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?

Fashion Week: Painting the Catwalk Green

In a previous post, I explored various techniques and strategies marketers are using to keep green initiatives a primary concern in our economy, as well as consumers' responses to these efforts. It is important to keep the environment in the minds of consumers, yet marketers need to make sure their efforts are clear and not misleading. I would like to take a deeper look at this idea with regard to the world of fashion. Fashion is a creative expression of one's view of the world and this differs from designer to designer. Many designers who envision a cleaner environment are trying to incorporate eco-friendly tactics with their fashion lines through the use of organic materials and sustainable production methods. With the fall season we all know this means one thing --the tents go up in New York and Los Angeles for Fashion Week. Fashion Week is not only the perfect way to broadcast a label's new developments; it notoriously sets the trends for upcoming seasons. And while up-and-coming designers may be more inclined to experiment with green initiatives, the prominent labels seem to be shying away from environmental efforts.

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week is one of the world's most prestigious semi-annual fashion shows premiering designer collections from Vera Wang and Michael Kors, to Diane Von Furstenberg and Betsey Johnson. This year's spring/summer collections were debuted at Smashbox Studios in Culver City for the Los Angeles Fashion Week where the main tent finale; "The Green Initiative Humanitarian Fashion Show." This show displayed five segments of environmentally minded designers. Emily Factor started the event with her line of mermaid-like dresses and frocks with bright floral designs. The next line that was debuted, called M the movement, featured clothes made from bamboo and soy product, and charcoal. Lilikoi is an eco-friendly brand that focuses on clean production and sustainable fabric ingredients. Lilikoi fabrics are 100% naturally made from bamboo and organically grown cotton and linen. Furthermore, they consider the origin of their fabrics to ensure proper conditions of those who manufacture the fabrics.The final line that premired was by Smart Glass, which is a label that features products made from recycled glass and sterling silver. The designer, Kathleen Plate, has a strong passion for the earth and nature, which is reflective in her brand. Along with her designs composed from recycled glass, Plate donates some of her proceeds to her favorite charity foundations. These four out of the five lines use the earth to sell their products, yet they demonstrate passion for the environment and have the earth's best interest in mind.

There is a fine line between ethical commodification of the earth, however, and exploiting it. If a brand is truly devoted to the earth and offers sustainable options that give back to the environment, it can be seen as ethical. This idea was compromised by Ecoskin. EcoSkin is seemingly a legitimate and eco-friendly brand. Like the other labels, the fabric is organically grown and the manufacturing plant is monitored to ensure ethical working conditions. Yet, during the fashion show EcoSkin's segment included a monkey, wolf (below left), and a snake to walk down the catwalk, which has stirred much commentary across the blogosphere. In the L.A. Times blog author Melissa Magsaysay, an attendee and photographer quotes, "the poor beast was bewildered by the crowd, lights and loud music and the model was tugging him to stay on the runway" (in reference to the wolf). Even if the brand does not use animal fur or skin in their clothing, exploiting them on the runway is just as bad. Simply using organic products for fabrics does not make a brand eco-friendly. Being environmental should not be used as an easy way to market to consumers; it should instead be an all-encompassing passion and effort to help preserve the earth. EcoSkin is a prime example of manipulation and exploitation of the idea of "going green," and blurring the line between what is ethical and what is not. Another point that has been brought to my attention is how the animals were initially exploited. They came from, or were rented from, Animal Actors Worldwide (AAW), a full-service agency that loans out exotic animals. While their list of experience includes well known movies such as Borat, this does not legitimate the brand's environmentalism. Animals should not be exploited and used in a fashion show when the brand claims environmental conservatism; and Magsaysaysay further quotes, "Love them by leaving them in their home". The exploitation of animals is a whole other ethical topic to be discussed, but I would like to point out that this act by EcoSkin is inherently contradictory to the concept of being environmentally ethical. And due to the prestige of L.A. Fashion Week, these acts perpetuate a flawed logic that animal exploitation can be a part of an eco-friendly brand.

Despite unethical practices by some, there are more notable environmental fashion efforts that deserve to be acknowledged. Gen Art hosted "Fashionably Neutral," another fashion show that premiered during L.A's Fashion Week. Similarly, this show featured designs from Brigis Catiis, Popomomo, Velvet Leaf, and The Battalion with all brands promising a commitment to sustainability. Ian Gerard, Gen Art's Founder and CEO says, "Sustainable fashion has become more and more important every passing year with what's happening to the environment. So it's very exciting that this is our first green fashion show." It is comforting to know that some are able to capitalize on green marketing tactics, while keeping the environment, over profit, the main priority. Marketing is inherently persuasive and used accordingly to sell products and services. Knowing this, it is the designer's responsibility to maintain ethical practices when using green marketing.