, the database will help ensure every garment sold has a consumer-facing sustainability score, clearly communicating impacts to the purchaser in a form they understand.
Companies in the coalition come from different points along the sustainability journey, yet each is willing to share operational challenges and collectively focus on issues that matter to the industry. Engagement with other companies, nonprofits and government organizations to realize shared solutions is a win for all involved. More importantly, it brings corporate operational challenges and innovations to consumers in a relevant and approachable way.
Although transparency can be scary for companies and most organizations are still in the nascent stages, building a transparent brand is the new path to better business and brand trust. Cone’s senior vice president, Jonathan Yohannan, shares his thoughts on what it means to be a transparent brand – including 10 essentials for building one – on our website.
Have you been impressed by how a transparent brand has made operational issues accessible and relevant to consumers or other stakeholders? We welcome you to share your examples below.
Posts under the Knowledge Leadership byline come from Knowledge
Leadership team members Sarah Kerkian and Casey Brennan. Follow us on
Twitter: @ConeLLC, @SarahKerkian, @CaseyB
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency labels sharedresponsibility
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Whole Foods Adopts Transparent Animal Welfare Ratings
This summer I’ll celebrate a decade of being vegetarian (yeah, I’m getting old). Being a veggie isn’t always easy, and I can’t say I haven’t cheated on occasion (for some reason, I really craved buffalo wings when I first started), but year after year the cause has stayed important to me.
But this post isn’t about me; it’s about Whole Foods’ new animal welfare ratings. Last month, the world's largest retailer of natural and organic foods announced the launch of the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards, a new labeling system designed to educate consumers on the living conditions of the meat (pigs, chickens and cattle) they eat.
What does it all mean? The ratings are determined by independent third-party certifiers using auditors trained by the Global Animal Partnership (GAP). Essentially, the higher the step, the better the conditions for the animal. Step 1 equals “no crates, no cages,” meaning the “animals live their lives with space to move around and stretch their legs.” Step 5+ means the animal has enjoyed Step 1-5, including a “pasture-centered” life and living only on one farm.
Though organizations like PETA have been remarkably silent, others have questioned the transparency of these standards, including Certified Humane which compares GAP with other ratings available to Whole Foods. To be fair, Certified Humane offers a competitive rating system to GAP’s so it’s bound to be pushing for the use of its standards, but some of the issues it raises are worth noting. Even at Step 5+, the best rating, GAP does not have standards for slaughtering, does not guarantee animals are allowed dark/sleep periods and does not ensure animals receive disease prevention health care.
Compassion is the number one reason I choose to avoid meat, and, as of 2003, 96% of Americans agree animals deserve "some" protection from harm and exploitation. While I would love to see greater transparency in Whole Foods’ current initiative and a shift from publicizing humane treatment to requiring it across its supply chain, I appreciate the operational challenges that must exist and personally applaud the company for taking this important first step.
In the meantime, I’m eager for Whole Foods to apply these standards to other animal products and bi-products and look forward to a day when Whole Foods expands the program to include Step 6: No animal life was sacrificed to produce this product.
- Jillian Wilson, Account Supervisor
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency labels retail activism
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (1)
FTC Green Guides – What the Proposed Changes Mean for Marketers
On Wednesday, after more than two years of long-anticipated review, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released proposed changes to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (aka Green Guides). The issues addressed in the two-page synopsis of changes are summed up simply by FTC Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, who said, “…what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things.”
The proposed changes aim to mitigate consumer confusion by requiring companies to provide factual evidence to back up environmental claims. During a media briefing on Wednesday, the commissioners noted they anticipate enforcement of environmental marketing to decline (there were seven enforcement actions taken in 2009), believing many companies want to comply and are seeking more guidance.
The FTC’s rules may change over time, but Cone’s guiding principles for effective environmental marketing stay the same:
Be precise. Make specific claims that provide quantitative impacts.
- Americans say quantifying the actual environmental impact of a product or service is influential in their purchasing decisions. In addition, the more precise an environmental claim, the more convincing Americans believe it to be.
- Americans say providing a clear connection between the product/service and the environmental issue (i.e., a hybrid car and lower emissions) influences their purchasing decisions.
- A website is great, but based on the FTC’s latest comments, be sure to also provide proof at point-of-sale.
- For example, showing an automobile parked in a virgin forest may be seen as insensitive, while a product growing out of a tree may be seen as exaggeration.
Cone’s Chief Reputation Officer, Mike Lawrence, provides his initial reactions to the FTC Green Guides proposal in a video response and post on our blog. What is your reaction to the proposed Green Guides revisions? Share your thoughts by voting in our latest What Do You Stand For? poll.
Tags: Greenwash FTC corporateresponsibility currentevents labels transparency sustainability
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
New FTC Environmental Marketing Guidelines – First Impressions…
After a series of hearings and two years of anticipation, the FTC today issued much-needed updated guidance on how to responsibly market and advertise the environmental impact of products.
The top line is this: If a company wants to make a claim, it has to provide data at point of purchase to prove the claim. This means no more general claims, like “We're eco friendly,” unless the marketer defines exactly how, with facts, on the package.
The Commission is proposing to tighten rules for claims about a product’s degradability – by saying how fast something has to degrade and by banning use of the term if a product is headed for a landfill or incinerator.
The FTC also wants to limit the use of the word “recyclable” to describe a product; if recycling programs aren’t widely available where the product is sold, the marketing needs to admit that.
There are similar newly proposed requirements for more specifics around third party environmental “seals of approval,” and claims that products are “free of” certain ingredients or are made with renewable materials or renewable energy.
Here at Cone, overall, we think the Commission's proposed changes are a step in the right direction to solve a problem about which we filed comment to the FTC in its 2008 workshops. We know first-hand from doing environmental communications for companies and from our research that consumers are interested in environmental messages, but are confused about and often misunderstand what those messages mean.
By requiring companies to provide proof of claims, and to provide it at point of purchase, the FTC is taking a step toward helping consumers better understand whether something is good – or just less bad – for the environment and whether the benefit can actually happen when they dispose of the package.
There are, however, some holes in what the Commission is proposing. For example, they did not directly take on the word “sustainable,” one of the most overused and poorly understood environmental marketing terms.
There will no doubt be much debate about the FTC's proposed revisions in the weeks to come. The Commission is welcoming public comment until mid December and then hopes to issue a final version of the new Green Guides by the middle of 2011. Those will then become the “guardrails” for how future marketing on environmental issues can take place.
- Mike Lawrence, Chief Reputation Officer & EVP
Tags: corporateresponsibility currentevents transparency sustainability labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Eco-Flair
Products on shelves today have more eco-label flair than a casual-dining restaurant’s employee of the month. This week alone, announcements for a Good Company Seal and a new “Clean Water Wash” label for Gap Inc. jeans were announced, adding to the explosion of new certifications. As organizations create countless standards using different measures and methodologies, how can consumers know which products are “best” or which companies are truly “good?” And with so many certification options, how do companies themselves know which to pursue?
For companies or products that focus on environmental responsibility and value the credibility certifications can provide, any new standard or label is something they will examine. But which are the best? Which are most relevant to your consumer? And how many is too many? At some point, your target customers become overwhelmed and unaffected, so it is important to qualify all the options before jumping in. It won’t make sense to chase after every “latest and greatest” environmental label or certification, as most require a rigorous verification process that companies must commit to, which can mean a large investment of time and money.
When deciding which certification to pursue for your organization or product, do your research. Consider the criteria Consumer Reports uses to evaluate eco-labels which include:
-
Meaningful and verifiable: Check for an independent 3rd party inspection organization.
-
Consistent and clear: Standards should be written in a way that can be verified in a consistent manner so that the label is consistent in meaning among different products.
-
Transparent: The organization behind an eco-label should make information about organizational structure, funding, board of directors, and certification standards available to the public.
Don’t treat your eco-labels as flair on your sash. Think strategically to determine which label is the best fit for your organization.
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency trends labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
Setting Standards: Walmart Makes A Move
The media was abuzz with industry-changing news from retail giant Walmart this week. The company has begun the tricky process of establishing a worldwide “sustainable product index” for its suppliers, with the goal of eventually displaying this on all products it carries. The concept is not new – other companies such as Timberland and Nike have already created their own product evaluation systems – but the goal is to develop the first comprehensive source of data for evaluating sustainability across all products. In the final phase of the process, the company intends to equip consumers with a simple rating system that will disclose product sustainability, allowing consumers to make more informed purchase decisions. As Walmart CEO Mike Duke stated, the company wants to “create a new retail standard for the 21st century.”
Although the consumer-facing label will take a few years to develop, the company will begin the process by first surveying its more than 100,000 suppliers on current practices using a 15 question survey focused on energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources and people and community. Walmart chief merchandising officer John Fleming explained, “The questions aren’t complicated but we’ve never before systematically asked for this kind of information. The survey is a key first step toward establishing real transparency in our supply chain.” Following this, Walmart will collaborate with several universities, governments, suppliers and other retailers to develop a global sustainability index.
Suppliers whose products are currently on Walmart shelves will no doubt be scrambling to shine light on their sustainability initiatives. This will be an exciting opportunity for those companies already working to reduce their impacts to display their environmental stewardship. Those not already operating with the environment and society in mind, and/or those not measuring such data, will have a lot of work to do in the coming months. And yet, the generality of Walmart’s questionnaire, which doesn’t delve into product-specific or even industry-specific nuances, just skims the sustainability surface. It leaves lots of room for interpretation, and it is not clear how – or if – Walmart will verify the data.
That said, Walmart’s vision is a worthy one and establishing a shared baseline for the industry is a monumental step indeed. The retailing giant, already credited with helping set the standard for items like concentrated laundry detergent, likely has the wherewithal to bring something this complex to life. If the rest of the retail industry joins this effort, it could be gamechanging.
Tags: corporateresponsibility transparency walmart timberland labels
Did you like this post? Please share it:
| | | |
Email Post
Comments (0)
