As mentioned in my last post – is green the new red? – proponents of the status quo who fear change are all too willing to dominate the discourse on sustainability in an effort to craft a negative perception in the minds of the public. A branding race has begun. Whomever creates a more compelling brand or the most memorable sound bite wins. It’s too easy for opponents to denigrate the efforts of environmentalists by casting them in dismissive and damaging ways. Who will craft the most buzz-worthy message? Who will have the greater staying power?

One problem facing anyone engaged in the sustainability movement is its lack of absolute definition. A 1987 UN Conference may have said it best when attempting to define sustainable development – meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. That’s a great start, but it’s not a terribly buzz-worthy message. It doesn’t give anyone a clear place to start or path to follow. I think much of the public is confused by, and suspicious of, green messaging. They are looking for someone to outline a comprehensible course. I think consumers are willing to get behind a company’s green efforts and support them with spending, but so long as sustainability opponents portray the facts and terms as nebulous, fuzzy, and potentially malicious, businesses will struggle with this issue. Industry will never embrace sustainability if they doubt the financial feasibility or believe the public questions its worthiness. Let us beat back those attempts to confuse with a message that’s easy to understand, easy to pass on, and easy to remember.

But opponents aren’t the only ones with confusing communication. How often are terms like ‘green’ or ‘eco’ poorly used? Or over used? I recently attended a lecture by Joel Makower where he showed a series of slides demonstrating how green is becoming the new (insert color here) – green is the new black, green is the new pink, green is the new yellow, etc. If green is the new everything, how can it be the new anything? I’ll admit that I did the same with my previous post title – Is green the new red?. My use of the word was sarcastic. I intentionally used it to make a point, but I’ve been moving away from it and shifting to different language. My issue with green is the fact that as a color it already has meaning and associations with no connection to the environment – envy, money, patina, go, etc. A word with too many meanings will not provide the clarity required. Saatchi & Saatchi S (the former Act Now) is making matters worse with its attempt to use the term blue instead of green. CEO Adam Werbach will be releasing a book soon regarding their decision to change the terms they use. How confusing is that? And the prefix eco has its origins in Greek, meaning house. I suppose we could expand our definition of house to include the planet, but that feels forced. It also reminds me of references to the planet as spaceship Earth. I think it requires too much explanation and seems a little corny.

Referring back to the UN definition above, I believe sustainable is the best option. There are those who think its also a term with baggage. They claim it’s not a positive way to describe the condition of anything – i.e. my marriage is sustainable. In that context they’re correct. But in relation to industrial processes, virtually all are currently environmentally destructive. Striving for sustainable is a reasonable target. The ideal goal would be environmentally restorative, but to get there you have to first achieve sustainability. Even as the mid point between destructive and restorative, sustainability will demand great struggle to attain.

I’ll continue this discussion in future posts. So how do we start our own branding effort to fend off opposition and build a positive public reception? A logical starting point is recognizing where we are so we can chart a path to an alternative, and that’s where I’ll go with the next post. Please return tomorrow for the next segment in this series – from industrial age to sustainable age.

related posts:

• September 17, 2009 -- from industrial age to sustainable age (1)
• October 22, 2009 -- national vs. global interests (0)
• October 7, 2009 -- the valley Hannity forgot (2)
• September 14, 2009 -- is green the new red? (3)
• July 16, 2009 -- a world of water, yet so little to drink (0)