Green Lipstick and the Environmental Pig: How to Make a Meaningful Contribution to Sustainability.

April 22, 1970.

The first Earth Day in America.

It could be considered day one for the US environmental movement. Or the tipping point of the baby boom generation’s interest in what was becoming of their environment. We’ll let the academicians debate that.

But the date might be useful as a benchmark for how far we’ve come as a society, and how far we have to go to achieve a meaningful level of sustainability. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, as a marketer you realize that your brand is facing a unique challenge: how to develop a meaningful strategy and competitive advantage in a world confronting increasingly crucial environmental and resource issues.

In the book Green to Gold authors Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston argue that being green is good for business, primarily because waste of any kind is inefficient and therefore costly. That should certainly be one justification for thinking about green or sustainable solutions.

Perhaps no part of the green discussion has occupied center stage more than global warming. And, to be sure, there is no complete consensus on whether global warming is caused by human’s carbon emissions. So, for the sake of discussion, let’s take global warming off the table for a moment. Now ask yourself a question: if carbon emissions were proved to NOT be major contributor to global warming, would you go back to a former, more resource-wasteful lifestyle?

Now, let’s think about business. Your business. We all attend seminars and conferences, hire consultants to help us become more efficient. Yet we continue to waste time, talent and material—all of which adds tremendous costs to our operations. The same, perhaps, can be said about how we live at home—complaining about the costs but continuing to be inefficient in our use of materials and resources.

But cost and waste issues won’t be the only drivers of the discussion about sustainability. In the book Collapse by Jared Diamond, he investigates how over the centuries various cultures have either prospered or been eliminated based on their treatment of, and reaction to, their physical environment. His telling of the story of our ecological progress is depressing, but his conclusions are heartening: we have at our disposal the ability to create the kind of environment that we wish…if we choose to do so.

Maybe you’ve heard the saying “the hardest thing to change is yourself.” True enough, perhaps. Or, perhaps it is possible for groups of people—even large groups—to change their behavior (and the results of their behavior). Who knows, maybe even brands can change, as well.

For example, we know that buildings are great consumers of energy. Some primitive, poorer societies learned to develop efficient ways of providing quality shelter. But, blessed with incredibly inexpensive energy options, we have learned to cut corners on our buildings: poor building designs; improperly situating on sites; inadequate insulation; poor construction oversight; and the list goes on.

The result of these cost cuts can be felt in inefficient design and construction practices that drive up energy (and other) costs while often times reducing comfort. It is no coincidence that we are suffering rapidly increasing allergy and asthma issues because of poor indoor air quality; that toxins in our water compel many people to resort to drinking bottled water*; even the minor inconvenience of finding that certain rooms in our buildings are either too hot, too cold, but not often enough just right.

To be fair, construction is just one of many human activities that could be much more efficient. But the point to be made by this example is that you get what you settle for. Pay me now or pay me later. This is especially true for brands—cut corners now, pay later.

The good news is that we, as a society, have made progress. Our emissions for many energy intensive activities have been reduced, air quality in many places is arguably better than it was on Earth Day 1970. But this is not enough. We must accept responsibility—as consumers for the purchase and lifestyle decisions we make, and as marketers for the products and services we develop, produce and market.

We have an obligation to our collective futures to purchase and consume wisely as consumers, and to market products and services that are as eco-friendly and sustainable as possible. While it may be better to screw in one compact fluorescent light bulb than to curse the darkness, it may be even better to switch on an LED.

Brands that truly embrace sustainable approaches to business may be rewarded with lower costs, increased consumer (and channel) acceptance, a better reputation and potentially high returns. Brands that try to put “green lipstick on the environmental pig” may not be so fortunate.

* In the US, more than 26 billion bottles of water are consumed every year, many of them outside of the home where there is little opportunity for recycling.