April 1, 2012 by bgrossman

Green Marketing Presentation to Tufts University

I had the privilege of guest lecturing at Tufts University in late February to a class titled “Social Marketing.” I focused my presentation on green marketing and sustainability, with a particular emphasis on the importance of transparency. In addition, I spent some time on product lifecycle management, which I’ve been interested in for a while, and have been learning a lot more about through my membership on the Product Stewardship Institute Advisory Council.

I’m pleased to include a selection of slides that I discussed in class below:

Green Marketing Presentation to Tufts University

During the conversation, I covered a number of topics that we have reviewed here at Sustainable Ink, the most important being the issue of transparency. As we have been advocating for years, when companies make green claims, they need to back those claims up with hard data. In the commercial printing world, a great example is the Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator, which I covered here back in 2007.

I provided a best practice example, which I wrote about in July 2009, about the use of eco-logos and statistics on the outside envelope of a fundraising appeal by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which was signed by former Vice President Al Gore.

I then went on to discuss an example of greenwashing by a major company, SC Johnson, in their creation of Greenlist. Terrachoice, a leading environmental marketing agency, defines greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” SC Johnson created the program in 2001 and started putting its Greenlist logo on products in 2008 to indicate that one of their products met certain environmental standards. The problem was that SC Johnson made the logo look very official, which gave many consumers the idea that it was rated by an outside organization, which it was not. Two class action lawsuits were filed against SC Johnson, which they settled in 2011, by agreeing not to use the Greenlist logo on Windex moving forward. Here’s an excellent article on the settlement by GreenBiz. Here’s a quote from Fisk Johnson, SC Johnson’s chairman and CEO, that sums up the issue of greenwashing very well: “In retrospect. we could have done a better job at being more transparent and clearer with our label and what it meant.”

Following this discussion, I reviewed Poland Spring’s 5-gallon “Eco Sense Bottle” that it unveiled in 2010. When I first saw the bottle on one of my office’s water coolers, I did some investigating, and wrote an article about it, which is still the most read post on my blog over the past 5 years. The reason I wrote about the bottle was that it had an environmental logo with no explanation of what the logo meant. I spoke with a representative who told me that the bottle used less plastic and was easier to recycle. I did not believe this was greenwashing, but rather, as I wrote 2 years ago, “a failure of a major brand to provide clarity on its green claims…Poland Spring went to the trouble of trademarking ‘eco-sense’ and creating a special logo for the term, but they didn’t take the extra step of providing consumers an explanation of what the term means.”

The next part of the discussion focused on product lifecycle management and the importance of reducing the use of resources in packaging. To create these slides, I was lucky to get help from Scott Cassel, the founder and CEO of Product Stewardship Institute. The example I provided was Staples, and its pioneering computer “take back” program, which, according to the company, allows consumers to “securely recycle your end-of-life technology.” These programs prevent a large number of devices from being thrown away, reducing the presence of hazardous materials in the waste stream. Staples was the first major retailer to offer such a program, and it had a significant impact on its industry; Best Buy, Office Depot and a range of other firms have followed suit. Not only is this good for the environment, and convenient for consumers, but it has been good for Staples as well – studies have shown that this program increased consumer loyalty to the chain.

I closed out the formal part of the program with a discussion about packaging, and how reducing the resources needed to make products can have a significant impact on a company’s brand. Over the last decade, Wal-Mart, the leading retailer in the world, has suffered a number of public relations issues, with many focused on its treatment of workers. In addition, very few retailers have had a more significant positive environmental impact on their industry or suppliers than Wal-Mart. There is a wide array of information on Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts on its website, including its creation of a Sustainability Index, its efforts to create zero waste, as well as its aggressive efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. I focused the conversation on one example of Wal-Mart exerting its influence on a supplier to effect significant change in its industry. The supplier was Tide, and the result was a packaging revolution. Several years ago, Wal-Mart set a goal of only selling concentrated liquid laundry detergent in all of its U.S. and Canadian stores. The program was a success, and the entire industry has been transformed. In addition, because of this and a number of other initiatives, consumers have easier access to more environmentally-friendly products, and Wal-Mart’s reputation has been partially rehabilitated.

The students, all of whom are undergraduate students at Tufts University, had a wide range of interesting and insightful questions and comments. I was honored to have had the opportunity to spend the evening with them!

March 7, 2011 by bgrossman

A Negative Tipping Point for FSC Certification

Turning the page on FSC?

Over the past few years, awareness has grown about FSC-certified papers and printing. FSC stands for Forest Stewardship Council, a group that works to ensure that the materials used are sourced responsibly. Each step in the chain (i.e. from forest to printer) must be traceable. The intent of the FSC system is to eliminate habitat destruction, water pollution, displacement of indigenous peoples and violence against people and wildlife that can accompany logging.

Although I believe this is a meaningful cause, I wanted to report to my readers that I believe that FSC certification in the commercial printing and marketing communications industry has hit a negative tipping point. By this, I mean that the future of FSC certification in these fields is murky at best.

I base my assertion on a lot of anecdotal evidence I have seen in the field, both from printers, and especially from marketing professionals and print buyers. Back when I started conducting green marketing seminars (and writing on Sustainable Ink) in 2007, there was growing interest in FSC, and a sense that it would become the industry standard, on the level of recycled paper. It was on its way there, but I believe it was hurt in three major ways:

Lack of awareness of what FSC means. As I mentioned before, FSC is a system designed to ensure the chain of custody of paper, from when it was a tree to its final printed form. The fact is, many people in our industry do not know what FSC is, and therefore do not sell it. More importantly, I have seen many research studies that show that most consumers do not know what it means and are therefore not interested in it.
Lack of tangible environmental benefit versus other green attributes. When people use recycled paper, they know they are consuming less natural resources than they would if they chose virgin fibers. Vegetable-based inks sound like they make a positive difference, as they cut down on the use of oil, and are renewable. Papers made with renewable energy send a message that an organization wants to reduce its carbon footprint and support a green economy. Those terms, recycled, vegetable-based, and renewable energy, all are easy to understand and therefore end consumers of print and marketing collateral feel comfortable around these terms. If they feel comfortable around these terms and believe they know what makes them green, they will continue to ask for papers and printers that meet these standards. FSC, on the other hand, is difficult to understand, and the green attributes may not be immediately obvious.
The combination of the difficult economy and the perceived greed of the Forest Stewardship Council. It is not surprising that FSC grew dramatically in 2007 and 2008, when the broader economy was stronger, and the environmental movement was top of mind. However, as printers fell on tough times, FSC continued to charge large annual fees from printers to allow them to maintain their individual plant certifications. One printer told me the following: “Look, I’m a small company – we do $3-$4 million in sales per year, and when I had to sign up for FSC certification in 2008, and spend $10,000-$15,000 to make this happen, with ongoing overhead expenses, I did it. I thought it would be a cost of doing business, and that I would lose business from eco-minded clients if I wasn’t FSC certified. When sales fell in 2009 and 2010, I appealed to FSC to get a reduction in my fees, as I was facing the choice between paying my FSC bill or my payroll. FSC wouldn’t budge, so I didn’t renew, as I was more interested in protecting my employees than I was in paying what I saw as an FSC tax. I haven’t noticed a sales drop off due to this decision.” After hearing this, I spoke to several other printers, many of whom no longer maintain their FSC certification, as they said the costs outweighed the benefits. Some questioned the mission of FSC, with one saying it seemed to be an “overhead-heavy organization” that “charged small printers large fees to pay for their bloated staff.” I found this large organizational chart on their website which did not contradict this assertion.

In some sense, printers have been FSC’s sales force. Once printers became certified, they sold FSC as an incredibly valuable brand, and one that all companies that wanted to send a green message should strive to put on their printed pieces. Now that many of these smaller printers have declined to renew, FSC has lost a powerful constituency that will not continue to spread the word about FSC.

One other constituency FSC has partially alienated is designers, due to their strict rules around usage of the term “FSC.” Several years ago, if an organization wanted to explain their green choices with words instead of symbols, they were allowed to do so. As an example, if they printed a brochure on Neenah Environment PC 100, one of my favorite green papers made from 100% post-consumer recycled content, at an FSC-certified printer, they could use a simple sentence like “Printed using FSC-certified 100% post consumer recycled content.” Now FSC no longer allows this, and insists that the term “FSC” only be used along with its official logo. FSC is clearly trying to build awareness of its brand, but this shouldn’t be the responsibility of the end user. I have seen this rule cause designers to sacrifice the use of the “FSC” term.

FSC is a worthwhile organization, and serves a good cause. However, I believe its lack of obvious green benefits relative to other green elements like recycled paper is hurting adoption. More than that, however, are the large fees charged to FSC’s sales army (printers) during this recession. Those, coupled with strict rules around design, are a sign that FSC may have overplayed its hand in the marketing communications industry, and its best days are behind it.

July 28, 2010 by mgreenwald

Making Apparel Transparent: Companies Team Up to Measure Sustainability of Shoes, Clothes

Source: Levi's

By Marisa Greenwald (Green Marketing & Sustainability Practice, Grossman Marketing Group)

We have written often at Sustainable Ink about the importance of transparency, as well as the need to account for the environmental impact throughout a product’s lifecycle. With that in mind, we are pleased to see a positive step taken by some well-known corporations.

At next month’s Outdoor Retailer trade show in Salt Lake City, retailers will receive a new tool to help them pursue their sustainability goals. A group of about 100 retailers and manufacturers, including Nike, Levi Strauss, and Target, have joined forces to develop software that makers of apparel and shoes can use to measure the environmental impact of their products and assign to each an “eco-value” similar to the Energy Star rating of appliances.

Known as the “Eco Index,” this software tool works by posing a series of questions to companies on their environmental and labor practices, including some questions directed towards the companies’ suppliers. The software then assigns a score that represents a percentage of a perfect score. The goal of the Eco Index is to showcase competing items in retail settings with various “eco-value” scores so consumers can easily factor sustainability considerations into their purchase decisions. Firms like Timberland and Patagonia have publicly expressed their desire to move the conversation forward and gain consensus among similar companies so that an effective and meaningful eco index program can be implemented.

With the heavy use of chemicals and crude oil to produce and ship these items, apparel production takes a heavy environmental toll that warrants accountability. While many consumers are increasingly motivated by sustainability concerns, it is often difficult for them to understand the environmental consequences involved in producing many of their favorite products. If companies begin to report the environmental impact to create their products, and consumers react by choosing certain items over others on environmental grounds, companies may become even more motivated to improve their sustainability efforts.

For more information about the Eco Index, check out this article from The Wall Street Journal or this recently featured piece in Fast Company.

June 30, 2010 by bgrossman

Green Tips for Marketing Success: Part 1 of 4

My firm, Grossman Marketing Group, put together our 100 Tips for Marketing Success earlier this year to mark our 100th anniversary. Over the last century, we have learned a lot about what helps make our customers look good, so we thought we’d share what we’ve learned.

21 of the 100 tips involve sustainability, and over the next few months, I’ll be sharing these with you, by category. If you’d like to download the complete set of 100 tips, please click here. They are free! The four categories covered in the “green” section are 1) General Sustainability, 2) Green Promotional Products, 3) Green Design, 4) Green Printing. I’ll get started with the General Sustainability tips.

Research shows that Americans want to work for, buy from, and donate to organizations that make significant and sustained efforts to address environmental issues.

Sustainability can help you cut costs as well as build sales. We have experienced both at GMG and are happy to help you do the same at your organization. To learn more, just contact Ben Grossman at 617.591.2919 or bgrossman [at] grossmanmarketing [dot] com.
Be transparent about green marketing claims—make sure they are verifiable by an independent, third party.
Include your colleagues in your sustainability efforts; often the best ideas come from the bottom up, rather than from the top down!
Spread the word about the sustainability efforts your organization is taking. Your customers, investors and colleagues care.
Simple changes in your office can have a huge impact: use energy efficient light bulbs and put recycling bins at every desk. We encourage our colleagues to bring in old batteries, light bulbs and other household materials to be recycled for free.
Employee education is key—sustainability must be part of the company culture. If so, it is much easier to implement (and less likely to be cut).
Make sure to back up your green marketing efforts with truly sustainable business practices throughout your organization.

I hope you find these helpful. We’ll be back to you later this summer with more! Many thanks for reading!

April 25, 2010 by bgrossman

Poland Spring’s Missed Green Marketing Opportunity: A Discussion of Their New Eco-Sense Bottle

My company is a Poland Spring customer. We receive frequent deliveries of their 5-gallon water bottles for various water coolers stationed around our office.

Last week, I noticed that the bottle had changed. It is now made of a darker blue plastic, and has a slightly different shape. When I looked closer, I saw that the label included a new logo, with the phrase, “ECO SENSE BOTTLE.” There is a trademark symbol after eco-sense, which makes the logo look pretty official. Here’s a picture I took with my phone:

Image of the "ECO SENSE BOTTLE" logo on new 5-gallon Poland Spring bottles.

Given my interest in green marketing and green business issues, I looked closer at the bottle, hoping for an explanation of what eco-sense means. Unfortunately, the only language that could be considered an explanation was, “our eco-sense bottle is returned, refilled and recycled.” As far as I know, the large bottles on water coolers have been getting returned, refilled and recycled for years. In fact, when the Poland Spring delivery team comes to our office, they drop full bottles off and pick up empty bottles to be cleaned and refilled.

Unfortunately, the bottle does not have any more information on what the company, owned by Nestle, means by the new logo. Therefore, I called Poland Spring late last week and connected with someone in their Consumer Affairs department. When they learned that I was calling about a bottle typically delivered to businesses, they connected me to a group that fields questions and comments for their business services group.

I spoke with a very nice representative who explained, “We’re trying to use less plastic on the actual bottles.” She also explained that they are made from “an easier plastic to recycle.” I asked a follow-up question about the ease of recycling the material, but she didn’t have specifics available. I made the suggestion that future bottles include this additional information about containing less plastic and being easier to recycle.

The key lesson from this experience with Poland Spring is one that I and others in the green marketing community have been emphasizing for years: when you make green claims, you must be transparent and provide the details behind the language and numbers. Wherever possible, it helps to provide third-party references for your claims. Poland Spring did not do this, which surprised me, given their past experience: Nestle Waters was hammered with greenwashing claims by bloggers when they came out with their eco-shape bottle across all of their water brands in 2007-2008 (of which Poland Spring is one) – here’s another example of criticism they received. I understand why they have been accused of greenwashing for their retail side bottles, as the majority of plastic bottles end up in landfills, and the eco-shape logo gives people the impression that they are being environmentally-friendly by drinking bottled water. Terrachoice, a leading environmental marketing agency, defines greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” I personally try to drink water out of a reusable bottle whenever possible, and my firm has given them to all of our employees as a way to practice what we preach.

The difference in the case of the eco-sense 5-gallon bottle is that it is not greenwashing, but rather a failure of a major brand to provide clarity on its green claims. Large water coolers enable people to cut down on bottled water consumption in favor of filling up reusable water bottles like those made by Sigg or Nalgene. Poland Spring went to the trouble of trademarking “eco-sense” and creating a special logo for the term, but they didn’t take the extra step of providing consumers an explanation of what the term means. According to Cone, a leading cause marketing agency, 91% of consumers want to hear about companies’ social and environmental commitments. More than the high-level green logo or tagline, conscious consumers want to “get under the hood” and understand the details behind companies’ green claims.

By failing to include further explanation of their eco-sense logo, Poland Spring failed to give their customers the option of learning more. I would strongly suggest they address this lack of transparency, and immediately start adding further information about their eco-sense program onto the larger bottles. It may cost a few more cents per bottle in printing fees, but they will more than make up for it with stronger customer relationships.

September 3, 2008 by bgrossman

Best practices in green printing: quantifying the benefits of going green – part 2

I frequently encourage clients as well as readers of my blog to be transparent about the environmental savings derived from “going green” with their marketing and communications.

My firm works with the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters (MLEV), whose mission is to advocate for sound environmental policies and to elect pro-environmental candidates who will adopt and implement such policies. They are the state affiliate of the League of Conservation Voters.

MLEV publishes an annual Environmental Scorecard, which serves as a guide to how Massachusetts legislators voted on key environmental issues during the past legislative session (2007-2008). On page 2 of the attached PDF, MLEV quantifies the environmental savings from having produced their piece using responsible materials, based on calculations from the Environmental Defense Paper Calculator.

In addition, MLEV included several clean and recgonizable eco-logos on the back of the scorecard, underneath their return address on the mail panel.

These two transparent approaches (specific savings calculated and described inside as well as easy-to-understand labels on the outside) serve as a best practice for anyone in the marketing communications space.

Please click here to view a PDF of the scorecard.