After one of the busiest and most exhilarating quarters for the business we have seen for 10 years, I actually took a holiday last week.

Among the glorious highlights of my first visit to Cornwall, I spent two days at the Eden Project (a business also celebrating its tenth birthday this year) and yes, I admit it, caught up with some work-related reading.

Both of these events have sparked some thoughts on the perennial questions for communicators in our industry: Do we need a new word for sustainability and, if so, what could it be?

It all started when I was struck by the fact that at Eden I could only find one written reference to sustainability - and that was a statement about the development of the Eden Project as a "sustainable business".

Who was the only person to say the S word on the Eden Project video? The architect.

All the other messages, especially those for young people (and their exhausted teachers and parents grateful for a coffee at The Core, Eden's education centre), were about a "cool future", "inspiration", "transformation"...

So this got me thinking. Is it just us lot in the property and building world who seem so wedded to this word? We put so much effort into positioning our businesses, our projects and products, our corporate ethos, as sustainable. But given that there is so much confusion about what the word actually means (and downright bans on using it in advertising and many marketing communications now) is there another way, a better way, to communicate the essence of what we are doing to the audiences we want to reach?

Framing the issue

This issue was also raised within one of the many interesting topics for discussion at the recent IBM Start Jam - an online summit for environmentalists, celebs, communicators and business leaders to share thoughts and ideas about, well, sustainability.

One of the discussion threads started by Ellen MacArthur looked at the issue of framing - how do we frame the changes that have to happen in order to get maximum support from the population?

Here are some of the interesting points made in response:

• Sustainability must be associated with other lifestyle-enhancing benefits
• Sustainability must be framed as cool, aspirational and achievable within a short to medium term (up to 5 years, say)
• Sustainability must be communicated visually, not just with words
• Sustainability must emphasise the national/local, not global
• Sustainability should be presented as incremental steps, not one big leap that people will perceive as too disruptive

I've commented on these and other excellent tips before.

In the meantime though, back to words.

Ellen MacArthur suggests substituting the words "our future" wherever the word "sustainability" is used. I will give that a try and see if it works.

Other people suggested words like "survivability", "vitality" and "climate prosperity".

An education expert pointed out that she didn't need to use the S word at all - just start with the issues that matter most to people, and don't try and frame it as 'sustainable'. It's implicit, not explicit, and key audiences can label it any way they wish. I am increasingly seeing this approach adopted by leaders in the field. The day will soon come - maybe it has already - when a company's claim to be "sustainable" will sound dated.

Thinner and cooler

But while relaxing in Cornwall and indulging in maybe a few too many cream teas, I did rather like the comment that, to be successfully communicated to the public, sustainability should offer the promise of making us all thinner and more attractive.

So, having checked this out with a few people including my kids, we have come up with a proposal for two new slang terms:

Slim. adj. slang. To be sustainable, or to demonstrate a commitment to sustainability (eg. "OMG, that's like sooooo slim!" - this works well with girls)

Unsus. adj. slang. To be seriously unsustainable, a person considered antisocial and uncool due to excessive consumption, environmental damage etc. (eg. "You're such an unsus" - this seems to work better with boys)

What word would you use instead of sustainable?

How can we get "sustainable" to be the best compliment anyone could pay us, and "unsustainable" the worst insult?

I heard a true story the other day of a leading company in renewable energy which was banned from saying in its marketing literature that its biomass products used ‘sustainably sourced’ wood.  The edict came from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), backed up by Defra. 

The offence? Using the S word.

Yes, warn your marketing agencies and copywriters right now. Any attempt to sell stuff using the S word is, well, unsustainable.

For 10 years Defra’s Green Claims Code has set out best practice on the content of environmental claims including accuracy, truthfulness, relevance, use of unambiguous terminology, presentation of claims and comparative claims.

As a proposed revision to the Code now explains:

“The concepts involved in sustainability are highly complex.  At this time there are no definite methods for measuring full sustainability or confirming its accomplishment (whether environmental, social and/or economic). Therefore claims about a product or service being ’sustainable’ or ‘environmentally sustainable’ should not be made.”

Don’t get them wrong. The Government wants to see more and better environmental claims.  It acknowledges that marketing has a huge role to play in promoting more sustainable lifestyle choices and that business must be a positive catalyst for change.

But given the changes to the ASA’s rules since September this year and from everything I continue to hear on this issue, massive proof is going to be needed to justify green claims in the future. 

No one has ever yet managed to persuade the ASA that they, or their product or service, are “sustainable”, “green” or “environmentally friendly”. And woe betides anyone who tries to use any absolute claim of “zero carbon” in their marketing. (Hmm, I can’t wait to see what will happen when a ‘definition’ of zero carbon is made by CLG, but Defra bans its use…)

If you want to know what you can say and what you can’t, updated guidance on Defra’s Green Claims Code is supposed to be coming out this month. 

But in the meantime it all seems to boil down to what is easily understood by the man on the street (specialist or well-informed audiences don’t count). If he understands ‘sustainable’ to mean one thing, and his mate thinks it’s another, then we have Ambiguity. And this does not sit comfortably with the ASA or the Government. 

Environmental claims are often complicated or very technical. But the underlying principles are the same for all, says the ASA Council – they look at everything from a consumer’s point of view.

In its defence, the ASA says its has seen a big rise in public scepticism about carbon and climate change claims since ‘Climategate’, the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit about 12 months ago. But it seems to me the most common cause for an ASA investigation and potential corporate reprimand is still a complaint from a competitor. 

Interestingly, having studied past ASA adjudications on this topic, there seem to be a few alternative ways in which environmental credentials can be promoted with a bit more legal leeway:

• Sponsorships can help to make you look greener by association (but needless to say no one is fooled by any cynical attempt to greenwash a baddie brand this way)
• PR and media information is not covered by ASA rules (but we have our own professional guidelines from bodies like the CIPR, and I see no reason why PR people should not apply the same rigour to environmental claims)
• Comparative claims can work (but only if there is a clear improvement over a previous product or a competitor and the comparison is very clear. In this context, any ‘independent’ research that backs up your claim must be entirely independent – you can’t have paid for it)
• And it looks like trade associations can have much more freedom in the claims they might make on their industries’ behalf, as they are not selling direct to the customer (but again, this is a complex area and best practice should still be observed).

I’m no lawyer, and I’ve witnessed some pretty perverse decisions on what can and cannot be said about environmental sustainability in the building industry.  I will be watching with interest what gets published by Defra shortly, including its latest research on consumers’ understanding of green terms.  For now, the best advice I can offer is to play it safe.  Put more time into becoming a greener business than you spend on saying it. 

You can also find further advice on my ‘10 top tips to avoid greenwash’ here.

As part of BrightTalk's Green Week, I tuned in yesterday to an interesting webcast by Lucy Shea, CEO of Futerra on 'Green Messaging and Marketing'.

Futerra are specialists in behaviour change communications and long-time advisers to Governments around the world on their climate change campaigns. I love their work.

In the webcast Lucy took the opportunity to remind everyone of the overwhelming importance of setting clear, measurable, strategic and tactical objectives before launching into any sort of communications campaign, before explaining again two areas of Futerra's work which I'd like to mention here.

The first is a very simple but helpful way of beginning to segment audiences.

It's no substitute for proper market research, but this sort of segmentation can help kickstart your communications planning by helping you to understand the range of potential reactions to your green messages.

Futerra has taken inspiration from the work of Cultural Dynamics (CDSM) and CDSM's concept of 'Values Modes'. The Values Modes categorise people into 12 discrete psychographic types within three general groups ('Settlers', 'Pioneers' and 'Prospectors').

Sounds a bit dry and academic I know, but bear with me - it's marketing dynamite.

Understanding these types of people and their motivations is very important to anyone who wants to sell stuff or create a communications campaign that raises awareness, changes hearts and minds and effects behavioural change. As CDSM explains:

"The Values Modes help to explain WHY people do the things and make the choices that they do."

As I heard the Futerra folk explain at Ecobuild, and as Lucy reinforced yesterday, Futerra has used this work to create its own catchy set of marketing groups:

• They start by describing what they call the 'Brick Wedge' (CDSM's 'Settlers'). These are the 'small world thinkers', people who care passionately about local community issues (parks, neighbours, dog fouling etc.) and work hard at making better environments for themselves and others. They probably don't think they have much, if any, impact on the global scene for good or ill. They want answers, not more questions. They tend to be suspect of change, think things were better in the past, and care about being good home-makers. And it's not just a middle class tendency - disadvantaged kids in inner city estates are often brick wedgers.

• At the other end of the spectrum is the 'Green Wedge' (CDSM's 'Pioneers'). These are the 'big world thinkers', people who are deeply concerned with the big global issues of environmental sustainability. They are more likely to worry about the impact of glacial retreat than the state of the local park. They were the first into recycling - they're now cutting consumption and composting. Driven by a strong moral imperative, the cost of green makes very little difference to them - they do it because it's the right thing to do. They are suspect of cool and anything too commercial (witness the Deep Greenies' grumbles about this year's Ecobuild exhibition).

• Potentially most interesting of all is the 'Gold Wedge' (CDSM's 'Prospectors'). These are the 'outer directed' folk, ultimately motivated most by what other people will think of them (although they would never admit or articulate it like that). They are optimistic, ambitious and savvy. They like change because it's cool, but it has to be visibly cool, desirable and high status (on their terms, not yours). Needless to say, they tend to be the high spenders.

The key point to remember here is that messages for one group will not cross over to another.

This explains why PR campaigns by sustainability experts (very often the green 'pioneers') don't seem to have much impact on builders (very often 'settlers' in outlook). It explains why your communications need to be targeted. Or, if you want mass market business, need to appeal to all.

Lucy also gave some good pointers for green messages that succeed better than others. To paraphrase her advice:

1. Keep messages positive and high status.
2. Keep language very simple, and make clear and direct requests ("walk on the path" rather than "help respect your environment").
3. Balance your message - the scale of the green solution you offer has to be proportionate to the scale of the problem (that's why turning down a thermostat doesn't seem to sound credible advice when you've told people it's to help tackle global climate change).
4. Use pictures and case studies to create empathy and emotion, both very powerful tools.
5. Remember: seeing is believing. Make it tangible, show the evidence.

In passing, Lucy made an interesting point about why so many energy efficiency campaigns tend to fail - they breach the golden rule that we must never use messaging that attacks home or family. It's a huge turn-off. Those advertisements of unhappy houses with "my owners don't care about me or my energy use" type messages are not likely to get us on side.

Finally, Lucy took the opportunity to plug Futerra's report 'Sell the Sizzle' - and I'm doing the same now! It's a document I have sent as recommended reading to all our clients interested in sustainability communications. (Download a PDF of 'Sell the Sizzle' here).

In a nutshell, the report makes a very simple point. If you want to achieve emotional buy-in to green messages, you must first sell the sizzle - show people the exciting, positive vision of how things could be different, the benefits they could enjoy, the way life could be better. Only then can you explain the issues/problems, and the choices that people have to make on the road to achieving this vision.

But I admit this is a very simplistic overview, so I shall explain more about Sizzle in a later blog post.

For now I recommend Lucy's webcast and welcome your thoughts on the Values Modes. By the way, apparently I'm a 'Transcender' which sounds rather nice. You can check out your own personal Values Mode by taking this quick test on CDSM's website.

You may already be familiar with Defra’s Green Claims Code. For 10 years it has set out best practice on the content of environmental claims including accuracy, truthfulness, relevance, use of unambiguous terminology, presentation of claims and comparative claims. 

About a year ago I blogged that Defra was consulting on an update to its guidance - well, the final consultation paper is now published. It is open for comment until 15 June this year.

I will put in a response. I'm very likely to echo the views of the great people at Futerra who have pointed out how toothless the guidance appears to be. (Read also this viewpoint by Fred Pearce in the Guardian).

But in the meantime, a flurry of new rules and guidance has emerged this year to help us understand what more we need to do to promote our green credentials in a way that guarantees greater credibility, consumer protection and social responsibility.

In January the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) published a framework and practical checklist for Responsible Environmental Marketing Communications (PDF).

The influential Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) also published its new codes just weeks ago. They bring in additional explicit rules designed to prevent exaggerated environmental promises by products, services and organisations.

The new CAP codes come into effect this September and will be regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority. They state that advertisers must ensure all environmental claims are crystal clear to consumers and all absolute claims must be backed by a “high level of substantiation”. We must acknowledge areas where scientific opinion is divided. We must also base environmental claims on the full lifecycle of the product.

It’s not just about standalone statements in some advertising copy. Linking a single, truthful claim (“we use natural paint to ensure no volatile organic compounds...”) with a broader claim (“Acme Homes are kinder to the planet…”) is likely to get us into hot water.  Even a scientifically accurate claim can be misleading if, taken out of context, it implies or omits something relevant.

The rules apply over all paid-for media, and even to websites and social media. 

And it goes well beyond what words we use – green claims can include pictures, colours and logos as well. 

PR consultants like myself may breathe a sign of relief that, technically, we’re immune - neither the CAP nor the ICC codes apply directly to ‘corporate communications’.  We argue that PR about a company’s aspirations and sustainability initiatives, its annual reports or CSR statements are usually provided in a context that will ensure there is no confusion with advertising claims. And anyway, we mutter, the media loves absolutes and hyperbole and has no time for all this qualified language.

However, we would be daft not to take on board every one of these new rules. 

It’s not as if it’s all so alien – the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) published guidelines on communicating about sustainability two years ago.

Green marketing is no different from regular marketing.  Business ethics still hold. Waging war on little green lies will protect corporate reputations, build more confident businesses and counter the cynics out to knock the industry.

10 top tips to avoid greenwash

1. If you talk about sustainability, energy,  waste, water, raw materials, noise,  air quality, global warming, greenhouse gases, wildlife, human health, toxins or other environmental topics in your marketing and PR, make sure you read up on the new codes and international standards like ISO 14021 which clarify requirements on environmental labelling.
2. Do an audit. Check the words, the pictures, the colours, the logos. 
3. Look at everything through the eyes of your most cynical competitor. Then apply what I call the Mum Test (would a “reasonable consumer” understand what this claim really means?)
4. Watch out for words like ‘reduced energy’, ‘reduced waste’ etc. Always make it clear what has been reduced.  Only make a feature of it if it has resulted in a significant environmental improvement taking all aspects of life cycle into account.
5. Verify as much as you can.  At the bottom of your advertisements, press releases and marketing literature, provide links to a section on your website where you publish the independent scientific evidence that backs up your claim.
6. Not everything has to have a full dossier addressing every conceivable impact of the product on the environment, but the greater the value being placed on the claim, the more robust verification needs to be.
7. If you’re planning a major campaign to promote your green credentials, first do some thorough consumer testing and perception research.
8. Reassess your claims regularly. Check whether circumstances have changed or what the latest scientific and technical evidence says.
9. Communicate the journey, not just the end result.  No one expects you to be zero carbon today. But you can gain respect by honestly communicating what actions have been carried out to help you work towards it.
10. Make sure your PR, advertising and digital marketing agencies understand the technical details.  No more fluff.  Demand compliance with the new legal requirements and best practice in communicating about sustainability.

PS. Need more advice? Check out my earlier blog posts on the '10 steps to absolution' from the 'Six Sins of Greenwashing'!

Just back from the first day of Ecobuild 2010, and a fantastic day meeting old friends, colleagues, journalists and many clients past and present.

The show, billed as "the biggest event in the world for sustainable design, construction and the built environment", is definitely one of the highlights of our year, and a fruitful source of ideas for this blog.

There is much I could explore in terms of the exhibition this year (many more products, lots more greenwash), or the marketing strategies on display (including some interesting examples of how not to promote your organisation at an event like this), but for now let me just tell you about a short debate I sat in on this afternoon in the Arena, on the issue of the media's role in promoting sustainability.

The panel was Eve Pollard (former tabloid editor), Alastair McGowan (impressionist, TV star and environmental campaigner) and Peter Bazalgette (of Endemol/Big Brother fame). They were chaired by the ever-sceptical Andrew Neil who revelled in his role as devil's advocate.

The debate confirmed my suspicion that the last people on earth you should ask about communicating sustainability are a bunch of media celebs:

• Andrew Neil focused heavily on Climategate and other examples of eco mis-selling as justification for unlimited cynicism,
• Alastair McGowan sadly failed to counter any of this, instead complaining that the media don't get behind sustainability as much as they should because of "fear of facing our mortality",
• Eve Pollard launched her big idea that Ecobuild exhibitors should all be marketing their products to women via glossy consumer mags because "women are inherently sustainable",
• and Peter Bazalgette insisted that the media's role was to question and interrogate any use of the word 'sustainable' and we should not expect the media to 'promote' anything.

My view? Well, yes I did take the opportunity to rant back at the panel, I admit. 

They all had some interesting points, especially about the damage that is done by greenwash.

But my view was that we should all be a lot more positive. While they were sitting around debating whether green was good and whether the media should or could get involved, the rest of us were getting on with it.

Hardly a day goes by without me seeing a new 'green living', 'green building' or 'green business' column in a paper, feature in a magazine or programme on TV or radio. Most parts of the media are very interested in examples of environmental sustainability, especially when it touches our day-to-day lives.

Journalists are often just as excited as we are by the sorts of innovations we saw at Ecobuild. They are not tuning out to ponder their mortality. They are not dismissing genuine news stories out of world-weary cynicism. They are open to ideas and examples of sustainability in practice - and I for one was very proud of the efforts and achievements of the many people I saw at Ecobuild who were marketing and promoting their work to the media with real flair and enthusiasm.