UK marketers have overwhelmingly named Marks & Spencer as the UK’s greenest brand in Marketing Week’s latest investigation into the profession’s views on environmental commitment, carried out together with YouGov. The online survey was carried out between February 20 and 29.
By a huge margin, M&S is seen by marketers as the brand that has made most inroads on green issues in recent years.
The fact that M&S announced that it would levy a small charge for its plastic bags on February 28, might have given it a significant green publicity boost.
This undoubtedly contributed to its strong showing in our survey, although the findings appear to also reveal a residual belief in the retailer’s commitment to saving the environment. This may be carried over from the launch of its “Plan A, because there is no plan B” campaign last year. It may also bear witness to the retailer’s standing as a responsible high street operator.
Others did not perform as well and some that we might has expected to be leading lights, such as the Co-Op, for instance, did not do all that well in the overall showing. Then again, I think that the strength of the Co-Op lies in it ethical commitments, rather than, necessarily, in how green it may be. For the time being at least.
One striking theme of the survey is the strong performance of car brands.
Honda is regarded as the most environmentally responsible automaker, taking sixth place with 17 mentions in the list of those with the best green reputation.
But on the measure of those that have made the greatest inroads into green issues in recent years, Toyota takes fifth place and Honda comes sixth. Evidently the hybrid electric/fuel powered models launched by these Japanese brands have earned them the green esteem of marketers.
One of the most surprising aspects of this survey was the relatively weak performance of brands that could have been perceived as “deep green”. The Body Shop barely scrapes into the top ten on recent inroads it has made, just pipping the Co-operative brand, which makes much of its ethical credentials, to ninth position. As I have said already above, as regards to the Co-Op; its strength, presently, still lies in its ethnic credentials and I rather see deep ethical commitment with less green than green commitment without the ethical part.
Other fascinating insights gleaned from our research include the aversion of marketers to the idea that brands should pay a green tax. They believe it is the Government’s responsibility to take care of the costs associated with going green.
While the marketeers might claim this and believe this others, like those of us in the “green movement”, of whichever persuasion, I am sure, would go along with the government line here; namely that brands that do not do their bit for the environment – and on an ethical level, I would like to add – should le levied a tax in order to help green development and such elsewhere. A tax is what is needed as long, and only as long as it does not disappear into the coffers of the Treasury, like so many other funds raised via taxes, and ends up doing something else than what it is intended for.
What you mean “don't I trust the government?” Sure I do – NOT!
Meanwhile, it has emerged that the majority of companies do not have a green budget but still want to be seen as more green. A high number think they already have green credentials. But when examining their behaviour in detail, it emerges that many of them do little more than recycling. Few offset their carbon emissions or are carbon neutral.
But there is also considerable reticence on the part of marketers to make much of their brand’s environmental credentials. This is summed up by the comment of one marketer who says: “A green policy seems to be enough. On the one hand there is strong interest in showing you are aware and doing something about it, but on the other a high degree of cynicism over greenwash when a brand makes too much of their green credentials.”
One surprising finding is that it is senior people who are the main force pushing green issues rather than marketers lower down the scale. It might be expected that younger marketers would be more in tune with green issues. Maybe some feel they are not in a position to do much about it.
Marketers’ views on brands’ environmental credentials stand in contrast to those of the general public, who tend to mark deep green brands more highly. But our survey shows that companies which are perceived to be promoting responsible practices will garner the plaudits for their green activities.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
By a huge margin, M&S is seen by marketers as the brand that has made most inroads on green issues in recent years.
The fact that M&S announced that it would levy a small charge for its plastic bags on February 28, might have given it a significant green publicity boost.
This undoubtedly contributed to its strong showing in our survey, although the findings appear to also reveal a residual belief in the retailer’s commitment to saving the environment. This may be carried over from the launch of its “Plan A, because there is no plan B” campaign last year. It may also bear witness to the retailer’s standing as a responsible high street operator.
Others did not perform as well and some that we might has expected to be leading lights, such as the Co-Op, for instance, did not do all that well in the overall showing. Then again, I think that the strength of the Co-Op lies in it ethical commitments, rather than, necessarily, in how green it may be. For the time being at least.
One striking theme of the survey is the strong performance of car brands.
Honda is regarded as the most environmentally responsible automaker, taking sixth place with 17 mentions in the list of those with the best green reputation.
But on the measure of those that have made the greatest inroads into green issues in recent years, Toyota takes fifth place and Honda comes sixth. Evidently the hybrid electric/fuel powered models launched by these Japanese brands have earned them the green esteem of marketers.
One of the most surprising aspects of this survey was the relatively weak performance of brands that could have been perceived as “deep green”. The Body Shop barely scrapes into the top ten on recent inroads it has made, just pipping the Co-operative brand, which makes much of its ethical credentials, to ninth position. As I have said already above, as regards to the Co-Op; its strength, presently, still lies in its ethnic credentials and I rather see deep ethical commitment with less green than green commitment without the ethical part.
Other fascinating insights gleaned from our research include the aversion of marketers to the idea that brands should pay a green tax. They believe it is the Government’s responsibility to take care of the costs associated with going green.
While the marketeers might claim this and believe this others, like those of us in the “green movement”, of whichever persuasion, I am sure, would go along with the government line here; namely that brands that do not do their bit for the environment – and on an ethical level, I would like to add – should le levied a tax in order to help green development and such elsewhere. A tax is what is needed as long, and only as long as it does not disappear into the coffers of the Treasury, like so many other funds raised via taxes, and ends up doing something else than what it is intended for.
What you mean “don't I trust the government?” Sure I do – NOT!
Meanwhile, it has emerged that the majority of companies do not have a green budget but still want to be seen as more green. A high number think they already have green credentials. But when examining their behaviour in detail, it emerges that many of them do little more than recycling. Few offset their carbon emissions or are carbon neutral.
But there is also considerable reticence on the part of marketers to make much of their brand’s environmental credentials. This is summed up by the comment of one marketer who says: “A green policy seems to be enough. On the one hand there is strong interest in showing you are aware and doing something about it, but on the other a high degree of cynicism over greenwash when a brand makes too much of their green credentials.”
One surprising finding is that it is senior people who are the main force pushing green issues rather than marketers lower down the scale. It might be expected that younger marketers would be more in tune with green issues. Maybe some feel they are not in a position to do much about it.
Marketers’ views on brands’ environmental credentials stand in contrast to those of the general public, who tend to mark deep green brands more highly. But our survey shows that companies which are perceived to be promoting responsible practices will garner the plaudits for their green activities.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Post Title
→M&S tops green issues marketers’ poll
Post URL
→https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/03/m-tops-green-issues-marketers-poll.html
Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
