Maintainability for sustainability

For all the doubters who still think the ‘green’ movement at retail is either a passing phase or merely limited to organic produce and recycled paper, I can tell you firsthand there’s plenty of evidence out there to the contrary. A prime example is the recent MAGIC apparel show (yes, the apparel show) where signs were everywhere pointing to the rapid growth of the green movement, from organic cotton to sustainable supply chains.

What was just as apparent from this and other shows, however, is that the role that sustainability now plays at retail has become so varied and widespread that it’s becoming virtually impossible to define green business. What was once limited to companies whose holistic approach to business was rooted in environmentally responsible practices has now become the hot buzzword for any company wanting to ride the feel-good green bandwagon. What would you call, for example, an apparel company who proclaims that its bamboo-based textiles are environmentally responsible, when it’s been demonstrated by many independent research groups that bamboo farming in and of itself is no more sustainable than any other textile sourcing?

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Many companies are concocting ways to “greenify” their business using means that have much more to do with marketing spin than environmental responsibility. Take, for example, what The Home Depot discovered when it launched its Eco Options program, a product-labeling initiative that identifies certain SKUs for their environmentally responsible contents and/or effect. When the company sent out its RFP to vendors, encouraging them to come aboard, the response was a flood of wanna-be “eco-products” that have less to do with sustainability than they do with overhauling a product’s marketing position to incorporate a green angle.

What The Home Depot recognized—and what the rest of the industry needs to pick up on—is that short of having a system in place that differentiates between the genuine and the not-so-genuine, the retailer would be left with a green-products line whose branding and marketing talked the talk, but whose substance failed to deliver. In short, they’d be left with a credibility crisis.

Now, you may be thinking, Hey, as long as the consumer buys it, does it really matter?

A few weeks back, I might have been inclined to think that way too. (After all, there is a component of green marketing that is little more than image cleansing.) However, after having recently sat in on a focus group session on sustainability conducted by Chicago-based firm Leo J. Shapiro & Associates, I would warn against underestimating just how conscious consumers are about the subtleties of green marketing.

During a two-hour Q&A session about the green movement, green products, green companies and the future of sustainability at retail, the opinion of the average consumer (which is what this focus group was meant to gauge) is that insincere marketing initiatives shrouded in green wrapping are not only transparent, they can also breed negative feelings toward a company. On several occasions, in fact, the phrases “insincere motives,” “just for marketing” and “lack of credibility” were offered up, unsolicited, by focus group participants when asked about several real-world green products and practices from today’s retail market.

Now, I’m not usually a big advocate of standards and regulations. But, for the sake of the future of the green movement at retail, which at its current pace runs the risk of losing credibility at a perilous rate, it’s time to advocate for a system of standards. Much like the standards for organic labeling or LEED certification, standards for the labeling of sustainable products and services would not only help manufacturers, retailers and consumers understand what it means to be green, but they would go a long way in sustaining the very business of sustainability.