It was only a matter of time before marketing/research consultants to the packaged goods industry figured it all out. Yep, thanks to the Hartman Group, CPGs (consumer packaged goods manufacturers, like Kraft and SC Johnson and Unilever and P&G and Nestle) can actually strategize about how to give their products a 'Brand Halo' around sustainability.
From data gathered from a qualitative and quantitative study of the Organics market, the Hartman group has outlined the pros and cons of developing a 'halo' around consumer products. You need to read this article.
Here's the Hartman Group's take on growth in the awareness of 'sustainable' grown or manufactured goods (all material copyright The Hartman Group):
We believe, as interest in sustainability grows, we will see the following happen:
- The distinction will continue to dilute as it comes to mean many more things to many people.
- Nearly every company or product can and will produce a sustainability narrative (i.e., anybody can be "green").
- Simply designating your product as sustainable or "environmentally friendly" will do little to differentiate your brand or drive a brand halo.
- Only a tiny percentage of very core consumers will even be interested in adjudicating between competing sustainability narratives to identify the most authentic sustainable products or services.
- While there always remains the possibility for product and service brands to achieve a sustainable halo, we believe it will likely be easier for retailers, especially food retailers, as they can more easily tap into the "local food" angle.
Get it, get it? There's no point, really, for CPGs to go down the sustainable path because the only barrier to entry for competitors is the cost of raw materials. Additionally it will likely never be as mainstream in understanding as it needs to be to generate the kind of sales a large company would be interested in. So lets see, if cost of entry is high and there's not necessarily an early mover advantage, and it only really make sense for retailers, wouldn't it make sense for the big CPGs to do nothing?
No. Not at all.
As the largest consumers of raw food materials, the CPGs owe it to the consumer (and, to an equal extent, the planet) to develop and maintain sustainable sources of ingredients and raw materials. Every small change they make has a large incremental impact on the type of agriculture done, the pesticides used, and the health of the planet. Since I'm just conjecturing and not using research, I don't have data to back this up, but it seems obvious - sustainable agriculture/products emphasis a polyglot approach to farming and production, which will have less of a negative impact on agriculture than the monoculture - and big organics - are having today. I'm taking a page out of the Omnivore's Dilemma (on organic monoculture and big agriculture) but it makes sense that the larger the buyer of a certain commodity, the bigger the impact a switch to a less damaging form of agriculture will have.
But there's hope for those still dreaming of a sustainability brand halo. The Hartman group advises:
There will always be a small number of successful entrepreneurs able to generate a sustainability halo through very specific, often technical, innovations. The Toyota Prius would be an example here. While there is no question that this is a desirable space, the fact that it requires groundbreaking innovation is a significant obstacle to those interested in simply offering "sustainable" versions of existing products or services.
- Curiously, the more conventional pathway toward a sustainability halo may not necessarily even require many of the attributes one might otherwise imagine are necessary to craft such a halo. Our recent research reveals that firms currently generating a sustainability halo have managed this task by generating several key consumer perceptions that can be grouped loosely under the rubric "good person." Companies included in the top ten list consumers most often associate with social AND environmental responsibility include Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe's, Starbucks and Wild Oats.
OK CPG company folk, let me summarize: Sustainability is more than just a line extension. It is a commitment, not to be taken lightly or discontinued when costs run too high and your shareholders are complaining at your annual meeting. And in case you think you are going to be credible just because you have the right products, think again. Look at Wal-Mart and all they've done with organics in their stores (and, adversely, diluting the meaning of organics). Yet because of their labor practices, no matter what they stock, they will always be reviled by consumers who care about more than just 'stuff'. 'People' is part of the equation too.
End of rant.
