The green products dilemma

Written by Robert Stockham

I read an interesting blog post at Green LA Girl.  It was about the dilemma of continuing to support green companies, even though they are being bought up by less than green conglomerates. I highly recommend that you take a minute, click over and read the article. It has interesting information and great links to more information. The issue is this: When a company that has been traditionally a great green company gets bought up by a less than green conglomerate, do you continue to support it?

Basically, the problem is that true die hard consumers who are working really hard to support only the best companies for the environment, are having to face an ethical quandary. Many large corporations are not very environmentally friendly. Some have a downright terrible history when it comes to planetary concerns. Merger and acquisition departments, however, are smart and know a good thing when they see it. They have been snapping up these small but growing companies whenever they can. This allows these smaller companies to access capital to expand and utilize stronger distribution networks. That is good news for small companies like Burt’s Bees. Once only distributed with organic products and available at natural food stores, they can now be found at mainstream supermarkets across the country. The profits, however, are now going to support Clorox. But could a company like Burt’s Bees or Tom’s of Maine (now owned by Colgate) be able to continue their good work without this buyout? While they may not have died out completely, these companies who are bought out by conglomerates are seeing unprecedented growth.

Once again, we are seeing how difficult being green can truly be. It is never a matter of buying green or not, but buying the best product for you and your life at any given moment. While overall, I think that when you can, you should support smaller companies with the best track record. That is not always possible. Furthermore, when bought out by large corporations, smaller companies now have to report to a board of directors whose biggest concern is usually return on investment. By contrast, a smaller company is free to follow their primary mission objectives. This means that they can be more concerned with the environment, their employees, or social By being a part of a larger conglomerate, a company like Honest Tea (which is an organic, fair trade product) has access to all the outlets where Coke can be found. Being available at convenience stores and gas stations means a big boost in sales. The more the sales, the more fair trade organic tea that must be produced to meet their needs. That means more land being converted to organics, more tea workers being paid a living wage. It also means that some of the core values could be sacrificed along the way to meet minimum profit returns as demanded by the parent company.

What do you do as a consumer? Do you switch to a new brand, diverting your consumer dollars to a new company that remains completely loyal to its core mission values. Or do you continue to support your favorite brands in the hopes of increasing market share and making them more profitable? My thoughts lie somewhere in the middle. I want to support the company that is doing the most good. On the other hand, by continuing to buy Burt’s Bees products, it might make that division of Clorox more profitable and encourage that larger company to take steps to make other divisions of their conglomerate greener, or add more organics, or other green ideas. It does come down to money, and if we abandon our favorite products because we hate the parent company, then there is no incentive for large multi-national companies to try and better their social responsibility or use better ingredients.

While working for a grocery store chain called Nature’s Fresh Northwest in Portland, Oregon, we opened new stores in less than traditional markets for natural foods. In order to meet the demands of the local consumer base, more conventional products were introduced into these stores. The idea was that these conventional groceries were going to be bought anyway, and by allowing them to be purchased within the Nature’s store, it would attract more consumers. Furthermore, by keeping those consumers in the store they would be introduced to new and better products. This strategy had some merits in that by buying Coca Cola in our store, some shoppers were less likely to make another stop at a conventional store. This means they were more likely to do more shopping within our store and then make healthier choices in other categories. In a similar way, by having Stonyfield Farms Organic yogurts as a part of the same company that owns Dannon, organic yogurt is available at a better price and can be found in Wal Mart. This means access by a larger demographic. In a city like Cleveland, that can mean a lot to the average consumer who doesn’t or cannot shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s.

Tell me what you think? How do you approach this dilemma?

Tags: , ,

5 Responses to “The green products dilemma”

  1. Jess says:

    Things is always a trade-off, nothing is ever black and white. If the individual product or service remains “green” then I think we should use it, regardless of who the parent company may be.

    Oh and don’t even get me started with Walmart!

    -Jess

  2. Robert Stockham says:

    Well said!

  3. prasti says:

    ack! i always feel a bit distressed when things like that happen. there is an upside and a downside when supporting green companies who’ve been bought out by large (not so green) businesses. i’m always torn whether to continue to support it, or not. i guess it depends on the situation and if i can find a more indie alternative offered at the same price (since we’re on a budget).

    slightly off topic…but it also reminds of indie bands that we like who “make it big.” sometimes it’s not as fun to listen to them when suddenly everyone else is listening to them.

  4. Great post, Robert. I look at this not only from the point of view of the consumer, but also the manufacturer or company itself, as I own a modest green business.

    I’m incredibly grateful for my loyal customers, but the truth for my company is this: It’s far more expensive to manufacture green products and it takes a LOT more educating to reach and influence a wider consumer base than the typical “green consumer”. But we need this wide customer base in order to stay in business. So, I wonder if many green companies just plain need that funding and exposure. My point is, what good is a company who creates sustainable products if THEY are not sustainable financially?

    I feel the same way you do – I am left with a bad taste in my mouth when Big Conglomerate buys up Green Little Guy because I don’t want to support Big Conglomerate. At the same time, I want Green Little Guy to stay in business. My choice is this: I never buy the core products of Big Conglomerate, but I certainly buy the products of the Green Little Guy they are subsidizing. That is still a pretty powerful vote with the wallet.

  5. Pete says:

    In my personal opinion if you keep purchasing products from the small green company the large company will notice that in their board meetings and try to tap into that market more and more. If a small portion of the company is going gang busters they have no choice but to start to look closer at it and see what it is they are doing so well and try to duplicate that throughout the rest of their company.

    Money talks and if we support those parts of the company that are green they will notice and it will spread.

    Just my personal opinion. Besides if you find a product you just love, how can you start over finding something just as good? You love them for a reason.