Hotels and Lodging: Eco-Friendly Renovations or Greenwashing?

In a previous post, I explored some environmentally-ethical controversies within the fashion industry. The main issue I pointed out was that even if designers are not using animals as materials for their next clothing line, is it really fair to send exotic animals down the runway as a part of their fashion show. When it comes to marketing, it is important to know where the ethical line should be drawn. This is crucial for the consumer because marketing tactics do not want to be seen as misleading. This week I explored the blogosphere in search of what criteria marketing efforts go through to ensure they remain ethical; more specifically to avoid the practice of "greenwashing". Greenwashing is the practice of claiming environmental responsibility without backing up this claim. The term was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld in response to the hotel industry's efforts to go green. These efforts included displaying green placards, reusing guest's towels, and claiming overall environmental friendliness, which in fact proved to have little to no legitimacy and was used purely for profit. While we still see greenwashing today, and will continue to in the future, there are many hotels that are trying to combat this bad reputation by upholding to standards set by hotel search engines, the six sins set by TerraChoice, and the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED rating system. One interesting post I found titled "PKF: Green building operations favorably impact asset value" discusses how true profit can emerge from legitimately making hotels green. However we notice in this post that profit is the primary concern. On a more earth-friendly note, I found a very interesting post by Kerri titled "Touting eco-credentials is hot marketing trend for hotels", which discusses how one couple dedicated to helping the environment truly created a green bed and breakfast inn.

"PKF: Green building operations favorably impact asset value"
Comment:

This is a very interesting and informative post. I think the concept of greener hotels has been on a lot of owners minds for a while, and the prospect that new developments will undergo soon is a comforting thought. I find this post particularly interesting because it seems that there are only positives for company managers and owners to make their hotels greener. The problem that I see, which is a problem with all reconstruction for greener purposes, is timing and profit or funding. When it comes to new developments and renovation, the eventual return on investment needs to outway the costs. With the information you propose this deems true, however owners and investors will not see these returns for some time. That is where a huge drawback lies. Furthermore with the rising cost of fossil fuels, hotels will inevitably need to switch to alternative energy sources in the future, so why not now? I find the quote from Bose, “For every dollar you can add to the bottom line of a San Francisco hotel, more than $11 is added in value,” very interesting. This is definitely incentive for greener renovations, even if they will not immediately be seen. Another problem that I could see being a drawback is that state of the economy. The dark shadow looming over consumers disposable income means that there is a lot less vacationing and a lot less hotel room spending. Furthermore, with the high costs of renovation, there seems to be a lack of that extra push to get eco-friendly changes underway. Another issue that is very relevant to hotels and environmentally friendly actions is the idea of greenwashing. It is comforting to know that Bose claims that “in contract negotiations with companies, consortia and government agencies for all of their travel and meetings business, hotel operators are being asked not only to confirm that they use sustainable business practices, but to prove it by naming the awards and certifications they have earned.” It is time that we can move on to a greener world and hopefully the hotel industry will follow suit.

"Touting eco-credentials is hot marketing trend for hotels"
comment:

Thank you for your interesting and lively post. I am glad to see that there are true eco-friendly efforts being made, and success that follows. This couple whole-heartedly seems to believe in the environment and this shines through in the work they have done with their Bed and Breakfast. It seems that in order for a company, brand, or in this case lodging, to exercise authentic green practices, the brains behind the mission must genuinely have the environments best interest at heart. I find your main argument very insightful as well. Not only is green marketing a profitable tactic for marketers, it has come to the point where flaunting what you call “eco-credentials” is even more profitable. With consumer skepticism and the prospect of greenwashing seemingly everywhere it is no surprise that consumers want to know whether or not green marketers can back up their claims with legitimacy. I would like to point out that the Pinehurst Inn have every reason to be legitimately green, as you have pointed out. With the combination of tactics these owners are instilling it makes you wonder why other inns are not reaping the benefits of going green. It is environmentally friendly, cost saving in the long run, sustainable, and appealing to the modern day eco-friendly consumer. One question I would like to raise is about the rating system. The Pinehurst Inn is rated by the Wisconsin Travel Green rating system. When I looked into this it seems that it is voluntary, and as you noted “self-reporting.” Furthermore, there is a fee that one must pay in order to be rate. This seems a little bit of a skeptical source to receive a rating from, however the Pinehurst Inn holds true to what makes a hotel green. Do you think there is any reason to question the legitimacy is the credentials seem a little flaky, even if the experience at the hotel felt green?

Sustainability: Keeping Our Economy in a Green State-of-Mind.

In a time when our country is in an environmental and economical crisis, the popular campaign of “going green” is seeming every marketers dream. Seeing that our planet encompasses all consumers in every possible market, marketers can use the idea of “going green” to appeal to everyone. Thus, it is no surprise the idea of green seems to be everywhere: Fashion, beauty products, cars, computers, even food products. We have turned the earth, or the idea of it, into a commodity; and it sells. However, the obstacle arises with every marketing campaign or branding technique of sustainability, and keeping the consumer interested. And with the declining state of our economy, even the most creative marketers are going to have to find an innovative way to reach consumers.

With companies and organizations reducing their budgets, there is speculation about what will and what will not survive the cut. Chief Marketing Officers (CMO’s) are expecting that due to the state of the economy, there will be less-emphasis placed on green-marketing over the next year, according to a study conducted by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. The survey asked CMO's from leading companies and organizations their opinions of the current marketplace in order to “predict the future of markets, track marketing excellence, and improve the value of marketing in firms and in society.” The results are bitter for the world of cause-marketing. Based on the responses from 72 Fortune 1000 companies and Forbes Top 200 small businesses, cause-marketing was ranked at the bottom of five priorities for the upcoming year. Marketers are more pessimistic with the state of the business world and want to focus their money and resources on more promising ways to reach consumers. If consumers do not have money to buy essentials, it is reasonable to assume they will not buy products merely to support a cause.

Nevertheless, there remain marketers that keep green-marketing a budget priority. This is partly because consumers with enough disposable income are going to continue to buy products from brands they are loyal to. Steve Jobs, CEO and co-founder of Apple, undoubtedly one of the leaders in creative marketing, has gone to many efforts to market Apple as a greener company. Apple has redesigned many of their products in order to re-market and position themselves as a more environmentally friendly brand. Among the most recent efforts, Apple has released the new “cleanest ipod” (See above right). The latest version of the ipod is made with less toxins and has a “highly recyclable aluminum enclosure”. The Apple brand serves as an example for marketers and has proven time and again to have strong brand loyalty. Consumers who purchase Apple products tend to have a very strong felt connection and association between the brand and themselves. We have undergone a cultural shift towards a greener society, therefore with the addition of cleaner and more eco-friendly attributes to their products, consumers have more positive feelings towards the brand. These affirming feelings then parallel a positive association for owning the product. This not only keeps the brand equity, it revamps Apple’s products to keep arouse new interest, as well as boosts the corporate social responsibilityof their company.

While Apple has taken the approach of incorporating more eco-friendly attributes into the production and manufacturing of their products, brands such as Clorox have attempted to buy sustainability. Clorox has received much scrutiny from Greenpeace in the past, however, Clorox has added the new product line of Greenworks, which uses 99% natural ingredients, as well as purchased the Burt’s Bees brand, in hopes of increasing positive attitudes felt towards the overall brand. Carter Elenz, the executive Vice President of sales and marketing says that as a company they are “still thinking [this market] is expandable” for themselves “and others”. He also makes a strong argument with that, noting that the brand has increased it’s expenditures the highest level it has ever been, and their sales have increased more than 50% in the past year. Bill Morrissey, Vice President of Environmental Stability says that "Clorox is committed to its own journey of environmental stability". From a marketing perspective Clorox has made inventive attempts to reshape their image and to integrate new ideas and brands into their overall business model.

Overall, whether a company is repositioning their brand as greener or simply buying out already green brands for a more positive company image, green marketing takes a tremendous amount of creativity. Kindley Walsh Lawlor, Gap's (umbrella brand to Old Navy and Banana Republic) director of strategic planning and environmental affairs notes that when using green marketing to re brand, “it’s more of when it’s right for us as a company and when it’s right for the consumers.” Smart marketers have a knack for doing the right thing, at the right time, and targeting the right people. Companies who succeeded in sustainability must use this combination when it comes to green marketing. The consumer not only buys the product, they buy into marketing campaigns and it is essential to keep that at the forefront when creating a sustainable green marketing campaign. Lawlor, among other keynote speakers at the Branding for Sustainability (see above left) workshops, help companies and organizations find the right mix of branding, marketing, green initiatives, and corporate social responsibility to create a sustainable brand.

While this study offers an interesting perspective into what is to come in the next year, we cannot reject that we have undergone a cultural shift towards a greener economy which will continue to effect marketing tactics. While we are experiencing a tighter budget in many facets of life, which will of-course take a toll on marketing strategies, but will not end the age of green. Chief Marketing Strategist Bob Gilbreath argues that cause-marketing “ is still what will get the news” for marketers.