Consumers show a varied appetite for green.
Go ahead and look closely. You might be inclined to count. Which brand appears the most times in the
ImagePower 2009 survey of Top Green Brands? It’s IKEA! The Swedish furniture retailer is followed closely by Microsoft (that’s right) and the personal care brands Dove (P&G) and Nivea (Beiersdorf).
There are some other interesting tidbits in these results. First is that for each country, the type of brand that is perceived as green is quite different. In China, the green brands are dominated by information technology companies. In the UK, it is food retailing and personal care. In the US, there is a bit of a mixed bag, but it seems that Clorox, with it’s Green Works and Burt’s Bees lines, takes the top prize. There are some other companies that have made a whole lot of green noise that don’t seem to be hitting the mark.
Without revealing the entire contents of the report, it is also interesting to note that “at least 77 percent of consumers in all countries say it’s somewhat or very important” for companies to be green. “However, in the US, 77 percent of consumers communicated deeper concern for the economy than the environment, which is unchanged from 2008.” You can draw your own conclusions from those remarks.
It seems to me that the key take away is to recognize that the green message needs to be tailored for the specific needs of the geographic market. What plays in Peoria might not play as well in Pudong.
You can expect that climate change will become a top priority in Washington over the next few years. Has the packaging industry’s focus on sustainability addressed the real issue?
Consider this chart, published by the EPA in 2008, that shows GHG generation by category. If you are as surprised as I am, then you’ll agree that the question is appropriate.
Transportation is second, only to electricity generation, in the production of GHGs. It eclipses all manufacturing activities by several times. Therefore, to curb climate change, I believe that our focus should shift to all the opportunities to reduce the demand for transportation.
In the packaging industry, much of our sustainability focus has been driven by the Wal-Mart Packaging Scorecard. Many have rightly concluded that the metrics in this scorecard are heavily weighted towards the total weight of packaging required to deliver a given amount of product. Reducing the weight of packaging reduces the fuel required to move the product and reduces the GHGs attributed to the transportation of the product.
There is another opportunity lurking out there. Much of our logistics system in the North America relies on over-the-road trucks. Estimates are that 30% or more of the trucks on the road are empty. That means nearly 1 in 3! Imagine the opportunities that come with better logistics planning. Congestion will be reduced. The remaining trucks will be more profitable. GHG production related to truck transportation will drop dramatically and this reduction will likely be multiplied by fewer vehicles stuck in traffic jams.
As carbon legislation comes forward, remember that you will be held to account for all the carbon associated with your business. Transportation in and out will be a part. It is probably the largest, lowest hanging fruit for you to pick.