Green Businesses

Oct

2019

Do Consumers REALLY Care about the Environment?

These 3 survey results tell us consumers genuinely care about sustainability

In 2018, we started an ongoing study to look at the sustainable purchasing habits and beliefs of average consumers. We wanted to understand if people care about their purchases in an environmental and health context, and if so, what percentage. The survey addresses the ways in which people prefer to be educated on environmental issues by the products that claim to solve them.

The survey is online and available for anyone to take. We will be releasing an extended version exploring all 30+ survey questions in the coming year.

First, however, we wanted to give a sneak peek of three questions in our survey that provide some insight into the power that people feel about their sustainable purchases. Here are three survey results that answer the question, Do consumers REALLY care about the environment?

Survey question #1 – How important is it for you to minimize your impact on the environment?

10 – Extremely Important (55.2%)
9 – Highly Important (17.2%)
8 – Very Important (13.8%)
7 – Important (6.9%)
6 – Slightly Important (6.9%)
0-5 – neutral or unimportant (0%)

Why do consumers care about their impact on the environment?

The results show that people ultimately value products and services that are safe for the environment. More than half of survey respondents shared that they care about minimizing their impact on air, land, water, food, and the overall planet.

While people care significantly about their impact on the planet, they are often unsure what to believe when a brand vaguely says they are “environmentally-friendly.” These very same people want truth and facts that are measurable, not greenwashed, because they actually care about the impact being made, not just about feeling good. The sentiment of “actually caring” means people want to see proof and participate with environmentally-focused brands who are influencing environmental policy, and not just promoting the same old greenwashed products with unsubstantiated sustainability claims. The quality of education, the amount of information, and transparency also impacts the level of involvement people will or won’t have in a brand’s mission. For businesses to actually reach and connect with this consumer group who values their environmental impact, education and transparency are required.

PATHWATER: the power of education equals motivated consumers

As a mini case study, let’s look at PATHWATER. PATHWATER created the first bottled water designed for reusability that is as affordable as plastic bottled water and made from aluminum, a highly recyclable material. PATHWATER’s mission is to disrupt the Bottled Water Industry by replacing all plastic packaging with aluminum, reusable bottled water. The company has positioned itself to continue along on the sustainability spectrum by committing to locally sourced water in every location PATHWATER expands to. Another part of their mission is to ensure clean drinking water for everyone, as they believe water is a human right.

To spread their mission, PATHWATER educates on all of the environmental issues their product addresses like plastic pollution, single-use packaging, and access to safe, clean drinking water. The PATHWATER Student Ambassador (PSA) Program was created with this mission in mind, to help students address plastic waste and clean water access issues. By providing information and transparency, students have a great desire to get involved to help push the PATHWATER mission on their campuses. Why? Because many students have the same agenda as PATHWATER – to ban single-use plastic. Students are provided with helpful instructions and support to ban single-use plastic bottled water on campus, and with these collaborative efforts, the planet, people, and PATHWATER’s business model are all succeeding. This type of environmental education creates a level of involvement most companies can only dream of, and that money can never buy. Education on a deep and genuine level, can’t happen with greenwashed companies, it’s a key indicator of an environmental company’s intentions. People, and in this case, students, find it easy to get involved in PATHWATER’s mission and voluntarily participate in taking action.

Survey question #2 – How important is it for you to minimize your exposure to chemicals deemed toxic or suspected toxic?

10 – Extremely Important (67.7.2%)
9 – Highly Important (16.7%)
8 – Very Important (10%)
7 – Important (3.3%)
6 – Slightly Important (3.3%)
0-5 – neutral or unimportant (0%)

These survey results show that people believe it’s essential to minimize their exposure to harmful chemicals

Minimizing exposure to toxic chemicals is directly linked to a concern for environmental pollution because of how pesticides, air pollution, and water pollution directly affect the quality of our health. When people care about environmental health issues, it’s essential to educate them on these topics and help them solve problems around chemical exposure as well as other environmental issues that align with your green brand’s mission and unique set of solutions.

For instance, people are concerned about health issues related to plastic and plastic waste. Plastic concerns are incredibly daunting right now, and people are keeping a close watch on matters related to plastic with genuine worry. Unfortunately, regurgitated information is being spread on every media channel and social platform; leaving people with half information and half-truths that are more damaging in the long run. Meanwhile, in-depth studies are being conducted, updated, expanded on, and some journalists are missing the basic environmental science around these studies. They seem to be cherry-picking the statistics that seem to be the most newsworthy or shocking and missing vital details that would actually inform people and give them new information. This aiming low and delivering the same news as competing media sources is diminishing the efficacy of education and missing the green solutions available to solve these environmental problems. A resurgence in intellectualism in research and writing is imperative, as this is the only way to provide meaningful, transparent information to consumers. Here’s an example of an article which busts myths around plastic being framed as truly recyclable, a solution, and a part of a circular economy – Plastic Vs. Aluminum: People Are Debating Whether Plastic Can Be Part of a Circular Economy.

Here’s another article Is it Safe to Drink from Aluminum Bottles? This article answers some of the mythical concerns around aluminum, the unfounded health scares, and the origins of widespread aluminum myths. All environmental issues are health issues at the end of the day, and when businesses deliver ecological education to people looking to buy in their market, trust is naturally built, competitors are dealt with in a fact-based manner, and profits become an automatic tertiary outcome.

Survey question #3 – Have you ever changed a purchasing habit based on an environmental or health reason?

Yes – 76.8%

Not sure – 19.2%

No – 3.9%

This survey question is significant proof that there’s a wide-open market for green businesses to help consumers who are ready to make better purchases. People care about environmental and health issues; however, they lack the knowledge to make informed decisions. So most people stand on the sidelines waiting for clear education which has created the $1 trillion missed market opportunity.

Our research is proving that people are willing to make a shift to better choices, given the right information. 61% of Millennials are willing to pay more for eco-friendly products, according to GlobalWebindex. This is additional confirmation that a growing group of consumers are open to being highly involved in green solutions; however, this requires proper education. This market is too large to miss. People are here and ready to make better choices once they are provided with the proof they need.

Conveying truth to people who demand genuine environmental solutions

There’s a need for green companies to focus on full-scope environmental efforts which include fulfilling the educational gap and lack of trust consumers are feeling. Consumers are now in the driver’s seat; therefore, brands that wish to succeed in this new market opportunity must adhere to the truth in the ways they choose to address environmental issues and environmental justice. While 30% of consumers actively seek out sustainable brands, there’s another 30% waiting on the sidelines to connect with brands transparently inform on the claims made beyond branding and messaging. It’s time for all great brands executing impactful environmental solutions to take consumers by the hand and elevate the world, together.

Conclusion

At A.R. Marketing House, we are always researching and collecting data to create focused educational content that aims to illuminate humanity on environmental issues and fuel movements. We’ve realized this education-based approach to marketing takes a perfect balance of intellect, critical thinking, creativity, and knowledge of topics like business, environmental marketing, journalism, politics, environmental science, and design. The bottom line is that people want to feel good about the products they’re putting their money behind. But feeling good isn’t enough, not for people, not for the planet. What everyone needs on this sustainable journey is help over the steep learning curve of environmental science.

Our survey proves that people care, now it’s our job to teach consumers how to sniff out feel-good greenwashing vs. real solutions so we can make some headway. We can’t just promise consumers they’re making the best choices, we ourselves have to actively create, promote, and educate on genuine environmental and health solutions that elevate how we operate.

We are an agency far ahead of the curve because we understand that the gap which needs to be bridged is an all around WIN solution. Genuine environmental solutions require mass adoption. Mass adoption requires environmental education. Environmental education must be presented in the context of marketing. Education bridges the gap between our crusade for cleaning up the planet and a massive wealth transfer. Wealth meaning health, money, clean food, clean air, clean water and a good quality of life. Wealth transfer meaning, from the planet polluting companies whom we subsidize with our money only to get in return pollution and hospital bills, TO environmentally-focused companies who help clean up the planet and thus improve our overall health and quality of life in the process. And of course, this wealth transfer requires a solid, steadfast commitment to take our fellow human by the hand and educate. Ferociously, without apology, without hesitation and with the most empathetic action-oriented plan, we all must tackle the mission to educate.

Where does this education start? It starts where people are looking for it online. Environmental education may begin with your website or any place your community finds you. This is where you have the ability to genuinely answer questions, cover all of the myths, educate, and often, reeducate. You’ve created a business that solves an environmental problem in the world, and consumers want ecological and health problems solved. The only thing keeping 80% of them from adopting your solution is education.

Unilever says there is a 1 trillion dollar market share for sustainable brands that educate, but when all factors are calculated, we presume the value for everyone is monumentally greater.

Resources

https://www.unilever.com/news/press-releases/2017/report-shows-a-third-of-consumers-prefer-sustainable-brands.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popproj/data/datasets.html

https://blog.globalwebindex.com/chart-of-the-week/green-consumerism/

Apr

2017

What Does the EPA’s “Back to Basics” Agenda Mean for Eco Businesses?

Opening up the Conversation for Green Businesses on EPA Rollbacks #back2basics

We all saw it coming and knew it was real from the day that scientists and volunteers began frantically downloading EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) data to their own servers in the fear that Climate Change and other environmental data that threatened polluter profits would be wiped clean. Now 4 months into an administration that has very clearly stated it will begin rolling back environmental regulations, has released a “Back to Basics” Agenda for the EPA. What changes the EPA is able to make under this administration will no doubt affect the health of U.S. inhabitants and have international implications but will also have a great impact on green businesses. How will environmentally-focused businesses compensate for the lack of regulations that tend to help push greener products and services that are better for our communities, health, and environment? Will we see an increase in education and outreach? Will green businesses have to rely on educated consumers? How can renewable energy companies strategize against this current?

In the “Back to Basics” Agenda Press Release, 9 points of focus were targeted for cutting regulations. How will these cuts affect the operations of Green Businesses in the United States and abroad? I want to discuss some of the points that this new EPA has laid out, and open up a discussion on how these changes affect green businesses. Although it is my hope that the country move on as normal and disregard a backtracking of important environmental regulations that would move our country toward positive agendas, the fact is that deregulating coal, oil, and harmful chemical companies is going to cause a backlash of reasoning and an upsurge in confusion when it comes to marketing for environmental products and services. Here are the 9 points for the “Back to Basics” agenda:

“Following the President’s Energy Independence Executive Order, Administrator Pruitt signed four notices to review and, if appropriate, to revise or rescind major, economically significant, burdensome rules the last Administration issued. This includes the so-called Clean Power Plan that threatens over 125,000 U.S. jobs.”

The Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing anthropogenic carbon dioxide contributions to climate change in the U.S. from electrical power plants by 32% within 25 years (Environmental Defense Fund Infographic below). The plan set a baseline reduction and allowed for states to decide how they would meet the baseline reductions. If a state wasn’t able to produce its own plan for reducing CO2, it would be given a plan to achieve the baseline goals. There were many benefits of this plan including reducing health concerns to low-income people that are most vulnerable to harmful emissions. The most at-risk are children, the elderly, people with health issues related to heart and lungs, as well as people living in poverty who often live in areas that are disproportionately polluted and have very little if any, environmental justice advocacy. The actions laid out by the Clean Power Plan would have resulted in a reduction of 1,200 million metric tons of CO2 by 2050 and thus would have reduced health issues related to such pollutants for a vast number of Americans who do not have the financial or political means to defend themselves.

The “Back to Basics” rollout states that 125,000 U.S. jobs are threatened by the Clean Power Plan, but we all know that a green economy would garner many more long term jobs in the solar, wind, and energy efficient sectors. The threat of job loss for cleaning up our energy consumption has never been a viable argument.

States that have supported environmental regulations regardless of federal regulations, will, of course, be leading the country, yet again. However, states that lack the education and governmental muscle to make appropriate decisions will likely stay behind in the environmental advancement curve. The means jobs will not grow and sustainable income and economies will sadly not thrive in the collective form which they were set to. Green tech companies will have to focus efforts toward greener states and also internationally, as other countries like Costa Rica (98% renewable energy usage), Sweden, and many more sweep their energy to fully renewable sources.

“EPA is restoring states’ important role in the regulation of local waters by reviewing the WOTUS (“waters of the U.S.”) rule.”

This reviewing of the WOTUS rule was addressed here on NPR.

“EPA is clearing the backlog of new chemicals that were waiting approval from EPA, so they can go to market, and companies can innovate and create jobs.”

The EPA has begun denying Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) petitions, or as they have put it, clearing the “backlog” from further screening of harmful chemicals so that companies can move to market faster. TSCA was already pretty weak but was the one piece of legislation that Public Health and Environmental Advocates could turn to when holding corporations accountable for testing potentially harmful substances that end up in our bodies, air, and waterways before appropriate testing and research deem them safe. For a full list of the current chemical waitlist click here.

Below is an old chart showing some of the major toxic chemicals introduced without appropriate testing in the United States and elsewhere, you might recognize a few. These toxic chemicals are now, of course, officially labeled as human carcinogens though they were only deemed probable at the time.

1. “EPA is helping states achieve high air quality targets, clean up toxic waste sites and improve America’s water infrastructure.”
There is great reason to “help states achieve their own air quality targets”. This move is to pacify states that wish to remain conducting business as usual and disregard environmental standards that would force them to improve their practices. Please see map below:
5. “EPA rescinded an unjustified, premature evaluation of greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year 2022-2025 vehicles, and is working with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a collaborative and robust review of the standards.”

“The agency is reviewing the Oil and Gas Methane New Source Performance Standards for new and modified sources, to determine whether it is duplicative.”

These Oil and Gas Methane New Source Performance Standards were set to save money, clean up our air, and mitigate human contributions to climate change. This original ruling aimed at reducing 510,000 short tons of methane currently being expelled by Gas and Oil operations. This would be equivalent to removing 8.5 million cars off the road. You can read more details of the plan here. These were in no way duplicative because it explicitly addressed methane and VOCs. Fact Sheet Here!

EPA is allocating funds for vital environmental projects that go directly to the health of our citizens, such as providing $100 million to upgrade drinking water infrastructure in Flint, Michigan.

This is a copy + paste carry over from the last administration and is not indicative of the current EPA’s mode of operation.

EPA is stopping the methane Information Collection Request (ICR) by telling businesses they no longer have this additional bureaucratic burden, with the cost to American businesses attempting to comply exceeding $42 million.

“This appalling decision shows how quickly Pruitt is turning the EPA into an oil industry vending machine,” Center for Biological Diversity attorney Vera Pardee said in a statement.

Launched the EPA Regulatory Reform Task Force to undergo extensive reviews of the misaligned regulatory actions.

This Reform Taskforce will launch its rollbacks agenda with a stakeholder meeting on April 25, 2017 and aims to see what EPA rules can be “repealed, replaced, or modified to reduce regulations.”

So what do these rollbacks mean to green businesses, clean energy, and anyone working in the environmental sector and the people of the U.S.? As of now, there is a lot of wait and see but I would like to explore what green companies are saying about these changes. For now, if you’d like a complete archived breakdown of proposed changes to U.S. Science and Environmental Policy, Michael Greshko of National Geographics has created a running list to help us keep up.

Leave a comment, tell us what you think about how these changes will alter the green economy.

Save