Green Terminology Confuses Consumers Says New Study

Do you know the difference between “energy conservation” and “energy efficiency?”

A new study, conducted by EcoAlign, found that fewer than 1/3 of consumers polled could differentiate between these terms, which many media outlets and companies use with reckless abondon.

EcoAlign, a strategic marketing agency focused on energy and the environment, released the results of the sixth EcoPinion Survey just two days ago. The purpose of the survey was to test consumer awareness and acceptance of terms used by the media and energy industry for messaging and communications around energy conservation, clean energy and smart grid.

What does this result imply about the so-called “green economy” and the related “green consumer” movements? Some might say that while they are good intentioned, and capable of getting people excited, the results of this increased awareness have failed to translate into action or more environmentally friendly purchases.

“The sixth EcoPinion survey confirmed that consumers generally have positive associations with commonly used terms; however, our analysis shows that consumers do not understand the meaning of the terms and that individual consumers perceive little value or personal relevance of the terms with economic barriers being a key hurdle. As a result, the green gap between stated intentions and purchasing behavior still exists” (EcoAlign).

Is this semantic breakdown resulting in the dillution of the issues? Because people are being motivated by terminology that they don’t understand, we will ultimately see more of the ‘same old’ consumption?

A recent article in Green Lifestyle Magazine attemped to tackle the issue of “green” terminology and the ways that it might actually be hurting the movement it was intended to define.

Author Adam Shake writes, “Let’s take away the word Green for a moment. Let’s erase its noun, verb, and adjective meanings. In fact, let’s take away the words Organic and Sustainable, too. What are we left with? Things that are good for the environment and things that are bad for the environment. Utilizing this new bench mark, wouldn’t it make sense to label things ‘Bad’ instead of ‘Good?’ Wouldn’t it make more sense to label things as ‘unnatural’ than ‘natural?’ Wouldn’t this help shift our focus from buying something that will help the environment, to buying something that is bad for the environment?”

The study also found that approximately 2/3 of Americans describe themselves as “cost-conscious saver” or “value buyers” when asked about motivations to use new energy technologies or participate in energy programs.

“Compared to two years ago, consumers today have a greater understanding of the importance of conservation and clean energy but have not moved this awareness into action,” stated Andrea Fabbri, COO and Chief Marketing Officer. “The challenge for communications and marketing professionals is to make sustainability an economic value. This must start from engaging with consumers on a more deeply emotional level to transform beliefs into the values that shape consumer decisions. But it also has to be complemented by solutions that address the economic barriers.”

A copy of the full EcoPinion report is available at no charge by visiting EcoAlign’s website at www.ecoalign.com.

Image Credit: treehugger.com

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Sarah D.

4:05AM PDT on Oct 19, 2009

"The study also found that approximately 2/3 of Americans describe themselves as “cost-conscious saver” or “value buyers” when asked about motivations to use new energy technologies or participate in energy programs."

Which percentage of Americans is that?

We, my family and friends and I, have been trying to be more "green," but for some of us it's a little more difficult than it is for others.

send a green star

Jeffrey F.

8:55AM PDT on Oct 18, 2009

Have you gone Green? This is a question that many are asked. We are just in the process of becoming green and a road that many of us are just embarking on. We are greenhorns when it comes to knowing things green. We need more articles like this one and others to help educate, instruct and guide people to environmental awareness. These articles could define terms and illustrate when government and corporations beguile people with earth friendly sounding terms like “sustainable” so they can sell their dubious products or ideas under the "green flag of approval". The classic example of guile and misrepresentation are cigarette companies showing healthy young people using their products in a myriad of fun and social activities; studies show what lies in their future. The US government saw the error of its ways by requiring warning statements on all tobacco product packaging. I like the idea of an "earth friendly product seal of approval. Perhaps we can use the same type of Mr. Yucky or Mr. Smiley face to educate people to rate whether a product is “consumer and earth friendly” or not. This way, if folks don’t know what the terms mean, they can make their choice when they see the picture. We have many miles to go to change our ways and learn to make wiser choices. We need more signage that tells people where they are at, since we are all in the process of becoming wiser consumers.

Leslie S.

5:08AM PDT on Oct 18, 2009

Lee,

Where do you get your information?? ABC is NOT owned by the govt and although I would agree that news and products are all misleading, it is not due to the govt! ABC is owned by The Disney Corp. and just so you know Walt Disney was one of the biggest anti-Communist activists alive in his time! A right winger and most corporations and media outlets are right wing Republicans and supporters of free trade and profits over people. So don't get on some anti-govt, anti-liberal tirade here. It is by big business and corporations that own these companies and media outlets. You might do a little research (outside the Rush Limbaugh curuit) to find actual fact. PBS is the only channel funded by both private and govt funding and the only place, ironically that you can find actual fact and not infotainment.

megan m.

12:20AM PDT on Oct 18, 2009

Yeah lets keep dumbing down America and just simplify everything to good vs. bad. And who's going to be the authority though on this?
How about we strive for better educating the people instead?
How about we encourage people to actually do research themselves instead of just believing whatever they are told?
Of course labels are going to be confusing and full of loopholes; they are part of products and products make $$$.
ah, Capitalism.
We need to promote a change in attitude, rather than just labels. After all BUYing products, no matter the label, is still ultimately Bad for the environment.

Richard M.

10:10AM PDT on Oct 16, 2009

While "green washing" and consumer ingnorance of sustainable choices significantly retard the application of appropriate technology, I submt that this has more to do with consciousness than economic forces as Andrea Fabbri suggests. It is true that economic factors are significant motivators, but an improved awareness (consciousness) of the impact of human decisions on the universe is a more fundamental driver of choice. I submit that money is a means, not an end in itself, to facilitating optimal behaviors and technology choices. The focus of responsible environmental advocates (marketers and big business included) should be on evaluation, standardization, and education of sustainability benefits.

karen s.

8:02AM PDT on Oct 16, 2009

Who owns ABC? I thought Walt Disney bought ABC.

8:00AM PDT on Oct 16, 2009

Labelling is such a misleading act in American packaging where even as labelled 'naturally' is unnatural.

Organic labelling is misleading for gasoline is organic but one wouldn't drink it, it doesn't mean that it's good.

Health conscious mother's who shop for particular fruit juices may select a cranberry juice for its particular health qualities and though the packaging says cranberry 100 percent juice may be true, 80% percent of that 100% juice content is apple juice with 15% grape juice leaving a minimum percent as cranberry.

High fructose what is that? Well, fructose is a fruit sugar, but why high...is there a low fructose to compare it to; a medium range?

This article brings out some good points. Americans would respond more to no nonsense packaging labelled as simply 'good' or 'bad' for green or health issues.

Lea C.

6:35AM PDT on Oct 16, 2009

You might as well say that government environmentalist are seeking to only confuse the public. The problem is is that everything, including the daily news, is being written by public relation specialists who HIDE information within confusing terminology. They do it on purpose. News reporters are now merely Actors, hired to portray media, reading scripted government information and should be called REPEATERS, not reporters. They merely repeat what they're told to.

ABC was bought by government, therefore it is a STATE owned station now. You'll only hear what THEY want you to hear, which is mostly lies anyway. It's all about political moves and there's NO NEWS in it. Just public relations talking through their eye teeth. The country is really sad. Chief Marketing? Yeah...they're marketing and selling people a line and sadly enough the public 'buys that junk.'