What is it with marketing and brands that they always seem to end up in the spotlight of sustainability critique? Shouldn’t marketing, brands and sustainability be regarded as two sides of the same coin? One person that should know is Marc Mathieu (@marcfmath), Unilever vice president for marketing. According to him, it is the power and reach of brands and marketing which makes them the scapegoat for many of society’s troubles today: the ills of capitalism, the destruction of the planet, the perversity of globalisation, or the shame of over-consumption. And while this might be true in some cases, it certainly isn’t the whole picture, as brands also have the power to make positive change.
After all, as Marc writes in the magazine Marketing Week, brands “have the ability to rally millions of people behind a story, cause or belief bigger than themselves. Marketing can understand people, identify their needs, invent stories and shape behaviors – creating popular culture along the way.”
The problem is, by itself sustainability isn’t a particularly powerful notion. It’s complex, difficult to understand and people don’t always see why it matters to them or, in other words, what’s in it for them. “They think it’s an issue for governments or the businesses that caused the problem in the first place.” On the other hand, most of us will have heard about the need to alter our lifestyles and the way things are done if we want future generations to be able to flourish and thrive. As Marc puts it, “something has got to give. Something has got to change.”
For Marc, it all comes down to marketers making use of their skills to shift public consciousness and to lead the way to a future where sustainable living can be commonplace. “Marketing and brands can be used to help us do things we really need, with resources we can manage, to impress people we should care about – the children of tomorrow, the generations to come.” He couldn’t be more right.
Read the whole article in Marketing Week
Picture credit: Manu_H
Related articles
-
What the sustainability movement can learn from Apple (sustainablefutures.info)
- Too much fluff in sustainability labels and advertising (sustainablefutures.info)
- Is the term sustainability fit for purpose? (guardian.co.uk)
More on sustainability communication
Interesting subject. Thank you for publishing this.
Sustainability is often promoted as a bad brand: it is forbidden, you have to reduce, do with less… etc. Does not sound attractive and it isn’t at all. I have been involved with a sustainability project three years ago. I learned that a lot of sustainable actions are bringing a change, but very often a positive one (without looking at the sustainability). Comfort, Economy, My direct environment were three criteria with which we assessed the sustainable actions and we found out that they all have a lot of value to sell. So in conclusion true, Marketing could help out better than laws and regulations, as there is a lot of value to sell
Posted by Bart Norré | January 14, 2013, 08:48You’re right Bart, sustainability is too often lumped with missing out yet getting by with less is a very liberating exercise.
We seem to be awash with greenwash – obviously because the consumer wants to buy solutions.
To me branded items are goods someone is taking responsibility for and brands that take on a sustainbility label had better plan the thing through: it is not so much what we do but how we do it – low carbon/waste manufacture, cradle to cradle design, ripple affects at every stage of manufacture, use and reuse. It is big but not impossible and gives a moral imperative to brand loyalty.
Posted by Sue Ni | January 14, 2013, 12:22Good points, Bart and Sue. The tricky thing with more marketing and less regulation is that – especially in times of economic and financial crises – businesses tend to stick much closer to their financial bottom line and see the wider implications (society, environment) as further down the priority list. Likewise, governments can’t afford generous stimulation or green promotional packages. And of course there are always the ‘travelling manager’ type of business leaders whose commitment to one company only lasts a couple of pay checks, often with no real interest in making it sustainable or a respected and trusted corporate citizen in the long run. All those scenarios and examples require regulation, clear and effective rules set by the government, to make sure that even in economically difficult times we (though mostly the companies) are not “accidentally” destroying the basis for future life and prosperity: nature, natural resources, climate, social justice (=peace) – you name it.
Sue, your definition of branded items as those “someone is taking responsibility for” is great. I never thought about it that way. It gets more tricky with place or destination brands though, as there are so many stakeholders and factors involved…
Posted by Florian Kaefer (@floriankaefer) | January 15, 2013, 07:58