Half of consumers shun brands that don’t label carbon footprint
Share
Nearly half of consumers would shun brands that aren’t taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint, according to a new report by the Carbon Trust.
The figure has doubled from last year when only 22% of shoppers said they would avoid brands that didn’t measure or reduce their carbon footprint.
More than a fifth (21%) of consumer would pay more for brands that label their products with the carbon impact and 47% are more likely to choose low carbon labelled goods over non-labelled.
The Carbon Trust surveyed 1,000 adults in the UK during February and March 2011.
The Carbon trust says the findings underline the need for corporate leadership on carbon reduction.
It also claims that only 59% of FTSE 100 companies have clear targets to cut carbon footprints.
Tom Delay, chief executive, the Carbon Trust, says: “The Government’s decision to set a legally binding target on greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020 makes it clear that the UK intends to be a global leader in the low carbon economy.
“Taken alongside increased consumer demand for low carbon products, 2011 is the year for businesses to develop strategies and set clear targets to help them plan and capitalise on green growth opportunities.”
Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:53 am
Why does the Carbon Trust not send this information (heavily emphasised) to Advertising Agencies and Media Buyers to encourage them to tell manufacturers that this is a dramatic change in public opinion and that they should refer to their carbon efficiency in all their ads.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:10 pm
This is spin in action! Saying if you had two products and one had the mark and one didn't you would probably choose the one that did isn't that remarkable. However to shun brands? I many would, particularly if they're cheaper.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Burke | Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:48 pm
I'm highly suspect of these claims. First, because the research appears to have been conducted by an interested party. Second because you can't trust what consumers say (if environmentalists asked you if you recycle, wouldn't you feel pressure to say yes?), only what they actually do. And, currently, neither 47% or even 21% pay more for cleaner/greener/fairer goods than for dirtier, child labor-produced inexpensive ones.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Keith Trivitt | Tue, 28 Jun 2011 1:42 pm
It's interesting to see that in the UK, consumers are calling for more green labels on products. Here in the US, there is beginning to be a backlash against this, primarily because the green marketing industry has been largely unregulated for so long, which has allowed almost any brand that wanted to place a green or environmentally friendly label on its products.
This led the Federal Trade Commission to begin a review of its environmental marketing guidelines, which were last updated in the 1990s.
The Public Relations Society of America participated in this review (http://ow.ly/5rT6u) and shares the view of the FTC that the public is best served by a limit in “blanket” or general claims of “environmental friendliness"; an industry-wide end to the use of spurious or misleading certifications or seals of approval; and full disclosure of verifiable claims regarding a product or service’s environmental benefits (and limitations).
It will be interesting to see if the UK market has a similar backlash from consumers as green marketing practices continue to proliferate.
Keith Trivitt
Associate Director of Public Relations
Public Relations Society of America
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 29 Jun 2011 1:23 pm
I find this very hard to believe, especially in the US.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Cameron Natley | Wed, 29 Jun 2011 3:57 pm
Isn't this a story based on engineered results? Mr Burke above was right, in that it's an interested party creating a favourable outcome.
Mr Trevitt - it's similar here with regards to beauty products claiming that they "do not test on animals". Strangely the law requires that ANY new ink, drug or chemical MUST pass tests on animals before it receives a licence. The end product being advertised may not have been tested, but the constituent parts will have been, but this can easily be glossed over... Surely you would think that these days consumers are more savvy to be led by such tactics?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim Cotter | Fri, 1 Jul 2011 2:42 am
It's great if research like this encourages businesses to take carbon labeling and green issues in general more seriously.
However, I agree with Paul's comment above. What people say and what they do is miles apart. The Australian Food and Grocery Council last year found that 84% of shoppers were concerned about the environmental impact of their purchasing, but only 13% had deliberately bought a product based on it's green credentials.
But I guess it is better than research revealing that people don't care at all - at least we have something to work with.
Tim Cotter
Awake
www.awake.com.au
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment