Communicating greener strategies: a study of on-pack communication

COMMUNICATING GREENERSTRATEGIES: A STUDY OFON-PACK COMMUNICATION

Andrea Prothero1*, Ken Peattie2, and Pierre McDonagh1,1University of Stirling2Cardiff Business School

Developing and implementing successfulgreen strategies depends upon goodcommunication. Faced with anincreasingly cynical public, companies arefinding it difficult to communicateimprovements in their eco-performance tothe marketplace in a way that will enablethem to generate a competitive advantage.This difficulty is compounded by theproblems involved in using traditionalcommunications media for a task to whichthey are often poorly suited. Advertisingfor example, is difficult to formulatearound green issues which are complexand hard to put across within the sort ofshort, style-orientated information bitethat characterises many contemporarycampaigns. Companies are looking foralternatives, and for packaged goodsmanufacturers are using the product’spackage as a communications channel. Itreaches all existing (if not all potential)customers, and on-pack information istypically seen by consumers as relativelycredible. This paper provides anexploratory study of on-pack informationin part of the environmental ‘front-line’;

the anti-perspirant and deodorant (APD)market. Options for on-packcommunication are examined along withsome of the issues that arise from trying toengage in environmental communicationwith the customer using packaging as themedium. # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Bus. Strat. Env 6: 74–82, 1997

No. of Figures: 0. No. of Tables: 1.No. of References: 35.

INTRODUCTION

T he difficulties that have befallen companiessuch as Shell, McDonalds and even TheBody Shop have shown that in the 1990s

companies must do more than simply work atdeveloping and implementing more environmen-tally sustainable strategies; they must also suc-cessfully communicate their progress to themarketplace. Marketing activities have often been afocus for companies’ strategic response to the greenchallenge, since many marketing fundamentals,such as consumer targeting, new product devel-opment, pricing decisions and the positioning andpromotion of products, are all key strategic chal-lenges for greener companies (Vandermerwe andOliff, 1990; Peattie, 1995). The marketing disciplinehas responded with a lively debate on the subject of‘green marketing’ and a wealth of published booksand articles (for example Charter, 1992; Codding-ton, 1993; Ottman, 1993; Peattie, 1992; Peattie, 1995)which have tried to grapple with its meaning andimplications. Green marketing has been subject to a

*Correspondence to: Andrea Prothero, Department of Market-ing, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA

CCC 0964-4733/97/020074–09$17.50# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 6, 74–82 (1997)

BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

variety of definitions (and alternative labels), butthe fundamental principles are captured by Peat-tie’s (1995) concept of a:

holistic management process responsible foridentifying, anticipating and satisfying therequirements of customers and society, in aprofitable and sustainable way.

Developing strategies and products which aresocially acceptable, sustainable and profitable isbound to create many new challenges for marketingand corporate strategists. It might be expected thatdeveloping green corporate and marketing com-munications would be one of the more straightfor-ward challenges. After all, communication hasalways been at the heart of marketing as a disciplineand as a process, so why should communication bedifficult because the message is about eco-perfor-mance? In practice developing credible green com-munications has proved difficult for manycompanies, and widespread criticism of campaignsdeveloped by companies has emerged (Strid andCater, 1993), perhaps most publicly in Friends of theEarth’s ‘Green Con of The Year Award’.

This article examines some of the challengesinvolved in communicating a greener strategy to themarketplace, by focusing mainly on issues of productcommunication and information provided on-pack inparticular. Such communication plays an importantpart in the process of implementing green strategy, yetit is an area which has been criticised over a lack ofempirical research (Simintiras et al, 1993).

THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATIONCHALLENGE

Communicating with consumers and other stake-holders on environmental issues is a major challengefor companies. Mintel’s green consumer reportshave shown that around 90% of UK consumers arehighly sceptical about green promotional cam-paigns; over 60% find environmentally relatedissues confusing; and over 40% are cynical about themotives behind such campaigns, seeing them asprimarily about exploiting consumers’ concerns.Given the level of public cynicism about the cred-ibility of environmental information provided bycorporations and government, companies will needto take a ‘back to the drawing board’ approach tocommunication and avoid getting into real or per-ceived ‘greenwashing’. This will involve a movetowards a sustainable communication process,which McDonagh (1994) defines as:

an interactive social process of unravelling anderadicating alienation that may occur between

an organization and its publics or stakeholders.Based on the notion of totality or holism, itembraces conflict and critique through infor-mation disclosure, access to and participationin organizational policies and processes andstructures, allowing open-ended dialogue. Thusby use of ‘green, eco or environmental market-ing communications’ the organization buildstrust in the minds of those in society and per-mits the approach of a utopian situation of highlevels of environmental consciousness andconsensus as to how humankind should exist.

Such sustainable communication aims to increaselevels of environmental consciousness in society(Krause, 1993), through information exchangesbetween organisations and their various publics,where organisations wish to demonstrate that theyare socially and environmentally responsible cor-porate citizens. Sustainable communication is a longterm ideal which embraces honesty as a core aspectof the communication between an organisation andits publics. Most of the green marketing commu-nications undertaken by companies so far has fallenwell short of this ideal, and has been criticised asuninformative, lacking in substance, misleading,unclear and based on generating short-term marketadvantage instead of long-term trust and relation-ships. Very few companies can be class-ed as evenattempting to engage in sustainable communicationwith its various publics, and even proactive ‘front-line’ companies such as the Body Shop have foundthemselves rightly or wrongly bombarded with cri-ticism (see: Cowe and Tran, 1994; The Economist,1994; Jack and Buckley, 1994; Randall, 1994).

A key issue in the debate about the value andcredibility of green communication has been thedegree of openness and the disclosure of meaningfulinformation to the general public, at both a corporateand product level. At the corporate level companiesare increasingly expected to come clean aboutorganisational environmental strategies, NorskHydro’s award-winning environmental report wasseen as a benchmark in providing substantive en-vironmental information to the company’s publics,and one which accrued a number of strategic bene-fits for the company (Duff, 1992). At a product level,consumer awareness and interest group pressure isforcing companies to address issues of environ-mental disclosure and communication, but it is not astraightforward task.

ANDREA PROTHERO, KEN PEATTIE AND PIERRE MCDONAGH

BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 75

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. BUS. STRAT. ENV VOL. 6: 74–82, 1997

ON-PACK INFORMATION: BUILDINGCREDIBILITY AND TRUST IN THEHANDS OF YOUR PUBLICS

One medium capable of delivering a green messageeffectively is product packaging and labelling.Although packaging has been a key envir-onmentalist target, most consumer goods requiresome packaging, and using this to communicateenvironmental messages to the consumer is eco-nomical in terms of resource use. It is also potentiallyvery effective since (according to the US Point ofPurchase Institute) more than two-thirds of all pur-chase decisions are finalised in-store. By 1992, 54% ofAmericans read labels to see check whether pro-ducts’ were environmentally acceptability (Ottman,1993), suggesting that placing an effective environ-mental message on a package couldconvince potential brand switchers to try their pro-duct.

Green labelling and packaging as a communica-tions medium brings its own particular problems,not least consumer confusion over the credibility ofgreen marketing messages. Consumers are muchmore likely to trust and respond to a green label thana green advert, but this trust may be slightly mis-placed. A Consumers’ Association survey of 2,000individuals found that over half wrongly assumedthat a company’s own green label had been officiallyendorsed (Consumers’ Association, 1990). Anotherdifficulty relates to the pressure companies areunder to reduce the physical quantity of packagingmaterial, while simultaneously increasing the levelof detail of environmental information that thesepackages carry.

THE CASE OF ANTI-PERSPIRANTS ANDDEODORANTS (APDS)

In exploring issues relating to green on-pack com-munication this research focuses on a particularproduct range, anti-perspirants and deodorants(APDs). The APD market was chosen because as aUK pilot project for the European Eco-labellingscheme it was a topical area to study, in whichinformation relating to eco-performance was readilyavailable. Another reason for studying APDs is thatthe aerosol market received heavy criticism byenvironmentalists in the late eighties, focusing onthe continuing use of CFC-driven aerosols, culmi-nating in one of the first (and most effective) majorenvironmental consumer boycotts (Rock, 1989).Aerosol sprays themselves contribute 3.1% of globalCFC releases (World Resources Institute, 1993), asignificant enough figure to ensure that they con-tinue to be a target for environmentalist commu-

nications efforts. As part of the cosmetics industry,companies producing APDs have an additionalimportant environmental issue to address, the use ofanimal ingredients and animal testing for cosmeticpurposes. Whilst it can be argued that deep greenconsumers do not use either anti-perspirants ordeodorants (as both have an unnatural effect uponour bodies), the majority of consumers concernedabout the environment (‘light to middle’ greens) willbe purchasers of APDs.

Despite environmentalist concerns about theproducts, the market for APDs is one of the fastestgrowing cosmetics and toiletries market segments(Davies, D, 1993), along with oral hygiene and sun-care products. Total sales in the UK account for 6.5%of the UK cosmetics and toiletries market (Euro-monitor, 1993). Total global retail sales for the marketin 1992 was estimated at $2.2 billion. The main dif-ference between deodorants and anti-perspirants isthat the former aim to control odour by eliminatingbacteria whereas the latter work to reduce sweatingby using aluminium salts. In the UK most productsare a mixture of both, with few being marketed aseither anti-perspirant or deodorant.

In recent years there has been a shift in the pur-chase of APDs. The UK market has seen a ‘flurry ofrepackaging and positioning’, at the expense ofaerosols and in favour of roll-ons and stick APDs.Euromonitor (1991) forecast that pump action sprayswill see a four fold increase at the expense of aero-sols. Switching from aerosols to other dispensersalso appears viable because of the complexitiesinvolved in changing aerosol propellants.

Research design

To investigate on-pack communication in the APDmarket, available products were collected fromTesco and Safeway supermarkets, the independentchemist Lloyds, the drugstore Superdrug and Bootsthe Chemists Ltd. This allowed the collection of awide range of products and ensured that the samplewas representative in terms of covering the majortypes of retail sources listed by Euromonitor (1991).Only aerosol and roll-on APDs were studied, stickdeodorants and creams (despite their environmentalbenefits on the key issue of ozone depletion) wereexcluded because these products make up only atiny proportion of the total APD market. The APDsthemselves were examined for environmental andother on-pack communication. The main aim of thestudy was therefore to determine what, if any,environmental information is communicated on thepackages of APDs. The research questions focusedupon the following areas:

COMMUNICATING GREENER STRATEGIES

76 BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

BUS. STRAT. ENV VOL. 6: 74–82, 1997 # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

1. To determine what types of environmentalinformation are communicated (for exampleCFC free, ozone safe, not tested on animals etc.)on-pack.

2. To establish any differences between on-packenvironmental information for aerosol productsand roll-ons?

3. To identify the management response strategy ofcompanies in relation to the provision of on-pack environmental information.

Research findings

The key findings are summarised in Appendix One.Asterisks in the table highlight cases where furtherenvironmental information is provided for con-sumers. Tesco’s on-pack information for instancepoints consumers towards its animal testing leaflet.These main findings are then discussed in terms ofmanagement response strategies in the commu-nication of environmental information on-pack. Akey finding was the difference between the reportingof environmental information for roll-ons and aero-sols. Roll-on environmental information focusedupon animal testing and ingredient issues whereasaerosol information mainly emphasised the removalof CFCs. All aerosols mentioned the removal ofCFCs from the company’s product and/or that theproduct is ozone safe/friendly because of CFCremoval. The main environmental differentiation bycompanies was in two areas; firstly the inclusion ofingredients on-pack and secondly the highlightingof animal testing policies. Tesco, Boots and Super-drug all emphasised their organisation’s ‘no-animaltesting’ commitment. Some brands also attempted tocompete on a green platform by communicating animpression of ‘naturalness’. Natrel Plus, for exam-ple, focused upon the natural ingredients for its

products, and Kyomi promoted itself as ‘workingwith the body’s natural processes’.

Management response strategies–from dressingwindows to opening doors

Faced with environmental pressure, companieshave a variety of alternatives to choose from, rang-ing from doing nothing in the belief that a ‘normal’business environment will reassert itself, toattempting to create a sustainable company. Incommunications terms, companies vary in thedegree to which they are willing to be open andcommunicate on environmentally related matters.

Table 1 sets out the communication options opento firms, adapted from the framework for respond-ing to pressure group action provided by Smith(1990). The responses of APD companies rangedfrom ignoring the issue, to Tesco’s provision ofpoint-of-sale (POS) explanatory material for con-sumers, signposted using on-pack information.None of the manufacturers or retailers covered bythe study seemed to have gone as far as actuallyattempting to educate their consumers about theissues, although Body Shop who retail APD pro-ducts have made a feature of educational POSmaterial. No companies have yet moved far enoughtowards sustainable communication to be describedas fully ‘embracing’ either the concept or theiraudience. The Body Shop are one of the few com-panies to have approached this by encouragingdialogue with interest groups (often related to theirown lobbying activities) and by consulting withenvironmental experts before making decisions.

Most APD companies’ on-pack communicationscan be characterised as follows:

Table 1

Strategies Company Examples Philosophy

Ignore Sure and Body Mist roll-ons: No environmental information Closed curtains

Claim Mum roll-on: Cares for you and for the environment—Whatdoes this really mean?

Fudge Arrid, Kyomi, Lloyds aerosol: Ozone friendly/safe—What doesthis really mean?

Dressing Windows

Denial ZR, Sure, Body Mist, Natrel Plus stress removal of CFCs fromaerosols

Disclosure Mum, Kyomi, Body Mist: ingredients list. Sure: companyinformation contact

Explain Tesco: animal leaflet to explain policies on animal use andtesting

Opening doors

Educate Body Shop: The Body Shop book. In store information onenvironmental issues

Embrace Who will be the first?




Ignore

Given the history of APDs and the environment itwas surprising to find products such as roll ons fromSure and Body Mist completely neglecting on-packenvironmental communication (although it isimportant to note that this study has not assessed theimpact of the other company communications, and itis quite possible that these companies are providingadequate environmental information about theseproducts through other channels). Also interestingwas Beauty Without Cruelty’s lack of any explicitenvironmental information, although it could beargued that they consider their brand name andreputation to be synonymous with good environ-mental performance and therefore environmentalcommunication in itself.

Green claims

Companies not actually ignoring environmentallyrelated communication often begin by simply mak-ing some form of green claim. These are often vagueand relatively meaningless, and often appear toreflect the sort of ‘window dressing’ philosophy toenvironmental responsiveness that has inspired thelikes of the ‘Green Con of the Year’ awards. Suchrelatively meaningless communications can never-theless provide some benefits by putting the envir-onment onto the agenda for company strategy as wellas for communication with the customer, and it canlead to more substantive changes later. An exampleof a claim with little substantive meaning is Mumroll-on deodorant’s claim that the product ‘cares foryou and for the environment’, provided without anyinformation to back the statement up. This on-packinformation was discussed in a Which? magazineconsumer test of APDs. The manufactures informedWhich? that this statement was true, as roll-on APDscontainno propellant. As Which? themselves remark ‘Justlike every other roll-on, stick and pump spray, then.’(Consumers’ Association, 1994). The magazinestressed Mum roll-ons had previously been sold withdetachable roller-balls allowing refill of the APD.Whilst this is a green policy, the companyno longer offers this service (Consumers’ Associa-tion, 1994). The company therefore appears to havegone backward in an important area of its eco-per-formance while simultaneously highlighting eco-performance with its on-pack communication which,as a result, comes across as window dressing.

Denials and fudges

The most common response from companies was todeny that their product contained CFCs to preventconsumers discriminating against the product in the

belief that it contained CFCs (as happened to John-son and Johnson aerosol sprays some fifteen yearsafter they had abandoned the use of CFCs). Denyingthe use of CFCs is perhaps helpful to companies toprevent discrimination against their products, but itis not very helpful for customers attempting to makeenvironmentally informed decisions unless thesubstitute propellant is listed.

Arrid and Kyomi brands use the type of languagethat has contributed to consumer confusion by stat-ing that their products are ozone ‘safe’ or ‘friendly’.This is despite criticism that such aerosols, whilst notcontaining CFCs, may contain other environmen-tally damaging substances. The Consumers Asso-ciation (1990) were, for example, critical ofcompanies using CFC-free claims for products con-taining HCFCs, which still damage the ozone layer,albeit more gradually and to a lesser extent (WorldResources Institute, 1993). Other companies haveswitched from the use of CFCs to hydrocarbon pro-pellants, such as propane and butane, which are alsodamaging to the environment and classed as airpollutants (Harte et al, 1991). So whilst a product maybe ozone safe (because of the switch to hydro-carbons) information provided on-pack can stillmislead because hydrocarbons contribute to globalwarming and can be classed as atmosphericallyunsafe.

Disclosure

Disclosure of ingredients used in APD products isimportant because they could have impacts on boththe natural environment and human health. Ethy-lene glycol, a common ingredient in APDs forinstance, has been shown to be a chronic toxin(World Resources Institute, 1993). The chemical isone of the top twenty in global production volume(Harte et al, 1991) and its environmental effects canbe serious. The American Federal Drugs Adminis-tration (FDA) now stipulate that the ingredientcannot be used for cosmetics purposes in creams thatare likely to be applied to large areas of the body, forexample sunscreen lotions. The chemical also hasimpacts upon the natural environment, and in the1990 USA Clean Air Act it was listed as a hazardousair pollutant (Harte et al, 1991).

Tsitoura (1994) in analysing the ingredients ofAPDs for health and environmental impacts foundthat nearly all ingredients, for both aerosol and non-aerosol products, had been tested on animals (suchas rats or rabbits) at some time in the past. All APDsin Tsitoura’s sample contained at least one substancethat is potentially toxic to living organisms (asdefined by EEC Council Directive 67/548/EEC).This means substances capable of causing serious,




acute or chronic health risks and possibly death fromthe inhalation and/or digestion and/or skin pene-tration. Many ingredients such as aluminiumchlorhydrol, butane and CAP 40 can be eye and skinirritants. Others have been shown to have a numberof impacts including tumorigenic, mutagenic, orhaving impacts on human fertility or embryodevelopment (for example zinc carbonate).

Explanation and education

Given the level of consumer confusion surroundingmany environmental issues, it is important forcompanies not just to make claims and denials oreven disclose relevant information, but to actuallyexplain the issues and information to consumers.Further in-store information on animal testing poli-cies provided by Tesco illustrate an explanatoryapproach to green communication. One interestingfinding to note is that own-label products tend toprovide more environmental information thanbranded APDs. Tesco provided information aboutanimal testing, emphasised its glass bottles recycl-ability; it also has a refill bottle for its airspray deo-dorant (although the authors failed to locate anairspray APD in the Tesco supermarket sampled).Tesco also chose to link the on-pack information withother information provided by the company. Thecompany produces leaflets which highlight pro-ducts’ environmental attributes, allowing on-packinformation to be explained in more depth in theleaflets. Other companies such as Cussons UK Ltdand Elida Gibbs also provide a customer contactpoint for information about products and/or thecompany. Beyond simply explaining the nature oftheir products, companies can go one step further totry and actually educate consumers about relevantenvironmental issues. The Body Shop’s in-storeleaflets are a good example of policies aimed ateducating interested consumers.

Can the consumer buy greener APD productswith confidence?

It might be assumed that if interested consumersunderstand the relevant environmental issues, thendisclosing ingredients of APD products is enough toallow for informed and environmentally relatedpurchasing. However problems still arise becausesome ingredients are listed ambiguously, for exam-ple ‘fragrance’ or ‘hydrocarbon’. In other scenariosonly the active ingredients are listed and in somesituations the concentrations of the ingredients arenot stipulated. Thus a vegetarian examining ingre-dients might purchase a product believing it doesnot contain animal ingredients, when a fragrance,

such as musk, could be derived from an animalsource.

Some products (such as Kyomi) stressing ‘natural-ness’ as a customer benefit equating to good eco-performance also may confuse or mislead con-sumers. Even natural ingredients in APD productscan have ecological impacts. For instance bothcamomile infusion and rose oil have been tested onanimals in the past, and while rose oil is a mild toxinto living organisms, camomile infusion is a mildallergen.

Consumers may also believe that as long as pro-ducts meet statutory requirements then they areacceptable in terms of environmental standards andmeet human health and safety criteria. Such con-fidence can be misplaced. All of the substances usedin the APD market meet relevant standards, such asthose of the American Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA). In the USA thecosmetics industry is controlled by the FDA and theFederal Trade Commission (FTC), which stipulatethat a ‘reasonable dose’ of substances used must beharmless to humans (Sweet, 1987). However giventhat 80,000 chemicals commonly used are potentiallyhazardous, if wrongly or accidentally used (Hunt,1989), there is potential for substances contained inAPDs to affect humans health. In the hairspraymarket for example it has been noted that hairstylistsmay suffer the health effects of aluminium zirco-nium (Sweet, 1987). In the USA an environmentalorganisation sued forty three manufacturers of nailpolish, which contained the toxic substance toluene.The environmental group found that for the averagetime a woman takes to paint her nails she would beexposed to five times the recommended EPA expo-sure to the chemical. Twenty three of the companiessettled the claims out of court and reformulated theirnail polishes; the others decided to fight the case(World Resources Institute, 1993). It has also beennoted (Levin et al, 1989) that not enough research hasbeen conducted into the cumulative health andenvironmental impact of potentially toxic sub-stances, and also the combined effects of the type ofsubstances found not only in APDs, but also othercosmetic and general household products. So whilstit is unlikely the substance contained in APDs andindeed other cosmetics are likely to have an impactupon the health of humans, even if ‘reasonabledoses’ are used, there is still the possibility ofadverse health or environmental effects.

Given all of the impacts upon the natural envir-onment when aerosol APDs are used then envir-onmentalists may argue the best environmentalstrategy companies can adopt is to stop producingAPDs in this manner and switch to more acceptable




forms such as roll-on and pump action APDs.Neither the Body Shop nor Beauty Without Crueltyfor example sell aerosol APDs. However whilst someof the major environmental problems with APDs liein the use of propellants for aerosols roll-on productsare not without faults. The greener consumer still hasto contend with issues such as animal testing andinclusion of animal by products.

For cosmetics companies who promote their pro-ducts as ‘environmentally friendly’ because theirproducts do not contain CFCs or have not (or havenot recently) been tested on animals, they havegrossly simplified the situation to the point of mis-leading, or even deceiving, consumers. Loudon andDella Bitta (1988) summarised deceptive advertisingas follows:

If an advertisement leaves the consumer withan impression(s) and/or belief(s) different fromwhat would normally be expected if the con-sumer had reasonable knowledge, and thatimpression(s) and/or belief(s) is factuallyuntrue or potentially misleading, then decep-tion is said to exist.

If we replace ‘advertising’ with ‘on-pack commu-nications’ then it appears the above statement can beapplied to varying extents to much of the environ-mental communication taking place in the APDmarket in the UK today. For the consumer trying toengage in green APD consumption, they are handi-capped by the fact that, despite the front line natureof APDs, the larger cosmetic manufacturers do notappear to be competing with each other on anenvironmental platform. Most companies providethe same information to consumers (namely noCFCs), which makes choosing a product because ofits environmental attributes a difficult one for theconsumer relying on on-pack information. This is asituation that the EU Eco-labelling scheme will atleast partly address.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has examined some of the issues sur-rounding the communication of a green corporateand product strategy. What is clear is the need forstricter guidelines when environmental messagesare constructed; a need which applies across the fullspectrum of corporate and marketing communica-tions media. The case of the APD market illustratesthat companies are still using misleading terms suchas ‘ozone friendly/safe’ on-pack. It is likely that ifsuch problems are occurring in a ‘front-line’ productrange already heavily criticised by environ-mentalists, such approaches will also be found for

other products in other industries. The EU Eco-labelling scheme may provide the impetus for moreand better on-pack information, but further newguide-lines surrounding environmental informationon-pack need to be considered. This recommenda-tion is consistent with the work of others (Bernstein,1992; Davies J.J., 1993; McDonagh and Prothero,1992; Rehak, 1993; Schlossberg, 1991). An importantshort-term improvement would be to make envir-onmental terms such as ‘environmentally friendly’subject to trade description standards, as has beendone in countries like Sweden. This would placecompanies on a better regulated and more levelplaying field and make it easier to win back the trustand confidence of the rather cynical consumer.Without this, criticism of the environmental mes-sages coming from some companies will run intocontinued criticism from environmentalists andconsumer groups, pushing marketing communica-tions into a downward spiral of diminishing cred-ibility. Trade descriptions may mean less greenmarketing communication is practised, but that it isof a higher quality (Irvine 1990).

In the medium to longer term the most importantissues are not to do with the communication ofgreener company strategies, but to do with strategyformulation and execution in pursuit of greenerproducts, production processes and companies.However, without credibility in the marketplacecreated by good communication this may not hap-pen. If companies do not expect to be believed if theyannounce improvements in eco-performance, theywill not expect to gain competitive advantage. Ifcompetitive advantage does not provide an incen-tive for companies to improve, then society must relyon command-and-control approaches or corporatealtruism to create a greener economy. In a competi-tive market economy, unless strategies to greencompanies harness the power of competitive rivalry,they are doomed to relatively slow progress.

Companies need to be seen and believed to bedoing something constructive before environmentalmessages are broadcast. In other words as far asgreen communication is concerned, actions do-speak louder than words. The words, symbols,or images which communicate these actions shouldnot alienate or confuse the organisation’s customersand other stakeholders’, but instead improve theirunderstanding of the company, its products andtheir relationship with environmental problems.Hopefully the early ‘bandwagon jumping’ and‘greenwashing’ phases of environmental responseare almost at an end as we approach the end of themillennium, and we will now move into an erain which companies make progress towards sus-




Appendix 1: Environmental on-pack information for deodorants/antiperspirants

Name CFC FreeNo CFCs

Ozone safeOzone friendly

Refill Recycl-able

Naturalingredients(plant extracts)

No alcohol No animaltesting

Generalinforma-tion

Noinforma-tion

Ingre-dients

AerosolsNatrel Plus(Gillette UK)Imperial Leather(Cussons UK)Tesco Extra Fresh(Tesco Stores)

* *

ZR(Gillette UK)Mum Body Responsive(Bristol Myers)Arrid Extra Dry(Carter Wallace)Sure Sensive(Elida Gibbs)

*

Kyomi(Elida Gibbs)

*

SuperdrugSoft and Gentle(Colgate and Palmolive)Lloyds(Supersave)

*

Body Mist(Smithcline Beecham)

Roll-onsTesco Extra Fresh(Tesco Stores)Sure Body Responsive(Elida Gibbs)Mum(Bristol-Myers)Body Mist(Smithcline Beecham)Natrel Plus(Gillette UK)Tesco Extra Fresh(Tesco Stores)Boots(Boots the Chemists Ltd)Beauty Without Cruelty

AN

DR

EA

PR

OT

HE

RO

,KE

NP

EA

TT

IEA

ND

PIE

RR

EM

CDO

NA

GH

BU

SIN

ES

SS

TR

AT

EG

YA

ND

TH

EE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

T81

#1997

byJohn

Wiley

&Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment.

BU

S.STR

AT.E

NV

VO

L.6:74–82,1997

tainable communication and can communicatesubstantive progress towards sustainability.

REFERENCESBernstein, D. (1992). In the Company of Green, ISBA Pub-

lications.Charter, M. Ed. (1992). Greener Marketing: A Responsible

Approach to Business, Greenleaf Publishing.Coddington, W. (1993). Environmental Marketing: Positive

Strategies for Reaching the Green Consumer, McGraw-Hill.

Consumers’ Association (1990). Green labelling, Which?,January, pp 10–14.

Consumers’ Association (1994). No sweat: anti-per-spirants—on test, Which?, January, pp 17–19.

Cowe, R. and Tran, M. (1994). Roddicks reject legal actionin US, The Guardian, 3 September.

Davies, J.J. (1993). Strategies for environmental advertis-ing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10, (2), 19–36.

Davis, D. (1993), Antiperspirants remain strong despiteregulatory worries, Drug and Cosmetics Industry, 153,(2), 48–49.

Duff, C. (1992). Norsk hydro’s environmental report,Long Range Planning, 25, (4), 25–31.

The Economist, (1994). Storm in A Bubble Bath: The BodyShop’s Green Record Under Attack, 3 September.

Euromonitor (1991). The cosmetics and toiletries report,Euromonitor.

Harte, J., Holdren, C., Schneider, R. and Shirley, C. (1991).Toxics A to Z: A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards,University of California Press.

Hunt, J. (1989). Pollution knows no boundaries, FinancialTimes, 21 April.

Irvine, S. (1990). Green camouflage, Campaign, 16 Feb-ruary, p 42.

Jack, A. and Buckley, N. (1994). Halo slips on the rasp-berry bubbles: the reputation of the Body Shop hasbeen tarnished by ethical questions, Financial Times, 27August.

Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: anempirical study, Environment and Behaviour, 25, (1),126–142.

Levin, S.A., Harwell, M.A., Kelley, J.R. and Kimball, K.D.(1989). Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches,Springer-Verlag, New York.

Loudon, D.A. and Della Bitta, A.J. (1993). ConsumerBehaviour: Concepts and Applications, Fourth Edition,McGraw-Hill, New York.

McDonagh, P. and Prothero, A. (1992) Environmentalmarketing: some practical guide-lines for managers,Irish Marketing Review, 6, 120–126.

McDonagh, P. (1994). Towards an understanding of whatconstitutes ‘green advertising’ as a form of sustainablecommunication’, Paper delivered at the 1st MEG Doc-toral Colloquium, University of Ulster at Coleraine,July, pp 1–10.

Mintel (1991). The Second Green Consumer Report, May1991.

Ottman, J. (1993). Green Marketing: Challenges and Oppor-tunities for the New Marketing Age, NTC BusinessBooks, Lincolnwood, Illinois.

Peattie, K. (1992). Green Marketing, Pitman Publishing,London.

Peattie, K. (1995). Environmental Marketing Management:Meeting the Green Challenge, Pitman Publishing, Lon-don.

Randall, C. (1994). US ‘green’ backs roddick by quitting,Daily Telegraph, 3 September.

Rehak, R. (1993). Greener Marketing and Advertising:Charting a Responsible Course, Rodale Press.

Rock, S. (1989). Are greens good for you?, Director, Jan-uary, p 40–50.

Schlossberg, H. (1991). Consumers more aware, still wantmore info, Marketing News, 25, (25), p 6.

Siminitiras, A.C. et al (1993). ‘Greening’ the marketingmix: a review of the literature and an agenda forthe future, in Chias, J. and Sureda, J. (eds), Marketingfor the New Europe: Dealing with Complexity, Proceed-ingsof the 22nd European Marketing Academy Con-ference.

Smith, N.C. (1990). Morality and the Market: consumerpressure for corporate accountability, Routledge.

Strid, S. and Cater, N. (1993). No free ride for eco-ads,Tomorrow, 3, (2), 45–50.

Sweet, D.V. (1987). Registry of Toxic Effects of ChemicalSubstances, Vol 1–5, US Department of Health andHuman Services, Washington.

Tsitoura, J. (1994). Environmental Issues: An Analysis of theCosmetics and Toiletries Industry, MBA Dissertation,Cardiff Business School.

Vandermerwe, S. and Oliff, M. (1990). Customers drivecorporations green, Long Range Planning, 23, (6), 10–16.

World Resources Institute (1993). The 1994 InformationPlease Environmental Almanac, Houghton Mifflin.

BIOGRAPHYAndrea Prothero, Lecturer in Marketing,Department of Marketing, University of Stirling,Stirling, FK9 4LA.E-mail: [email protected]

Ken Peattie, Senior Lecturer in Strategic ManagementCardiff Business SchoolColum DriveCardiffCF1 3EUE-mail: [email protected]

Pierre McDonagh, Lecturer in marketing,Department of Marketing.University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LAE-mail: [email protected]




Documents

Communicating greener strategies: a study of on-pack communication