Ask the Okala experts

It should come as no surprise that surveys of consumers indicate a strong desire for verifiable green marketing claims. For the past two years claims of ‘green marketing’ have expanded to a point where consumers have become overloaded regarding such marketing claims. Recent consumer marketing data confirms the skepticism related to this overload.

In July of 2008 the Gandalf Group spoke with 1500 adult Canadians about their views and attitudes regarding the impact of environmental issues. The responses indicate that design teams and marketers need to pay greater attention to consumer attitudes if they hope to connect with consumers concerning ecodesign strategies.

The results:

• Most Canadians say there are so many conflicting claims about the environment that they’re not sure what to believe.
• Canadians overwhelmingly want regulation and labeling to clear up the confusion. They want to know:
  
  • What is just a marketing ploy?
  • What is legitimately environmentally friendly?
• Eighty-five percent of Canadians want standards enforced on producers and labeling that certifies and explains terms such as organic, low emissions, and green.
• Two-thirds of Canadians say the term “green” has been used so much that it doesn’t have much meaning for them anymore when a company claims it.¹

Confirming these attitudes in the U.S., an Ipsos Reid study conducted in the spring of 2008 indicated that at the time, seven in ten Americans either strongly or somewhat agreed that when companies call a product ’green‘ it is usually just a ‘marketing tactic.’ U.S. consumers, the study reports, seem to be wary of firms who label products as ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly.’²

A majority of those surveyed in the Canadian survey wanted verifiable information about environmental product claims. The implication is that Canadians, at least, are leaning toward more governmental intervention. But what about verification in the U.S.? Here, a variety of trusted third party verifiers for environmental performance already exist. These include The Forest Stewardship Counsel, Energy Star, Green Seal and EPEAT. Others, like McDonough-Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle design certification program, are also emerging. Existing guidelines for making public environmental claims developed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are available at their website.

Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are evolving as a consumer information ‘standard.’ Some companies, national governments, and bellwether states like California are beginning to attempt to cut through the green marketing clutter by making green house gas (GHG) emissions the de facto standard for informing consumers about a product’s environmental impacts. Below are some noteworthy developments in the field.

PAS 2050:2008: A specification for the assessment of GHG emissions of goods and services was recently released by the UK government. This new standard and protocol is based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methods, and was developed by DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and The Carbon Trust, a government-funded, independent company.

Groceries in the UK: There is a new UK standard and protocol is comprehensive and based on full LCA-recognized methods. It permits companies to make claims regarding GHG values by using independent, third party verification, other-party-verification, or self-verification. UK supermarket giant Tesco has rolled out carbon labeling for about 30 products, based on data derived from the new PAS 2050:2008 GHG standard.

Cars in California: Beginning in January 2009, consumers who walk into any new car showroom in California will see environmental performance scores displayed on each new vehicle. The environmental performance label will provide two scores on a scale of 1-10. A smog score ranks each vehicle’s pollutant levels of non-methane organic gases (NMOG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) relative to all other vehicles within the current model year. A global warming score is based on the sum of a vehicle’s greenhouse gas emissions which are identified as the CO₂-equivalent value. The higher the score, the less impact the car has on the environment.

Worldwide Supply Chains: In addition to these initiatives, NGO’s (non-government organizations) like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute are advancing the standardization of GHG emissions for global supply chains through a series of meetings involving a steering committee, technical workgroup, advisory groups and stakeholder workshops. A collaboration between these two organizations is a new GHG Protocol Product/Supply Chain Standard.

Carbon Labeling in Japan: The Japanese government is turning to carbon-footprint labeling to persuade businesses to fight climate change after a plan for emissions trading failed to gain traction with Japanese firms. Japan’s government wants the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% by 2050. They hope the implementation and use of voluntary carbon labels for a wide range of products will help companies compete by cutting carbon emissions.

To that end, the Japanese trade, economy and industry ministry has set up two groups to develop a carbon labeling system in addition to establishing a government domestic committee on the international standardization of a carbon footprint system. This committee will represent Japan in the development of an international carbon footprint system by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Is carbon footprinting enough?
While these developments may prove significant to design teams, it must be noted that GHG emissions are only a portion of the environmental impacts created during the entire life cycle of a product or system. Okala colleague and LCA expert Philip White notes:

“Carbon footprinting, however, has a major drawback: it neglects other impacts such as human toxicity and ecotoxicity, water pollution, smog, acid rain, and fossil fuel depletion, to name a few. The risk is that reducing the carbon footprint of a product or system may actually increase some of these other impacts.” For more on this topic, read Philip White’s Ask the Experts post from August of 2008.

Design and marketing team members need to be informed and proactive
Developments in consumer attitudes, as well as business and government carbon footprint initiatives, demand that designers and marketers incorporate carbon labeling protocols and related third party verification for new products. If the companies that introduce them plan to make public claims about environmental performance, they must recognize that these verifications may require additional time, dollars, expertise and team resources.

All the while, work progresses at Sustainable Minds to determine how the Okala Impact Assessment Methodology can best be used to coalesce with emerging carbon footprint standards. As the future of our global economy is impacted by growing environmental crises, it is clear that the ecodesign strategies and LCA assessment method in Okala offer foundational knowledge and a solid path for new product teams looking to offer greater value and genuine relevance to the idea of sustainability.

1) Source: July 2008 Bensimon Byrne Consumerology Report-Canada: The Impacts of Environmental Issues
2) Source: Media Post Publications Online Article by Jack Loechner, 10/27/08

Image credits: Grocery shelf image by Gwire via flickr; automobile label graphic by California Air Resources Board