GreenSky Thoughts

A Tree is not just for Christmas

As we enter the festival of consumption that is Christmas, we are being bombarded by ubiquitous retail and marketing messages encouraging us – through the use of tinsel, lights and jingle bells - to spend spend spend!  (Which can be quite exciting, let’s be honest).

On the other hand, there is a counter-consumption culture emerging that is encouraging people to resist this message, and rather, to reuse, recycle and recreate the spirit of giving by offering gifts that represent time, rather than money.

Is this awfully ‘Grinch-like’, denying the spirit of the season?  Or should the focus be drawn to the simpler pleasures of the comfort of family, a warm meal and small, meaningful gifts?

A brand that demonstrates the idea of reusing and recycling beautifully is Lush, who make fresh handmade cosmetics, which are so beautiful, the product becomes its own packaging.  And cleverly, instead of using polystyrene, they protect their more fragile products by packing them in popcorn, which shouldn’t be eaten (unless you like your popcorn infused with aromatherapy oils), but being all natural, can be composted.

The New Consumer Magazine (Dec) includes the following in their Think-Sideways Christmas Catalogue – ‘Have less, live more’

1.    Give away a book you love

2.    Plant up someone’s window box

3.    Compile a handmade recipe book

4.    Give away something you don’t use

5.    Do someone’s chores.

We love the thought of giving the precious commodity of 'time' as a gift – imagine the joy of someone doing your chores?! We have a friend who has a policy of only giving consumable gifts at Christmas time – to be eaten, drunk or planted and enjoyed.

If anyone can find a brand/shop/retailer (that isn’t actually a charity or actively ethical) that encourages us to think before we spend, please let us know... ‘cos besides Lush mentioned above, we couldn’t find any!

Clean Energy Revolution? Or Greenwash?

Google's recent move into clean energy is a very strategic way of aligning themselves with the green issue.  It has invited some scepticism – what place do they have in the clean energy arena? – and smacks a bit of greenwashing to up their credentials in a market where high profile businesses can't afford not to be doing something.  But they are a very wealthy company who rely on their customers using energy to deliver their product.  As a technology innovator, their brand sits comfortably with innovation anyway, so why not apply their wealth, spirit and drive to clean energy?  Even if the resultant PR is good for business, does it matter what they do?  As long as they are doing something?

Some Are Born Green

Most companies and businesses are making the move to ‘Green’.  Some are born green: Innovative business created to support sustainability e.g.: Innocent Drinks or The Body Shop.  Some become green: Offering new products and reviewing the fundamentals of their business e.g.: Toyota.  And some have greenness thrust upon them: Responding to market pressure and consumer demand, these companies use CSR and PR to present their green intentions, which often amounts to no more than ‘greenwashing’.

We attended the Green Marketing NPD conference here in London a couple of weeks ago.  Many of the companies presenting acknowledged that they had to change at a very fundamental level; reinventing their production lines, looking at their waste, reviewing how their products were packaged and marketed.  Reassuringly, in more than one case, the products that were the result of these changes actually cost less to develop, produce and market.

Abbey Bank for example have developed a new green loan, which they are marketing and packaging using only sustainable materials – printing on recycled paper for example.  Encouragingly, this initiative is forcing a company-wide review of marketing collateral, across all their products.  This change is often a result of good intentions as well as customer pressure.  More and more consumers are demanding greener products and information.  But what are they doing with it?

Another observation made by many of the companies presenting was the very obvious Intention-Action Gap present in their customer’s behaviour.  Most claim that they would like to do something, but this seems dependent on how much they are expected to change their comfortable patterns of behaviour.

So does the responsibility of change lie with the companies?  Should they offer green products only? Reinvent their production and review their supply chain and simply stop offering plastic bags at the checkout counter?

If the consumer is not prepared to do it themselves, should they have greenness thrust upon them?