29 March 2010

Greenwashing works

I got this via FCRN:

"Sustainability brand consultants Change have published a study in partnership with the organisations Climate Counts and Angus Reid Public Opinion. The study incorporates both actual measurements on climate change action being undertaken by over 90 companies across North America, and perception measurements of these companies’ actions by consumers. Companies include Coca-Cola, Groupe Danone, Nike, Gap, P&G, L’Oreal, Microsoft and Amazon.com.

The actual scoring on climate change action was provided by Climate Counts as part of their annual climate change study of well-known consumer companies. The perception measurements, meanwhile, were provided by Angus Reid Public Opinion, and include over 2,000 American adults in a random sample.

The companies were grouped by sector (food/beverage shown), and the results illustrated in ‘perception / reality’ maps. In total, 10 sectors were mapped. Across every sector, MapChange showed a disparity between actual sustainability activity of brands, and consumer perception of sustainable activity of those brands – some were perceived as being greener than they actually are, while for others the opposite is true."

Here's the full report.

1 comment:

  1. That's interesting, but leaves me with at least one big question I wish they'd addressed:

    What percent of their income were companies spending on branding themselves green? Did this campaign cause/enhance the perception? Or, is the perception just a general sense considering the particular industry? (For example, I'm thinking about Apple just being thought of as more green, whereas GE has done a lot to make itself look green).

    ReplyDelete

Spammers, don't bother. I delete spam.