Green Isn’t Always Black or White

Not long ago, Ian Yolles addressed a group of fashion and design students in Los Angeles. Just to get them going, the vice president of brand communications for Nau, an outdoor clothing line, opened his talk with the question: “If I say ‘green apparel,’ what comes to mind?”

The responses — “Boring.” “Scratchy.” “Bland.” “Colorless.” — didn’t surprise him.

Yolles would argue that they don’t have to be any of these things, but true or not, there should probably be one more phrase on the list: “more expensive.” Though environmentally friendly clothing has improved by leaps and bounds in terms of durability, wearability and
fashion appeal, those who want to do their part to help the environment by purchasing a fleece jacket made of recycled pop bottles, for example, are likely to find themselves still looking at higher price points than for the category as a whole. Not to mention feeling some confusion along the way.

The average consumer has doubtless wondered whether cotton should necessarily be organic; whether it really makes a difference to purchase from a company that follows sustainable practices in addition to offering green products; or whether the whole “eco-friendly” concept is just a marketing ploy. And in a sluggish economy, some may also ask whether “green” clothes are more luxury items than necessities.

“I think that there’s a desire on almost everyone’s part to do at least one thing” that is environmentally friendly, says Diane MacEachern, author of “Big Green Purse: Using Your Spending Power to Create a Cleaner, Greener World.”

“It’s: ‘All right, I’ve got it: I’ve got to do something, I’m willing to do something. But what in the world should I do?’

“There is a lot of bandying about of words that are very enticing to consumers, things like natural, green, earth-friendly, biodegradable, compostable,” MacEachern says, “but they don’t really mean anything. They may mean something to the manufacturer who may have a way of justifying the use of the word, but that doesn’t mean a product is true to the claim. Consumers don’t know who or what to believe.”

From its inception, outdoor clothing and gear company Patagonia has been considered “green.” That reputation was established mainly by the fact that it donated funds to environmentally friendly causes.

But these days, the company does a lot more than spread the wealth. In addition to offering items made from organic cotton and wool, chlorine-free wool, hemp and recycled/recyclable polyester, the company now offers an interactive mini-website called The Footprint Chronicles that allows consumers to track the environmental impact of various Patagonia products from design to delivery.

It also offers a blog on green issues; has a LEED-certified service center; is helping build a national park in Chile; offers garment recycling; and has created a solar energy plant for its California headquarters. And the company has given more than $31 million in donations and grants to environmental causes.

And yet Jill Dumain, the company’s director of environmental analysis, still wants customers to choose Patagonia products primarily for their quality, style and durability.

In recent years, concern for the environment has risen from the low teens to No. 5 or 6 among the reasons consumers shop Patagonia, Dumain says. “We’ve definitely seen it slide up, but I don’t want it to be first,” she says. “I like where it is now. … The environmental work is just the gravy.”

Dumain acknowledges that some items in the company’s catalog can be pricier than goods from other brands. A short-sleeve woman’s T-shirt made of organic cotton and recycled polyester, for example, might go for $40, and a man’s casual jacket may range in price from $75 for a fleece hoodie to $400 for a waterproof/breathable stretch nylon fishing coat. “But when you factor in durability, this is very cost-effective,” she says.

And therein lies an interesting challenge for retailers that carry eco-friendly products. If they are truly committed to reusing and recycling, reducing their environmental footprint and creating products that are meant to last longer, then, in essence, they must also, on some level, encourage consumers to buy less.

“What I am constantly encouraging audiences to do is to listen to their own voices rather than to the voices of manufacturers,” MacEachern says. “If you look at apparel, we used to buy for four seasons: winter, spring, summer and fall. But now there’s spring preview, and early spring, and late spring, which comes just before early summer. That doesn’t make any sense.

“Fashion-forward is very destructive from an environmental point of view,” she says. “That’s not only from the manufacturer’s end, where so much excess is being produced, but I think it’s also very disruptive to the shopper. There’s no peace of mind anymore. There’s this idea that no matter what you’re going to buy, it’s soon going to be out of style. And that contributes to the frenzy of trying to stay on top of something you’re never going to be on top of.”

Defining true green
The true green consumer, then, is not necessarily one who will be swayed by a tighter economy; one who understands the principles will, at least in theory, likely be trying to buy less anyway. That consumer will also know that some non-green clothes are “cheaper” for reasons ranging from the type of labor to the processes and chemicals used in its manufacturing.

How much consumers actually do understand, however, remains to be seen.

“I think the idea of organic is pretty well understood, especially over the last 12 months or so,” Dumain says. “I think every mainstream market has some organic component, at least here in California. But as we get into the details, people know enough to ask the questions. There is a plethora of options out there that they had no access to 10 years ago. But is their understanding deep enough? I don’t know. It may be just enough to ask.”

BBMG, a branding and integrated marketing agency, performed a conscious consumer survey in August 2007. According to the results, nearly nine in 10 Americans say the words “conscious consumer” describe them well. It can be trendy to admit some concern for the environment, or to think that doing one’s part is an essential component of living in our increasingly global world.

It might be easy to think that green apparel would appeal mostly to the better off, better educated segment of the population. But programs from mainstream stores like Wal-Mart fly in the face of that convention. As part of its efforts to become greener, the company has set goals for reducing packaging (therefore saving plastic, transportation costs and shelf space); has strongly educated customers on energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs; encourages its suppliers to reduce their carbon footprints; and offers clothing made of organic cotton and recycled plastic.

Rather than view such moves as competition, Dumain sees it as a great opportunity for raising awareness overall. And considers it “a standard for showing how much power a retailer can have over a supplier” in terms of carrying — or not carrying — products based on sustainability.

“I wish department stores would do the same,” says MacEachern.

Yolles is not concerned that his company shares many loyal customers with Wal-Mart. Nau’s prices are higher than typical Wal-Mart fare, though they’re on a par with other premium green brands. “But the reality is that it’s a very, very big marketplace,” he says.

Supply and demand for green goods
In 2006, a global lifestyle monitor survey by Cotton Inc. and Cotton Council International showed that only 5 percent of consumers would put “a lot of effort” into looking for environmentally friendly clothing. Further, the vast majority of consumers were more concerned about price than anything else. Of course, as demand for green clothing increases (as many believe it will), the laws of supply and demand will serve to reduce the pricing premium.

“The problem is still that it isn’t easy to figure out what’s worth spending money on if you don’t have a good base of knowledge,” MacEachern says.

Nau launched its “thought kitchen” blog in 2006 in an effort to raise consumer awareness; by early 2007, its products were available online. All along, the premise was to create outdoor clothing that truly blended beauty, performance and sustainability. Innovative fabrics were developed, as well as a “restricted substance” list.

But the idea of consumers buying green from Nau isn’t just about the clothes. The company also reduced its footprint through a handful of LEED-certified “webfronts” – small, environmentally friendly stores that hold minimum inventory to save space. Customers can pick up items on site, or they can receive discounts by having the item shipped (at no charge) to their homes.

The company also takes its role of educating the community seriously, in part through the transparent “grey matters” portion of its website. Topics there include the benefits and pitfalls of clothes made from corn, fair labor practices and comments on global manufacturing. Each section also includes a segment on “where we stand.”

“This doesn’t mean that the decisions we’ve had to make are simple ones, or that we haven’t had to make various compromises and tradeoffs,” Yolles says. “Obviously, this was entitled ‘grey matters’ with intention, because some things aren’t always black and white. But we want to be completely transparent with the decisions we’ve made, and to explain those decisions and why we made them, and what the issues are with various products.”

And that, at the base level, is what many believe green products are all about: responsibility.

“It’s really hard to do one without the other, to offer these products and not be an environmentally responsible company,” Dumain says. “You catch yourself. … The practices start to invade the culture, and you get to a point where you can’t help yourself any more. You start to understand that ignorance really is bliss, because once you start, it doesn’t end.”