Putting on a green spin

Johannesburg - Apathy is no longer the biggest challenge facing environmental marketing, "greenwashing" is. "Even inadvertent marketing claims that overstate a products sustainability destroy consumer trust," says Seth Farbman, global CEO of Ogilvyearth. "Once consumers lose confidence, we risk losing all the progress of the last decade."

But linked to this is the challenge of "communicating sustainability in simple terms that consumers actually care about".

Farbman will be in South Africa to speak at the Brands and Branding for Good conference.

How important is sustainability?

Ultimately, sustainability allows steady, unending growth - economic and social - by recognising the limitations of resources and working within them. Sustainability delivers a world where we no longer must accept the false choices between a rising quality of life today and an environment that can sustain it tomorrow.

How realistic is it? Can we really make a difference?

We really don't have a choice. There is only so much oil, water and air. The US already has the technology (more efficient appliances and cars, better insulation and so on) to reduce energy use by 40%, without consumers having to make a sacrifice.

Is public apathy still a problem?

Public apathy will always be a problem, but it is our job as marketers to make people understand why they should care.

Is the public dismissive of sustainability as a marketing gimmick?

There certainly is some "green fatigue" after the last few years of constant sustainability marketing. Green washing has exacerbated this - and frankly, some of the marketing should be dismissed.

But consumers have become much more educated too, and are even more loyal to companies that market authentically and honestly. There is still enormous opportunity for corporate leadership to improve the lives of customers.

How do you reconcile different needs of developing countries with those of the developed?

The "who pays" question is hotly debated and has been the biggest stumbling-block for the UN Climate Change Conference.  
It's a reasonable argument: developed nations already had their industrial revolution and created tremendous wealth off cheap, but dirty power like coal.

They now must shoulder the burden of transitioning everyone to a clean energy economy by inventing technology and sharing it with the developing world.

But the developing world needs to have vision, too. It has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leapfrog old systems and deliver the future needs of its citizens today – as in communications technology, where developing nations leapt past the rich industrial nations by installing the latest technology instead of old, wire-based systems.

In African there is little sense and greater cost in developing an energy system around a resource (coal) that won't last much more than a single lifetime, when cleaner, sustainable alternatives like solar, wind and hydroelectric are readily available.

The US is one of the worst offenders. Shouldn't something be done about it first?

The United States has a woeful energy policy. The country has the obligation to lead the world by example, but is not yet doing so. Although there is a major increase in American investment in sustainability-related programmes, much more should be done.

- Fin24.com