The key thing to focus on, however, is how a softening economy might not dampen your own green products sales. In some cases, it just might help.

For instance, according to The New York Times, business is booming for reusable plastic water bottles that make it easy for consumers to use tap instead of bottled water. Information Resources reports that sales of water filters increased 16% in the first half of the year; I believe they should continue to run strong given their association with health; similarly, other products perceived as healthful, e.g., organics, should hold up as well. If you are a green marketer and sell your organic food products on the basis of taste, you may want to use this opportunity to shine a stronger spotlight on your brand's health preventive advantages.

Make money in this downturn by using green marketing to show consumers how they can save money. The press is awash in articles about how consumers are flocking to Goodwill, and Wal-Mart's stock is one of the few blue chips that are up this year, as is that of Campbell's and General Mills. As reported in Business Week, since Wall Street imploded earlier this month, Freecycle.org has been registering 50,000 members per week, up from 25,000, and Freecycle and Freegans (a.k.a. "Dumpster Divers") are among the fastest growing groups on Yahoo!

Even green marketers within the downtrodden financial services industry are finding creative ways to make green from green. According to Mintel, PNC Bank now offers a home equity line of credit for those making green home improvements, and the U.S. Federal Credit Union sells auto loans with lower rates for customers with an eye on high-mileage vehicles.

Green marketing strategies like these can help your business weather today's storm while positioning yourself for growth in sunnier days.

It may be hard to fathom, but over 75% of the environmental impact that a product throws off during its lifetime is determined at the design stage, when, for instance, the materials are chosen, the recyclability of a product is determined, and when the amount of toxic chemicals it embodies is decided. And it doesn't stop at the design stage. Marketers often determine the concept, too. That's where the real leverage for our innovative skills comes in!

Consider a toothbrush. Want to lessen its environmental impact? Start by making it out of recycled plastic, plastic made from corn, and educate on how to recycle or compost it. Then make the head replaceable and recyclable, too. Cut down on its packaging by only wrapping the bristly head. Think you're finished? Not a chance! That's because the toothbrush is part of a system-the water, the toothpaste and the box the toothpaste comes in.

Now multiply all of these impacts over one consumer's lifetime and then again for all the consumers on earth at one time. These cumulative impacts may pale in comparison to substituting an entirely new concept; let's say a stick of edible chewing gum laced with germ fighting enzymes.

Now strategize its way into consumer's hands. Thinks it's too much of a leap to market this idea to adults who might be set in their ways or creep out on the idea of enzymes in their chewing gum? Then start to seed the concept into society by appealing to children. Enlist the help of a "Sesame Street" character and target parents looking to end the nightmare of getting the kids to brush.

Ever heard of a chemist thinking this way? Hell no!

Marketers, start your engines! We're the ones who can dream up new product concepts, and we're the ones who can sell them to mainstream consumers (not just the deep green consumers who are born predisposed to all things "eco.")

Take the Toyota Prius. A fine car with a hybrid engine. Premium price, not too likely to be offset by fuel savings. So what gets consumers over the premium price hump as well as the risk posed by new technology? Answer: A distinctive silhouette that helps owners project their values, on-the-mark advertising that focuses upon such direct benefits as super quiet ride and fuel efficiency. And a publicity machine that engenders the priceless support of Hollywood celebrities showing up at the Oscars in a Prius rather than a stretch limo.

Want to start making a difference on your job? Consider the many other solutions that are waiting in the wings with the potential to capture the attention of consumers with your help. For instance, we already know how to design homes and offices that use energy sparingly. We already know how to make construction materials and commercial and household furnishings that reduce the threats of indoor air pollution. We know how to design kitchens to make it easy for people to recycle and compost waste. We know how to reuse water from indoor plumbing systems to make lawns and gardens thrive. We know how to grow food using fewer or no chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Some of these technologies are being embraced by deep green consumers. But to really make a difference, they need to be embraced by the mainstream. That's where marketers can come in. Ask: What will it take to: Make greener products and behaviors cool? Get all consumers paying the small premiums necessary to bring such products to market? Look to some recent green marketing history for help.

Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater wasn't cool, and it didn't motivate consumers to turn down the thermostat. But the Energy Star label is cool. Why? It relies on technology to create products that are highly efficient as well as high quality (read: requiring no trade-off in consumer habits). A decade's worth of advertising focusing on such benefits plus the attendant savings on home and office electric bills now make the Energy Star label the second most recognized eco-label behind the three chasing arrows denoting recycling.

Herman Miller's Mirra Chair is cool. It not only adheres to strict protocols for eliminating toxics in its manufacture, it can be disassembled for recycling in 15 minutes with normal tools. It is now on its way toward becoming a design icon in its own right, environmental attributes or not.

Tom's of Maine line of personal care products, now owned by Colgate-Palmolive, stresses all that consumers desire in today's personal care offerings: natural (read: safe), good-tasting, and trustworthy. (How many toothpastes do you know that come with an ingredient statement with a full explanation of each ingredient's role, as well as a letter from the head of the company?)

Take a shot at applying your own creativity to develop and market new products that allow consumers to live their lives more sustainably - and make some green marketing history yourself!

On the surface, the results of a recent survey by U.K.'s Climate Group and Lippincott, the brand consultancy firm, seem to fly in the face of what all card-carrying sustainability pros believe - walk the walk or consumers will cry "BS!" The survey found that 76% of Americans couldn't name a single "climate-friendly" company despite significant amounts of investment by American businesses attempting to portray their green bona fides. So what's going on? Has all that investment and green marketing been for naught? I argue not.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that the five companies mentioned most often are GE, BP, Toyota, Wal-Mart, and Exxon. (Ok, I'm a little surprised at this last one.)

Take note of what the survey results are not reporting: If 76% of consumers failed to name a single climate-friendly company, then a solid 24% could. Not bad considering that global climate change has only come to the fore as an issue in the past two years.

Heed the rule of thirds: the bottom third of consumers will never be interested, the top third will influence everyone else, and the middle third will simply follow the leaders. So the critical learning here is that the corporate messages are getting through to the top one-third - right where they're ostensibly having the most impact.

That this top one-third mentioned companies in energy-related industries, suggests they - unlike their counterparts in the other two groups - understand the links between climate and energy-related industries where the potential for the greatest impact lies; normally one would expect to see familiar names like Coke and Procter & Gamble in surveys of this kind.

All five leaders have been investing significant sums advertising their environmental achievements, including Exxon, so it is not surprising that Exxon shows up on the list.

The lessons? Keep in mind that the target audience for sustainability communications is not all consumers but your consumers and other stakeholders. The test of your efforts is not whether an independent survey deems you to be successful, but your own in-depth tracking research. Is your message getting through? To whom? If not,  you may need to adjust such factors as media (deep-green consumers tend to use the internet, and rely on word of mouth from other influentials), media weight and, of course, distinctiveness of your message.

Here are the three factors at play:

1. Recognizability. Eco-logos can reinforce green messages, a welcome benefit for sure. But of the myriad eco-logos on the market, only a few are known to consumers. They consist of the, chasing arrows recycling logo, the Energy Star seal of energy efficiency, USDA Organic logo, and TransFair FairTrade certification; after that recognition drops off significantly.

2. Credibility. The more trusted logos are granted by an independent, disinterested third party. For example, logos promulgated by government organizations like EPA and USDA make the cut. Same goes for the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council's FSC certification for sustainably harvested wood, which tends to be better received than the SFI certification put forth by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, an industry trade group.

3. Comparability. The carbon labeling system described in this article from Ethical Corporation magazine is provocative for sure -- wouldn't it be great if all products came with the carbon equivalent of an environmental nutrition label! But standards don't exist for measuring a product's carbon footprint and, until they do, any product offering one can't adequately be measured against its peers. Again, grounds for confusion.

Businesses that create their own eco-logos might be doing so at their risk. S.C. Johnson's‚ Greenlist logo, announced last week, might in the short term bolster a product's green image, but could one day be taken to task by government, NGOs, or the media for failing to include one or all of these three ingredients. For example, critics might point out that manufacturer-sponsored logos may unintentionally mislead consumers that the "certification" comes from an independent third party, rather than the manufacturer or retailer looking to sell product. Further, products with manufacturer-sponsored green logos have an unfair advantage over products that don't carry a similar seal -- consumers might infer that competitors' products failed to make the grade.

Until things shake out, manufacturers looking to reinforce green bona fides with eco-logos must tread carefully. Specifically:

• Use well-recognized certifications from trusted third parties.
• Ensure that consumers understand that your eco-logo is based on criteria developed by the manufacturer itself, not an independent verifier.
• Use transparent processes for measuring environmental footprint.
• Encourage use of the logo among other players within your industry.

The jury is still out on eco-logos as an effective marketing tool, but as consumers get increasingly savvy on environmental issues and impacts, you'd do well to make sure that, at the very least, they won't work against you.

• Work positively with multi-stakeholder groups to develop standards for carbon labeling. Aim for a scheme that consumers can understand. Nutritional labels provide a good model.

 

• Use trusted labels linked to carbon management, e.g. EPA's Energy Star and The Center for Resource Solution's "green-e" label for renewable energy.

 

• Focus on such internal and supply chain related carbon improvements as energy efficiency and use of renewable power and communicate progress to consumers and employees.

It's hardly surprising that carbon offsets are item number one on the FTC's agenda as it revamps its guidelines on green marketing. The NFL's experience raises some thorny questions that won't be answered anytime soon.

• Be specific. Marketers are liable not only for inaccurate statements but also for consumers' misinterpretations of their claims, as Shell recently discovered. So, don’t just say recycled content or show a chasing-arrows recycling logo (both of which could signal 100% recycled content). Instead, say carton made from 100% recycled paperboard, or minimum 30% post-consumer fiber.
• Don't overstate. Biotas water bottle was theoretically biodegradable, but not compostable in backyard composters or even many municipal composting facilities. Bad press from this claim helped sink the company. (Watch out for Brooks Sports' "biodegradable" footwear insole, which looks poised to make the same mistake.)
• Qualify terms such as refillable, energy-efficient, and reusable. Answer the key questions: How much? For how long? By whom? Where? Compared to what? Avoid saying recyclable, if products or packaging are theoretically recyclable but not collected by municipal recycling programs.

The next time you feel the itch to get a bit too friendly with your environmental claims, know that other green marketing professionals are taking note.

On the surface a comparative green marketing claim such as this one looks pretty innocuous. However, dig a little deeper and you find some issues.
There are two of them: one related to comparing "apples to oranges", the other: are you telling the whole story?

On apples to oranges, laptops versus desktops. Are the desktops they are comparing the laptops to one-for-one substitutes, e.g., comparable machines? If not they could be faulted for comparing a teeny laptop with a big lunky desktop machine. (I suspect they are for different markets and different uses, so it might be a little tricky greenwash-wise.)

Note that the company wants to compare energy in use. However, the fairer comparison for good green marketing is energy consumed over the total life cycle of the products. (You may have heard stories about CFLs consuming a lot of energy in their manufacture - that's why they are so much bulkier than incandescents- it compromises some of the total energy savings over their total life cycle.) So in comparing laptops versus desktops, does one type of machine actually use more electricity to manufacture or ship? In this case, if the laptops use more energy to manufacture or ship, then a comparison claim is compromised since net net, the laptops on balance may consume more energy-hence better to compare laptops to laptops.

Are you comparing your own laptop computer to competitive desktops? All desktops? Probably need to be clear.

To put it conservatively, I think one's best bet is to compare one's laptop only to one's own prior performance - i.e., show consumers that YOU are working hard to do better yourselves. Then, next best thing is to compare laptop to laptop so it's easier for consumers to compare. And if you really want to be authentic-and avoid greenwash-be sure to incorporate total energy consumed throughout the product lifecycle, lest someone fault you for making energy use claims but then find that you're shipping the machines from a much farther place than competitors (or a previous generation of machines).

This is a tricky situation, but more common than you think in the world of green marketing. Please, let me know what you think. What are some challenging claims you've been forced to grapple with?

Jacquelyn A. Ottman
President, J. Ottman Consulting

If the environment is truly influencing as many as 90% of consumer purchasing decisions, chances are respondents are either overreporting to a surveytaker in the interest of looking worthy or, more likely, making a distinction between products that are overtly marketed as green (like Seventh Generation or Greenworks cleaning products) versus a more "silent" green products (such as the Method line). Consider the fact that the Energy Star label now appears on over 50 different kinds of products. Do consumers view Energy Star-labeled products as "green"? Likely not. However, they would admit that seeing the label influenced their decision.

If there is a genuine gap in intention and purchase behavior, there's lots that green marketers can do to close it— all we have to do is look toward the successful brands and learn from their strategies. Key among them is keeping in mind that most consumers (read: everyone but that greener-than-green 26%), don't buy green products for their environmental attributes alone, but for the value those attributes provide: the organic produce that tastes better, the fuel-efficient car that saves money on gas, and the flushable "G" diapers that are more convenient to travel with.

That's what I think is going on. What do you think? Write back and let me know!

Jacquelyn A. Ottman
President, J. Ottman Consulting/ Environmental Marketing and Eco-Innovation