In a time of falling prices it is more important than ever to secure the value of sustainability into its next stage of the business cycle. With oil prices near two year lows and a frozen credit market it is easy for priorities to shift away from environmental goals replaced by trepidation over costs. As green business becomes more prominent it is essential to develop more elaborate benchmarks and systems of authenticity to assure that companies with green claims are delivering all that is currently so easy to advertise. Without this level of accountability, the value of green in the eyes of consumers could fall by the wayside just when green business needs it the most.
In terms of market acceptance our current course is progressive. While our environmental problems are far from solved, reaction to and awareness of their existence continues to spread. Finding an aisle of merchandize or a commercial break with green products is becoming commonplace—which is exactly what the sustainable enthusiasts should want, for the exemplary achievement of today to be devoid of fanfare tomorrow; simply the standard. However, the collateral result of achieving a higher standard is encountering new ways that the standard can be avoided, affronted or abused.
On one hand, it is positive that fewer companies want to be left behind in this new aspect of consumer demand. Greater acceptance of ecological responsibility helps the greater movement (and marketplace) mature. At the same time, capitalism can turn powerful a social goal into a business tool with a bit of ingenuity and perspective. Companies can use the infancy and, at times, complicated realities of sustainability to help their customers see their products and services through green colored glasses with no fear of recourse. After all, how many people out there could prove them wrong?
Organizations such as environmental marketing firm, TerraChoice, estimate that vast numbers of companies are fraudulent in their claims of environmental action. They touch on common fallacies in consumer America for greenwashing such as claiming organic status with no credible certification or advertising 100% natural products when components can be naturally-occurring hazardous materials. (Terra Choice 6 Sins) Currently the ways to call these corporate bluffs are few and far between with the final blow falling to a willing consumer while companies pocket added value at little to no extra cost.
As green knowledge and technology enters into the next level of its business cycle the stakes for charting success and authenticity must also rise. When the only benchmark to beat is the status-quo devoid of any intervention, even the most minimal result can be toted as positive. There will be a growing opportunity for a new class of service that assumes the job of sifting through the mess and offering recognition to the companies that earn it and condemnation to those that deserve it.
The first stage of a transition has already begun with organizations and rating standards designed to highlight products that successfully achieve a level of environmental stewardship. EnergyStar for home appliances and the USGBC’s LEED for buildings are examples of systems designed as tools to help display sustainability to the end-user. While they can accomplish showing people who is succeeding in the marketplace how do we know who is only claiming to?
One answer could be government bodies created to oversee environmental standards cast into law—but we already have that. The Environmental Protection Agency, created to uphold laws meant to safeguard the planet, has transformed into a glorified federal earmark and the target of many environmental organizations rather than their ally. Under the current administration the office has been repeatedly sued by organizations and states for acting contrary to their purpose—protecting the natural environment.
Another possibility is a rise in independent organizations who research and rate green claims made by companies before producing results to sell to consumers as a guide for how to make sure their dollars are going towards greener ends. This model seems more promising, already creating some standout performances such as the Germany-based Forest Stewardship Council that created industry standards for the wood industry to avoid massive deforestation. The FSC has already severed connections with companies like Asia Pulp and Paper, forbidding them to use the FSC logo on their products. The Rainforest Alliance, native to the United States, is similar with the goal of creating and monitoring higher environmental standards.
Firms of this model are selling knowledge, but their true product is much bolder and much more valuable—consumer trust. Societal change offers time for confusion as much as advancement and with so many layers of science and technology within sustainability the service of better communicating the truth to consumers could be lucrative.
Any solution could result in less eco-charlatans and a higher level of accountability for throwing a green stripe on a package. The costs for companies to “go green” could rise with a greater level of authenticity but doing nothing could generate a complete disregard from buyers who do not want to have to be burdened with so much extra homework. Time will tell how many firms are willing to be green when it is easy but may balk at the prospect of having to fulfill all of their promises.