I take issue with the label Green, here’s why.

Published on July 21, 2010 in blogging, business, clean tech, environment, social media and technology. Comments Tags: BP, business, cleantech, communications, cop15, Copenhagen, environment, green, marketing, Obama, population, social media, sustainability.

From a mainstream communications point of view, I think there’s a growing issue with labeling things “Green”, or having a separate category for Green, as is nearly always the case. It’s true, a few individuals, organisations and businesses have started to move beyond using the Green label but most have not yet.

Mainstream backdrop

A little background is in order first. Over the past few decades, since the sixties and even before that, there has been growing concern around the world over rising pollution levels and increasing environmental degradation in general. In addition, world population is now approaching seven billion people, estimated to reach nine billion around 2050.

Further, since the eighties, mounting scientific evidence of human induced climate change (despite ongoing attempts to discredit the science), has become occasional front page news, and pretty much never out of the news completely. That’s most unlikely to change over the coming years.

We had the situation late last year where governments who agree that climate change exists and is a significant problem, met in Copenhagen to attempt to hash out a binding global agreement to curb global emissions. There was unprecedented media attention on the COP15 event and an enormous amount of pressure from different individuals and groups to achieve a sensible outcome. Needless to say, there was an accord reached but expectations were not met at Copenhagen.

However, it’s not over by a long shot. Global warming is still on the agenda and it’s not going away. As I said on Twitter the other day, I’m 100% convinced that climate change will continue to cause catastrophic damage to the careers of quite a few of the world’s politicians. In Australia (where I live), Kevin Rudd’s position as Prime Minister comes to mind. Among other issues, after publicly staking so much on it, he never really recovered from the failure at Copenhagen and his party’s failure to get a proposed emissions trading scheme signed into law. He was ousted from within the party after a significant drop in the polls. The new leader, Julia Gillard, will face the issue again should she be reelected.

The problem with Green

So given the contemporary situation, what’s my issue with the current proliferation of the “Green” label or category? What’s not to like? What we have appearing all over the place recently are things like Green sections on popular news blogs, sites and in newspapers. We have Green products proliferating, and companies advertising the new Greenness of their products and services, in some cases whether they are actually more environmentally friendly or not.

“Greenwashing” is a term I have less of a problem with by the way, as it seems like a fairly descriptive and accurate term for what has gone on in some cases. BP’s Beyond Petroleum makeover springs to mind as an obvious example, but there are many subtler versions out there. But I digress.

Now, after Copenhagen, we have governments such as the Obama Administration talking up a much needed push towards a new, emerging green economy, and the many green collar jobs that will create. We have technology related blogs and sites introducing Greentech sections. We have Green online social networkers wanting to build sizeable communities and become ‘friends’ with as many people as possible in order to help spread the word and get action on various environmental issues.

Don’t get me wrong, this is all well and good. Green has been useful and has worked well to attract and communicate with a certain percentage of people. I don’t think the fact that there’s a growing awareness and a proliferation of information, ideas and action is bad at all. It’s brilliant! The main reason I now have a issue with the label “Green”, is that we have got to the point where it’s going to marginalise what needs to become very mainstream, ubiquitous in fact.

So what next?

There are many people, perhaps the majority, who do not want to identify as Green and probably never will. Green is a turn off to many. Even though the label Green has become a lot more mainstream, to many it still conjures up images of hippies, “greenies”, “treehuggers” and environmental activists climbing chimneys.

But hey, guess what? A lot of these people would still like to help fix the environment even though they don’t identify with the Green label. Many might switch to clean power given half a chance, rather than use coal-fired power, if it comes at the right price that is. Many might buy an electric car one day that runs on clean energy. They might buy it because the technology is more advanced and it’s more efficient. They might buy more environmentally friendly products, but because they are better quality products, not just because they are greener. They might buy locally grown food, it might be organic, but they might buy it because it tastes better and is healthier, and because Jamie Oliver says it’s better. But green? No not me.

We will have big businesses who come to realise that investing in clean technologies, efficiencies and more sustainable production processes will in the long run make them even more profitable. It will also give them a leading edge when it comes to how their brand is viewed by the public, their customers, suppliers, shareholders and by the media. They won’t have to shout “we’re Green” and try and make it stick. It’ll become obvious they are making real changes when perhaps others aren’t doing so much.

The issues need to be so mainstream that they need to be integrated within many other information categories: news, technology, politics, business and finance, transport, energy, food, lifestyle, you name it. The majority of people in the world are going to need to change the way we live and work in order to move towards a more sustainable situation. Having a Green category that appeals to only a minority (admittedly growing) percentage of people is simply not going to be enough to do the job.

So I think it’s time to move beyond the Green label. It’s been useful but it’s served its purpose. It is happening to a certain extent but it needs to go much further. Most of the time I think Green in used for want of something better. I think sustainability is not a bad term to use within businesses. I think the term Clean is useful when talking about the clean economy, clean energy and cleantech. Eco can be useful but is a bit like Green in that it has often been used as a greenwashing instrument. Perhaps we need some new terms. Perhaps we don’t need a new label at all. After all, the idea of, and push for a more sustainable future needs to become so mainstream that it doesn’t have a name anymore, it’s just normal. We have a long way to go.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree we need to move beyond “Green”?

Share This Post:

Technorati Tags: BP, business, cleantech, communications, cop15, Copenhagen, environment, green, marketing, Obama, population, social media, sustainability

Diana

Labels are useful on filing cabinets and storage jars but they can be misleading. I renamed my Green Twitter list as Holistic Planet to represent a wider range of organisations and people who are working towards making the world a better place. Ironically, the first result for Holistic Planet on Google read "Not Found. Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here". I'm ever hopeful.

jjprojects

Thanks Diana, ah well you see, I just Googled Holistic Planet and although that is still the first result (for now), the number two result is your Twitter, so you're making headway already :)

servantofchaos

I often find that there are questions around label or brand precisely at the point where it begins to become mainstream. Those who have been part of the movement from the edge to the centre experience fatigue at precisely the point they need to redouble their efforts. So the question is not really whether we need a new label or brand.

The equity that has been stored in the term "Green" over the last 20 years is extremely valuable. It may not be the best term, but it's the best we have. It is not time to marginalise an important issue by changing the name, it is time to build on 20 years of discussion, debate and support and bring it to the mainstream.

jjprojects

Thanks Gavin, yes, I'm certainly not saying we need to marginalise the issue by changing the name. I'm saying the same thing really, that we need to build on it, open it up so it can become totally mainstream.

I don't think green is going to do the whole job though, although, as I said, it's been really useful. The thing is, people in suits in boardrooms, the people who can really make a difference in terms of emissions (for example), I think need something a little different to drive change.

If we are going to have labels, whatever works is fine I think - sustainability, clean _____, slow food, eco____. I think Green though, is always going to turn off a certain group of people, perhaps those that can actually make the biggest difference.

servantofchaos

Business people won't seriously turn away because of a label. They will turn away because there is no linkage between the issue and its impact on their business. The real challenge is making that tangible link.

jjprojects

True. I'd say when (not if) there is eventually a price placed on carbon, that will force the issue to a certain extent, as far as climate goes anyway. The issue is wider than climate though of course.

Gregory

Interesting John. It hadn't occurred to me before but I'm turned off voting for Bob Brown's political party, The Greens, for much the same reasons. Maybe if they changed the name it would reflect a shift from green as marginalised to mainstream, where it needs to be, and they would attract more swinging voters at next months Australian election?

jjprojects

Perhaps you are correct there Greg. I doubt they'd consider a name change but some of their policies are certainly starting to appeal to a wider group of people, given the situation we find ourselves in. I know quite a few people who like some of their policies but just hate the name The Greens.

JulieG

Interesting. I think *a* label is necessary, in order to distinguish the qualities we are looking for from 'business as usual'. But Green doesn't necessarily have to be *the* label. However, I don't have any useful suggestions for replacing it.

In the past, I've seen things like health concerns and job concerns and lifestyle concerns bring people over to a greener way of living, without them specifically seeking out Green as such. It's only after they're on board that their tolerance for the label and the more difficult issues increases.

Perhaps we need more of a lifestyle label than an issues-based one. Not a marketing driving one (although I'm sure the PR flacks will co-opt it as soon as we think of it), but a real grassroots thing.

jjprojects

Thanks Julie, yes, I understand what you mean about people coming to a somewhat different way of living after health, job and lifestyle concerns, quite often stress related it seems. Along with environmental concerns, there seems to be a growing awareness that many of our contemporary lifestyles are unsustainable.

So many people spend an incredible amount of hours at work, often to the detriment of their health, friends and family. I know in Australia, on average, we now work some of the longest hours in the world. Laid back Australia is a bit of a myth these days. Many of the people who have made changes, or have been forced to make changes after a health scare (for instance) wouldn't consider themselves Green for doing so.

As far as the labels go, sure marketers certainly love a label. The environmental movement certainly came out of a grassroots thing, and it seems to me like there is a growing movement now that doesn't have a label. Sometimes labels are put on it, but its many things many possible labels - the slow food movement, organics, sea and tree changes, cleantech. To my mind, it's all part of the same thing, and it is grassroots at its core.

Jacob

The primary problem with "green" is that it has been commercialized (along with clean and sustainable) and because the commercial model isn't really sustainable (it relies on growth because the resource cycle isn't complete --- economics essentially has it wrong, and consequentially, so does the credit based money system), "green" is no longer useful. Now it is a way to sell more products, cleantech, cars with another drive system, 10% more efficient refrigerators, etc.

The "green" political solution is either to find a word or some sematics that can't be corrupted, or, more effectively ... find a way that renders the current economic model obsolete.

I have a modest suggestion ...

jjprojects

Thanks Jacob, I appreciate from our ongoing conversations on Twitter you've thought about these things in some detail. What I find particularly interesting is what you are saying in relation to the emerging "sustainable" or "clean" commercial model not being sustainable either, because it still relies on unsustainable resources, and as you say, the economics essentially has it wrong. Rare Earth metals mining comes to mind here, which get used in quite a few cleantech products. I think you've said too, that clean energy isn't going to be efficient enough to completely do the job that fossils are doing now. Is that right?

I guess time will tell. I'm assuming there will eventually be a price placed on carbon and that will drive a boom in a whole new set of industries and should make some older ones not viable in the long term. I might also say that it could lead to a boom and bust cycle in the area of cleantech, just as we had one in hi-tech at the turn of the century.

There is of course potential there for a sub-prime type investment situation developing, if carbon trading takes off. I can just see people investing in speculative schemes that don't exist on the ground, and then that all come tumbling down.

Sedge

Good post JJ. I've had an awareness of (and empathy for) environmental issues for the last 20+ years and I've never really liked the label green. I even like it less now that it’s plastered on everything and anything and lost much of its original definition and meaning. I think the term will necessarily fall into disuse and something will take its place - for the very reason that people will be less and less sure of what it actually means. However something else will take its place - and then be equally used and abused. But I guess this is the problem of labels fullstop. I think everyone could benefit by meditating more. The Buddhists are keenly aware that labels prevent us from see the real essence of things, which we can only know by approaching the world with awareness, humility and compassion. They rock.

jjprojects

Thanks Sedge. Hippie! No but seriously, you're probably right about another label taking its place. We seem to need to put a label on things and ideas for some reason. Perhaps for this, we will have quite a few different labels that end up being used at the same time - green, clean(tech, energy, economy), eco, sustainable (business) and more, because it's so big. Then no label, because it all just becomes integrated into the way we live and work, and becomes somewhat normal. That would be a fair way off though.

Téa Brennan

Wouldn't you prefer that instead of distancing ourselves from the word "Green", that we acknowledge that the "treehugger" thing is just a stereotype?

Why should we run away from the label just because we are afraid of being painted as extremists? Because as I see it, Green is not just environmentalism, but a whole move towards participatory democracy, social fairness (not socialism) and sustainable living. These aren't buzzwords, they are necessary.

I am proud to be Green. But environmentalism is not why I am a Green. I believe in not being greedy. I believe in being kind to those who are vulnerable. I believe in eating local produce, and respecting our surroundings. It just so happens that these social principles are also environmentally friendly.

So for me, I would much prefer to be a proud Green and have people grow up and realise that it is more than just environmentalism. Why should I run from a false stereotype?

jjprojects

Thanks Téa, Sure, if you are proud to call yourself Green, absolutely, there should be no problem with that at all. You should not run from that, of course. And yes, we should acknowledge that "treehugger" is just a steerotype. In fact, the popular blog Treehugger has done a good job of acknowledging that and taking it more into the mainstream. "Hip not Hippie" is one of their taglines.

Having said that, there a are many people who would not visit there just because of the name. That's a shame.

What I'm talking about is the people who are never going to identify that way. How do we get them involved? Because, you know, for this thing to really work, we have to get them involved. I'm talking about widening it out, not obliterating what has gone before.

jjprojects: our social web