« Back to Commentary

A Chilling Effect

April 29, 2008

Posted by Valerie Davis
CEO and Principal
EnviroMedia Social Marketing

On the eve of the Federal Trade Commission's second workshop held for the regulatory review of its environmental marketing standards, I thought I'd share a few of the comments submitted by corporate America.

First, a quick primer. Because of the upsurge in green marketing of late, the FTC recently moved up the regulatory review of its "Green Guides" by one year. The agency kicked off the process with a standing-room-only January 8 workshop focusing on renewable energy credits and carbon offsets. The second workshop, to be held tomorrow, April 30, in Washington, D.C., focuses on packaging. Meanwhile, the FTC has invited public comment as part of its regulatory review.

As I prepared for my second trip to the FTC, I perused some of the 70+ commentaries submitted by corporate America, trade associations and other stakeholders.

From the Advertising Trades: Brrrr.
A 10-page commentary was jointly submitted by the American Advertising Federation, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and the Association of National Advertisers.

Concerned that the FTC regulatory review process is moving too hastily, these three advertising trade associations said "... any significant changes to these well-accepted Guides ... would be impractical, if not impossible, to implement and could have a chilling effect on an advertiser's ability to communicate important and valuable information to consumers." Apparently, this effect is so chilling, the ad trade associations incorporated that phrase no fewer than four other times throughout their joint commentary:

  • "Significant Changes To The Guides Could Have A Chilling Effect On A Valuable Advertising Message"
  • "Changes To The Guides May Be Impractical Or Impossible To Implement And Impose An Unnecessary Burden On Advertisers, Thereby Having A Chilling Effect"
  • "This proposal would likely have a chilling effect by increasing the burden on advertisers and marketers, ultimately harming consumers who have a strong desire to know about the environmental qualities of the products they are purchasing."
  • "Based on the foregoing reasons, The Advertising Trade Associations believe that any changes to the Guides would be unwarranted, particularly in the absence of compelling evidence warranting such changes, and that changes could have a chilling effect on advertisers' use of environmental marketing claims. Failure to allow truthful advertising may have an impact on product development, since products with positive environment benefits may not be designed and built if the environmental benefits cannot be advertised."

As an agency member of the AAF for 10 years, I respectfully disagree with much of the commentary submitted by the ad trades. First, there is no need to slow down a process that is already slow. The FTC's Green Guides haven't been updated in a decade, and there will be an unknown number of these workshops during the regulatory review. Afterward, the standards have to be updated, and who knows how well the FTC can enforce the Green Guides once they're adopted?  Second, we live in a world where claims of "100 percent wind-powered" and "carbon-neutral" have become as commonplace in advertising as "new and improved." Onward, already.

Constructive Input
As the ad trades stand for little to no change, other biggies are taking the opportunity to give constructive input on areas that need updating in the environmental world of 2008. For instance:

  • "Concerns about global warming have caused an increase in related product or service claims (e.g. carbon offsets, carbon neutral, carbon footprints, renewable energy). The guides should be updated to provide guidance on the acceptability of claims related to global climate change or the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases associated with the manufacture, use and disposal of a product or service. Guidance on definitions and methodologies is needed." - Procter & Gamble
  • "We support FTC's interest in developing policies in the emerging areas of carbon offsets and greenhouse gas emission reduction guidance. Since there are no global or U.S. standards for carbon offsets or calculating product lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, both transparency and the substantiation of any such claims are critical." - 3M Company
  • "As with RECs (renewable energy credits), certified forest products can be confusing to consumers, yet provide real environmental benefits. The use of all the major forest certification systems needs to be encouraged, as today only 10 percent of the world's forests are certified and only customer demand will drive certification further to the other 90 percent." - Weyerhaeuser

Check back here tomorrow for an update direct from the FTC workshop on packaging. In the meantime, you can read for yourself the commentary submitted to the FTC.

Please login to post comments.

Comments

On June 12, 2008
AmandaKC of Massachusetts said:
It seems like everyone who is saying it's "hip to be green" is forgetting that it is a PROCESS and that even the smallest change can lead to huge results. If companies are making any steps at all it should be rewarded. For your everyday person doing something as simple as unplugging your cell phone charger can save a lot of energy, if that person then says I'm going green are they misrepresenting themselves? If people or business' are making conscious attempts to conserve energy and our resources we should not punish them for not being able to do everything at once. It starts with a small step, one choice, one voice.