Forest through the trees
Corporations know the benefits of being seen as green by their consumers, but is it just as simple as looking the part? There are a lot of brands that appear to be earth-friendly when they are far from it. Greenwashing can often be difficult for even the savviest consumer to spot.
The visual language of green began in the 1960s. Hippie culture popularized a natural way of life with products such as additive, animal-friendly Dr Bronner’s Magic Soap. It wasn’t until the early 1980s when the look of the green was made familiar to the mainstream with brands such as The Body Shop, Aveda and later on Whole Foods.
Looking like a sustainable brand is easy. Natural visual elements such as leaves, trees, earth circles and flowers, in tones ranging from moss to grass to bark, traditionally paint an environmentally-friendly world. Green as a color is commonly considered fresh. British supermarkets Waitrose, Morrisons, Asda and M&S all use green. Claiming a company is green seems to be easy as well. A recent study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, called the Six Sins of Greenwashing, uncovered 1,000 household brands that make false environmental claims. TerraChoice found that brands would claim to be ’Certified Organic’ when the product had no credible certification. Many products were making entirely irrelevant claims such ’CFC-free’, when CFCs or Chlorofluorocarbons were actually banned in the United States in 1978 all products in the US are CFC-free now.
Even the savviest consumer can be fooled by a strong set of ’green’ visual elements and messages. BP has a brand perception among consumers of being good for the earth when the reality is far from it, according to Pierre Berton, Professor of Marketing at Bentley College. He goes on to say, in a recent NPR interview, that BP’s ’Beyond Petroleum’ brand message is misleading, since over 95 percent of its business is still in petroleum.
Since then, BP has stopped using that tagline for that very reason. Aside from its messaging, BP’s yellow-green sunflower logo has a powerful impact on its green image. On the Brandtags site, where users are asked which words they associate with famous brands, ’green’ is the third most popular word for BP, after ’gas’ and ’oil’. Brands that look the part are clearly benefiting. However, if you don’t look green, you might be in trouble. Brands that don’t have green as their central look or message tend to be ignored as being sustainably responsible even when they are. IKEA’s flat-pack furniture means it gets more items on trucks, boats or trains, using less fuel and creating fewer emissions. However, ’green’ is not one of the words triggered by the IKEA logo on Brandtags. Nike produces a large quantity of its shoes with recycled materials. But according to Berton’s study, Nike is perceived to have a negative environmental impact.
How can ’green’ be represented without leaning on this overly used symbolism? Al Gore’s We campaign avoids using the same old green leaves and trees, but instead uses powerful statements that describe its main green objective. Brands, please stop trying to fool us! We are all getting confused by what’s really green. Governments in the UK, Canada, US and Australian have all fast-tracked efforts to address false environmental claims, according to WorldChanging.com. Until then, if your business looks green, then live up to how you look. The way your brand looks means a lot to the world.
9 June 2008, posted by Lily Williams