retail

The Green Divide: 85% Missing The Message

by Sarah Mahoney @mahoney_sarah, September 30, 2009

A new survey underscores just how much can go wrong between a company's green intentions and consumer perception: On average, 85% of consumers are either unaware of --or cannot recall -- the green initiatives of companies like Hewlett-Packard, Estee Lauder and Intel, even though those companies are recognized as leaders in sustainability.

The survey, from Grail Research, also found that while the 84% of consumers who currently buy at least some green products are not letting the recession turn them off to green brands, they are dialing back their purchases. While just 1% of consumers have abandoned the category, about two-thirds of consumers have changed their shopping behavior because of the recession. Some 41% say they have traded down to more affordable green brands, while 19% say they are reducing the overall amount of green products they use or consume.

The study also found a surprising number of similarities between the hardcore "dark green" shoppers -- who are typically older, more affluent and more educated -- and "light green" buyers.

"We were surprised by how many of both types of shoppers compare green products with conventional ones when making their decisions," Silvia Springolo, a researcher on the report, tells Marketing Daily. "That means that even brands that don't think of themselves as green are competing for green buyers, and that environmentally friendly products can't just rely on claims that they're green -- they also have to be competitive on things like price and performance."

The study did find, however, that the dark green group is more likely to head directly to a store's green aisles, with 31% saying they do so, compared with just 2% of light green shoppers.

Some 81% of those in the survey currently buy green cleaning products, 68% seek out green paper products, and 66% say they buy green fruits and vegetables.

Another somewhat unexpected finding, adds Kate James, a researcher on the report, was how consumers evaluate a product's environmental impact. "With the exception of packaging, which came up in every category, there is no single green attribute that drives the purchase of all green products. Each category has a specific green feature that is the most critical for consumers."

In paper and cleaning products, for example, the most important feature is that the product is biodegradable; in food, recyclable packaging matters most, and for apparel, consumers say they are most motivated by knowing that the manufacturing process causes minimal harmful emissions. "Green doesn't mean the same for every consumer for every product," she says.

Grail also queried consumers about the green initiatives of such companies as Estee Lauder, Hewlett Packard, Unilever, Nestle and Intel -- all heavy hitters in the world of corporate sustainability programs -- and found that on average, 85% of consumers had no clue that the companies were doing anything green.

"The low awareness of these initiatives raises huge questions," says Springolo, "because companies are spending so much money on them. And while green qualities are very important to consumers, they are not being communicated effectively."

For example, 83% of consumers had no idea that Cisco was a green company, while 79% say the same thing about both Lauder and Nestle. "These companies are just not getting through to consumers."

green eco-friendly, research, retail

4 comments about "The Green Divide: 85% Missing The Message ".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Langston Richardson from Cisco, September 30, 2009 at 11:35 p.m.
Those who have created marketing campaigns for lesser known "green" products within the niché markets like organic living, can also give advice to the large brand CPGs as to the missing piece of their green marketing puzzles: hardcore natural low-environmental impact shoppers have high suspicions of mainstream green initiatives while shoppers with a mild interest in green will react more the promises of the same companies and have less suspicion.
Reply

Hank Stewart from Green Team, October 1, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.

I'm hardly surprised by these findings. Every day we see brand messaging touting sustainability that misses the mark. Marketers are coming around to the realization that it's just not as easy as it seems.

Andrea Learned from Learned On, LLC, October 1, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.

That consumers are looking for and reading packaging/sites for "green" information, but not finding what they need, reflects a HUGE opportunity. And, that is exciting - and a very addressable problem. As new markets emerge, it has always been a matter of figuring out how to communicate the values/benefits in ways that are relevant to consumers (and in ways that consumers will notice). The new flashy site or ad campaign isn't the ticket here- the bare bones of writing, language, and classic communication style should be the focus. By truly and (dare I use the overused word) authentically speaking the language of its particular consumer, a "greening" brand will much more effectively reach him or her. From what this article says, the time is now.

Dori Pitzner from andCulture, October 1, 2009 at 1:15 p.m.

This issue is two-fold: (1) "green" is such a broad term. It's referenced unscrupulously everyday in every media imaginable: nontoxic, healthy, organic, sustainable, socially responsible, recyclable, recycled, cradle-to-cradle(R), natural, eco-friendly, animal-friendly, fair labor, energy-efficient, low-impact and more I'm sure I missed. Consumers can easily become overwhelmed, even the ones who care.

(2) Green is really a continuum. Is your product green? Is your entire organization green? How many of those adjectives above apply to your product? To your company? Without a seal like the USDA Organic seal for food, it's impossible for consumers to know how green most of their purchases really are. I can imagine some sort of scale that takes all of these things into account and assigns a score, kind of like Vanno or GoodGuide (though I strongly disagree with many of their valuations), that gets added to packaging to make it easier on consumers. Who's going to take on that challenge? It has to be an independent party.

As for the companies mentioned as "environmental champions," let's take a closer look at Estee Lauder. They continue to market 21 products under their own label -- not counting 22 other personal products brands they own -- which rate 9 or 10 (highly toxic) by Environmental Working Group (ewg.org) in their Skin Deep Cosmetics Database. Sure, EWG is only one group trying to bring clarity to use of chemicals in our world, but this raises some real issues about whether they are truly leading the way. Again, it depends on what green means to you. To me, I prioritize "nontoxic" and I therefore do not buy Estee products and do not remotely think of them when I think of green companies. Focus group of one, I know. But based on my twitter experiences, I am not alone.