In spirit, marketing green means not getting away with it.
Everything we do as marketing professionals to help brands make an impact is about encouraging corporations to face the raw truth of
their global effect, owning their part, and then mobilizing publicly to do the right thing. It's having the courage to be honest and transparent - which means being open to examination.
Not
everyone plays green. And even those with good intentions can be inconsistent. So we need standards, regulations and enforcement. That's where the Environmental Protection Agency comes in. All things
green depend on an empowered EPA. Without it, movements dissolve into fads and evaporate or as a result of the inconsistency create confusion and mistrust in the public eye.
At the same time
we're experiencing an environmental disaster that may cripple Japan's economy, many in Congress are attempting to limit the EPA's ability to avoid U.S. environmental disasters. The EPA's ability to
regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant, make sure our air and water is safe and our families are protected from toxins is threatened. Their rationale: Increased regulation is bad for the economy.
To me, this approach is short sighted. We all have a stake in looking deeply into the issue and getting it right.
Last month, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson addressed a meeting of
the Board of the Environmental Media Association (www.ema-online.org). She talked about how sustainable businesses cannot be separated from the environment. She cited an estimated $22.2 trillion in
economic benefits as a result of the Clean Air and Water Act. This is a summary of the study:
Monetized Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act
| Study | Benefits | Costs | Benefit-Cost Ratio |
|---|
| CAA
1970-1990 | $2.2 trillion** | $523 billion | 42:1 |
| CAA 1990-2010 | $690 billion** | $180 billion | 4:1 |
| Stratospheric Ozone
Protection | $530 billion** | $27 billion | 20:1 |
* EPA retrospective study (1990 dollars)
** Central estimate
MIT professor SM Meyer studied
the connection between environmental regulations and economic trends over the course of the last decade, and found that states with stronger environmental policies enjoy a small net economic gain.
Basically, this study says that environmentalism does not thwart the economy.
Clearly, these findings are at odds with some current political rhetoric. How can we explain this? According to
Meyer, five observations come into play:
- Environmental regulatory costs are small when examined in comparison to business cost factors.
- State governments are sensitive
to business concerns and do compromise in setting and enforcing environmental standards.
- Business does adjust to environmental requirements, resulting in both compliance and profit
making.
- Upwards of 90% of the expense of environmental compliance is eventually funneled back into the private economy to pay for goods and services.
In fact, both of
these studies support the premise that having solid environmental protections and regulations in place is actually good for the economy.
There are things everyone can do to help. Today.
Get political. If you know anyone on Capitol Hill (or in the White House), raise your voice in support of the EPA; and let your senators and representatives know you support
lasting health for all.
Get promotional. Use your tools -- we are in marketing, after all -- to urge people to write in to the EPA in support of new pollution standards for
power plants. The public comment period is live through May 15.
Get personal. Tell 10 friends what's at stake with the EPA and why they should get involved. In other words,
market the original way.
Want to go an extra step? The League of Conservation Voters (www.lcv.org) has more information on the above and a list of senators and representatives who are, or
appear likely to be, voting to hamstring the EPA.
As marketers, our brand programs must demonstrate that our clients mean it. We need to do the same thing.