The debate about consumer product labeling is full of very definite and passionate views about the value and reasons for and against labeling. The obstacles to labeling are not really up for debate – they are undisputedly complicated and challenging, but not insurmountable. In fact, there is little doubt that in 10 years labels describing some sort of lifecycle environmental impact of a chocolate bar, a mop, a bottle of shampoo, a pair of shoes, and all other consumer products will be as commonplace as nutritional labels are now. And just as ignored.
It is a very hard argument to make – that consumers care. Call me cynical, but can anyone really argue that labels influence a majority of consumer purchases. Statistically speaking, there are usually less than 10% of consumers – of which I am one – who are influenced by labels. Research shows that a typical customer spends 2-3 seconds looking at the labels. And, if labels really matter, how do you explain that McDonalds is still flourishing or that Fruit Loops regularly outsells All Bran. There is very little doubt that the only label that consumers consistently read and care about is the price label. And perhaps together with location on the store shelf, the newest sexy slogan, and the ability to appeal to kids, price is the bottom line influencer of most mainstream food purchasing decisions.
So, when the next conference on “sustainability communication” is announced, it’s important to understand that this is really the advertising and design industries trying to get in on the act. And be prepared for all the different labeling companies to be there in force talking about your brand’s green credentials and the consumer demand for labeling. Unfortunately, the research about changes in consumer behavior negates a lot of these arguments and make them ring consistently hollow.
Couple that with the fact that labeling requires very precise measurement which can be explained and defended (if challenged) and which is extremely expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming, the ROI of labeling gets smaller and smaller. And, the final nail in the coffin comes when you start to look at the all the label choices out there. There are dozens, if not tens of dozens of them out there clamoring for the consumer’s attention, your attention, your endorsement, and your money. Some from governments, some from NGOs, some more credible than others, some so obscure that they could may even prove to be of negative value.
So, which is best for your brand and your business? None of them.
This might be a surprising argument coming from a sustainability metrics advocate and someone who passionately believes in the value of lifecycle measurement. But if you follow the logic beyond what the designers and labeling companies are advocating, you’ll find that beyond the green credentials and PR ROI there is an incredibly valuable activity that is spurred by the ultimate goal of labeling.
Call it “beginner’s eyes” or “big picture” or even “lifecycle”. It is the activity of seeing the entire lifecycle of any product from a completely new point of view. One that illuminates waste and flaws in the process; one that inevitably leads to an examination of different business practices; and one that requires the cooperation and communication throughout each of the silos of the business - from logistics to operations to procurement to brand management to marketing to R&D and back.
I am a strong advocate of government mandates of labeling for consumer products, but not because labels have an influence on consumer behavior. Everywhere you turn you’ll find anecdotes about companies who, in the process of measuring their lifecycle (for whatever reason), discovered surprising and sometimes enormous cost and waste flaws in their operations. Wasted plastic in a standard operating procedure that was designed 8 years ago when that particular technology was first introduced. A location change that could revolutionize the way your raw materials are delivered and your final products are shipped. A new recipe that capitalizes on the success of the old recipe but reduces sodium, beef, and consumer energy use. So many opportunities to make small, often not expensive, adjustments to standard operating practices that ultimately have a lasting and positive effect on the environmental impacts of the business (not to mention profitability).
So, yeah! to countries who are instituting voluntary labeling (because it’s likely a precursor to mandatory labeling), and yeah! to retailers who are asking their suppliers to report on different aspects of their energy use and packaging materials, and yeah! to the consumers and consumer advocates who are pushing for labeling.
But let’s be clear – the real advantage to labeling is the not the label or the methodology or the metrics behind the label. The most tangible and sustainable value to the business of labeling products is the journey of discovery that must to be travelled from farm to fork, from cradle to grave, from R&D to procurement to logistics to operations to marketing to purchasing and then to consumption.
