"Eco-Friendly" Is About to Become a Much More Expensive Phrase

In 2011, I wrote my Master's thesis on the transition to a low-carbon economy.

My conclusion wasn't particularly cheerful.

We were already too late for incremental change. Avoiding disastrous climate change required something closer to a paradigm shift.

That was fifteen years ago.

The paradigm didn't shift.

We stalled.

There are plenty of reasons for that. Politics is obviously one. Donald Trump's current administration has withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement and rolled back a range of environmental regulations. (White House)

But blaming politicians alone is too easy.

Those of us working in sustainability, communications and marketing should probably look in the mirror too.

Because somewhere along the way, we became very good at marketing the transition instead of making it happen.

Sustainability marketing is losing its favourite hiding place

I've spent enough time around sustainability communications to know there are certain words marketers absolutely love.

*Sustainable. Green. Eco-friendly. Climate neutral.*

Wonderful words. They can say quite a lot while saying remarkably little.

Put “eco-friendly” on a product and suddenly the packaging feels greener, the company feels more responsible and everyone in the meeting can go home feeling they've done their bit for the planet.

Except Europe is about to make that considerably harder.

From 27 September, new EU consumer-protection rules addressing greenwashing enter into application. Companies will face tighter restrictions around environmental claims and sustainability labels. (European Commission)

Check it. 👇

I think the interesting consequence might not be less sustainability communication.

It might be better sustainability communication.

We put too much power in the slogan

One of the stranger things about corporate sustainability is how easily years of technical work can eventually land on the desk of a creative team.

Thousands of suppliers. Carbon accounting. Materials. Energy. Water. Transition plans. Targets.

And eventually someone has to decide what goes on the billboard.

That's where things can go wrong.

We have sometimes placed a company's green credentials at the mercy of people whose expertise is communication, not climate science. They are asked to decide which environmental achievement is exciting enough to promote and how big they can make it sound.

That isn't necessarily the creative director's fault.

It's a system problem.

We became very good at marketing the transition instead of making it happen.

The new European rules won't solve climate change. But they may force a useful correction.

Environmental claims increasingly need to be specific enough to withstand scrutiny. The European Commission's guidance makes clear that traders will need their environmental claims and sustainability labels to comply with the strengthened rules from 27 September. (European Commission FAQ)

And perhaps that's where sustainability communications should have been heading all along.

Not finding increasingly creative ways to make companies look green.

Making complicated environmental progress understandable without pretending it's bigger than it is.

Fifteen years after writing that thesis, I'm considerably less optimistic about how quickly we'll make the transition.

But I am more convinced about one thing.

We don't need better green stories.

We need better green results.