What criteria should be used to ensure that a product is “green?”

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

This question is designed to generate discussion on what should constitute an “environmentally-friendly” product. The instructor may wish to begin the discussion at a general level and develop a list of criteria that could be used to evaluate the three products. The case provides a number of suggestions as to possible criteria, and the students will usually generate more. The following issues/criteria should be raised:
• Incrementalism versus “cradle-to-grave” approach. Loblaws and other companies have adopted an incremental approach, based on the argument that offering consumers new products that are even marginally better than existing alternatives helps to move everyone along the path toward a better environment. On the other hand, many environmentalists opt for the cradle-to-grave approach, which is that the entire process from manufacturing to final disposal of the product must be reviewed before it can be accepted as environmentally friendly. The main arguments are the time/investment involved, the “purity” of the product, and the potential for misleading consumers. Because most firms use the incremental approach, numerous claims and words (e.g., friendly, biodegradable, reusable) have led to considerable consumer confusion.
• Environmental products versus “body-friendly” products. Loblaws has included “body-friendly” products in its G·R·E·E·N line (including popcorn). For some, this is acceptable because it promotes a healthy lifestyle; for others, it is not logical as it has nothing to do with the environment.
• The proposed product versus the “best available” alternative. Some products may be an improvement within a brand class (e.g., biodegradable disposable diapers versus disposable diapers) but still not be a “better” product when compared at a product class level (e.g., biodegradable disposable diapers versus cloth diapers). The argument for it is that it provides the consumer with a “better” choice within brands; the argument against it is that it promotes a “bad” choice over a “good” choice.
Other criteria and issues can be raised, including the company’s motivation (profits), the marginal impact on the environment of many of these products, the role of a “green” product line versus each product alone, and the “bandwagon” issue (it’s just the latest fad). A final criterion, which may in one sense be the most important, is the effect “green” marketing has on consumers in the short and long term. This is a complex issue, but companies such as Loblaws will argue that it creates a greater awareness of the environment and, in the long term, will lead to consumers considering the environmental impact of their decisions. Others will argue that it diverts the consumers’ focus from more substantive environmental issues and allows consumers to “feel good” by purchasing “green” products rather than getting them to behave in a truly responsible manner (reduce, reuse, recycle).
In summary, most will agree that there is no black and white but only gray when it comes to many environmental issues. The three products under review can all be accepted or rejected depending on the criteria and views of the evaluator.