BBMG provides us with yet another segmentation about the buying concerns of U. S. consumers, but it focuses more on overall social values and not merely those of environmental concerns. This difference starts to provide a more complete picture of buying values across a wider spectrum of issues. Like the two cited previously, their four segments represent varying degrees of behavior and concerns around environmental issues. For example, the top segment last year (2007) represents only 10 percent of consumers, instead of the 30 percent quoted by the Green Gauge Report:
• 10% Enlighteneds (who make a point to reward companies along social and environmental goals)
• 20% Aspirationals (balance their values with convenience and price)
• 30% Practicals (prioritize price, quality, an... >
Another segmentation, Green Gauge, comes from GfK Roper Consulting, and it describes five groups, based on their buying behavior around environmental concerns (see Figure 18.1). This is probably the longest-running survey of “green” perceptions, and it has shown
FIGURE 18.1. /И http://flickr. com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/3273317718
The Green Gauge market segments.
a lot of change just in the past three years (following very little change in the proceeding decade).
30% True Blue Greens (most committed)
10% Greenback Greens (interested but not always willing to spend more)
26% Sprouts (undecided about environmental issues)
15% Grousers (view environmental issues as too big or complicated to do anything about) 18% Apathetics (not interested in environmental issues)
The LOHAS segment comes from an industry group by the same name. It segments consumers into five groups, based on the degree of their commitment to sustainability issues when purchasing products and services:
• 17% LOHAS (the most committed consumers)
• 21% Naturalites (concerned most of the time, especially for natural and organic foods, but less involved with other practices)
• 19% Drifters (concerned occasionally, with good intentions, but price and other factors regularly outweigh environmental concerns)
• 20% Conventionals (mostly not concerned but curious, and involved with some practices, such as recycling)
• 21% Unconcerned (not concerned at all or actively against sustainability)
Green Gauge 452
Conscious Consumers 455
Cultural Creatives 457
What is Marketing? 458
What to say (and Not) 463
Enter code DITPDE for 15% off any Rosenfeld Media product directly
purchased from our site: http:Zrosenfeldmedia. com
f results are so difficult to measure, how can we begin to declare them?
This is an important question, and it’s at the heart of those charging organizations with “greenwashing.” As we’ve seen, the issues are complex and often counterintuitive. In order to make reasonable claims, it’s important to articulate benefits carefully and clearly within the context of the audience we address.
There are many different ways of describing the market for sustainable products, services, brands, and messaging... >
I’ve learned a lot about rating and labeling systems working on my own solution. Beginning in 2002, I started designing label solutions for making the complex criteria involved across the sustainability spectra clear for consumers in a shopping environment. My aim was to make it easy to compare products and services in the same categories, while still being informative and imparting a sense of validity to the data presented. Over the next four years, I developed a series of labels to do just this—the Reveal Rating system (named by a colleague at school), as shown in Figure 17.2. In addition, while at
LEFT IMAGE: /Я http://flickr. com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/3273315644
RIGHT IMAGE: /И http://flickr. com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/3272513385
The Reveal system is designed... >
Type I labels are product seals licensed by governments or third-party private entities based on a multitude of criteria or impact. For example, the U. S.-based Green Seal or Sweden’s Nordic Swan Type I seals can vary substantially in their criteria, which may or may not be known or understood by customers.
Type II labels are informative, self-declared seals about the environmental qualities of a product, such as “contains 75 percent recycled paper.”
Type III labels offer quantified product information based on a life cycle assessment. These labels are best for comparisons between products or services. There are few examples of Type III labels in use. One in development is the Reveal label.
Type IV labels are single-issue seals licensed by companies or organizations... >
There is a lot of hope for creating far-reaching standards for rating and labeling of products and services along sustainability criteria. Some standards focus only on the environmental aspects, some only on the social and governance
criteria, some attempt to comingle them, and others hope to allow customers to mix their own ratios. For all of the interest in this area, the development is slow-going, partly due to the inherent complexity and partly because, although it seems that everyone wants to use these systems, it’s decidedly not sexy in comparison to investments in “clean energy” and other sustainability innovations.
Some of the existing systems created for consumers include the following:
• alonovo. com (one of the oldest, having started in 2005)
• goodguide. com
• b... >
In 1993, Robert S. Kaplan, a professor at Harvard, and David P. Norton created the Balanced Scorecard approach to measuring corporate performance. Beginning with the publishing of their book, six years later, this became a rapidly adopted and popular approach. In particular, their approach was designed to measure financial (and some human) capital performance against corporate strategies and mission. This was one of the early attempts to align corporate strategies with corporate missions in a way that could be measured numerically and continuously in terms of dollars.
The Balanced Scorecard measures performance in four main areas:
• Financial (Are the organization’s strategies and tactics creating financial value?)
Cash Flow, ROI, ROE, etc.
• Customer (Do the organization’s... >
One of the most popular sustainability measures, at least for social and governance issues in corporate policy, is the Global Reporting Framework. This standard, defined by the Global Reporting Initiative, is one of the few widely-recognized frameworks for reporting corporate-level policies. Covive, a San Francisco-based design firm, has created an excellent summary of this framework that clarifies many pages of documentation. (See Figure 3.23 on page 99)
The GRI Framework lists criteria in six categories, such as the following:
• Environmental (materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emissions, effluents and waste, products and services, compliance, and transport)
• Human Rights (investment and procurement practices, nondiscrimination, freedom of association and collectiv... >
Global Reporting Framework 433
Balanced scorecard 435
other ratings and metrics 436
Label types 440
reveal rating system 443
Enter code DITPDE for 15% off any Rosenfeld Media product directly
purchased from our site: http://rosenfeldmedia. com
s we learned in the discussion of frameworks in Chapter з (especially for LCA and SROI), not only are there no standards of measuring sustainability progress, but also where there are mechanisms in development, the data and process are quite difficult to decipher (as with a deep Life Cycle Assessment).
This leaves developers at a loss as to how to weigh alternatives, and it leaves customers at a loss as to how to choose between them. In addition, it makes it difficult for organizations to track their progress.
Where the best measur... >