Today, Toby Griffin, a KBB business consultant, explores the topic of greenwashing in the KBB industry as climate change continues to drive the need for sustainability.
As we all know, manufacturers make stuff. This stuff goes into our new kitchens and bathrooms and makes wonderful new spaces for us to use and enjoy. Making these products involves sourcing raw materials and then using machinery, energy and transport to deliver the said stuff to the place it needs to be.
Let’s be honest, though: sourcing raw materials, using machinery, energy, and transport are all, arguably, bad for the environment.
Therefore, in this article in which I am going to be looking at so-called Greenwashing, it is on the understanding that – in practically all cases – making stuff is “bad” for the environment, but it’s something that we have to do if we are to thrive as a species, and – as time goes by – we are learning to make products in a more efficient and less harmful way, and long may this continue.
Understanding and accepting this backdrop, it is notable that the push to reduce the harmful effects of production on the environment mainly comes from outside of manufacturers themselves. The two main drivers, as I see it, are 1) governmental legislation and 2) an increased public consciousness of ‘green’ issues, as part of the popularly referred to ‘climate crisis’. With the former of these influences coming in the form of compliance with new regulations and pressure on factors like emissions caused by production, a brand’s manufacturing capability should comply accordingly or face the wrath of the legislature. These efforts mainly go on behind closed doors (sometimes also amongst legal representatives), as all parties want to be seen to comply. However, in a global production market with factories based in countries and regions that have different laws on environmental issues, it is not easy to monitor and measure.
But the latter of the two external pressures – that of the public’s and consumers’ desire to make ethical purchasing decisions – is generally played out in a very public arena: that of the product brand’s image and marketing efforts. This is where it all starts to get a little cloudy. As we all know, the marketing function’s role in a business is to seek out consumer desire to help influence new product innovation and then to create enquiries for the products on offer. So once a line-up of products has been decided upon, it is then beholden to a Marketing department to ‘put their best foot forward’ when pushing out their message. And this is where accusations of Greenwashing start to fester.
To gauge attitudes amongst KBB professionals as to the environmental credentials of the brands they deal with, I set a poll on Linkedin, posing the following question: “What percentage of KBB companies – do you believe – are sincere about their environmental messaging in their marketing?” The cynicism that I had anticipated very much rang true in the results, with two-thirds of the respondents saying that they felt that less than 25% were sincere, nearly a third saying 26-50%, and only a handful saying more than that. So, why is this? Well, I think it comes back to the drivers of environmental considerations and the second of Marketing’s two functions.
How much does the buying public care?
In essence, do consumers really desire environmental credentials to be a priority, and are THEY sincere? Do they perhaps just want to alleviate their conscience and, therefore, are, in fact, happy with Greenwashing? If not, are they willing to pay extra for products manufactured in more sustainable ways? As Matt Turton of Bold Kitchens told me, “Despite trying to discuss [this topic] with customers, my experience is they just ain’t interested!”.
In reality, environmental concerns aren’t a fixed point anyway. I know that Tom Reynolds of the Bathroom Manufacturer’s Association is pushing hard on the global front concerning reducing water use, but for some countries/regions, this is a big factor, and in others, reducing water use is not so important. Pitching a water-efficient shower, for example, is easier in Australia than in Scotland.
In what way do efficiency and environmental measures go ‘hand in hand’?
Concerning electrical appliances in kitchens, around the turn of the millennium, the EU introduced mandatory energy rating labels with a grading of A (A being the most efficient), and I remember how quickly the manufacturers responded to the point that classification of A*, A**, and A*** had to be introduced. Since then, the bar has had to be raised, with an old A* rating now being reclassified as F. Is there a better example of legislative intervention having driven up standards (with the benefit to consumers with their appliances now costing them often 50% less than run being a win-win situation)? Maybe a review of a property’s kitchen and bathroom fixtures being included in its EPC-rating might catch some attention too?
Interestingly, based on an analysis of the readership of industry articles on the topic of sustainability and the environment, it seems that readers find the topic a bit of a turn-off, too, although I would imagine that few would express this openly themselves.
So are we, too, part of the problem and/or of the same mindset? Is Greenwashing ‘pressing our buttons’? Or will it just take many more climate-related disasters for collective governments to take action? With the politics of many major economies seemingly waiving their environmental responsibilities, in the current climate, it can be demotivating to ‘fight the good fight’, but alternatively – in making our specification choices with a sustainability mindset now – perhaps we should avoid short-termist thinking and future-proof our kitchens and bathrooms for our both our direct consumers and the greater public good.
