This story doesn’t have to be dry and scientific though, please. IMO, as marketers it is our job to capture readers’ attention and make them want to feel positive affinity for the product, put it in their shopping basket, and if they like it, share their experience and make recommendations to others. All this while not being vague, overstating claims, and using subjective in-house nor uncredible 3rd party labels.

Reliable certified labels that are single- and multi-attribute (like SMaRT) would also be beneficial. I recognize that not everyone will perhaps notice such a label, however the jurisdiction on placement on the packaging (front, rear, side) and its prominence (size and visual distinction apart from other visual elements) really comes down to the design agency, manufacturer, and sometimes the retailer (in the case of private-label programs and with the mega dictation power of retail giants like Wal-Mart).

Let’s see what the future holds.

I was drinking a case of water ($4) and two 2.5 gallon jugs of water ($6) every two weeks because my tap water tastes terrible. The Brita pitcher and the Nalgene bottle cost just under $40. So over time it makes economic and environmental sense - and I don’t have a lug home 10 lbs worth of water every time I shop.

Reply:
”
@jay.el - yes, many efforts are being wasted. Primarily it’s inappropriate image-based advertising and half-ass efforts like carbon offsetting. Cause-related marketing is a much better solution in absence of substantive internal improvement. The effort of appearing green can be good, IF there is substance behind the product’s attributes and the company’s operations. Investors should know how a company is performing on the CSR front, and from a financial perspective (where benefits may be attained). Secondly, consumers should be able to identify and vote with their dollars, what products provide the value proposition they’re looking for AND happen to have green attributes.”

Reply:
“@solarlife - The ’sustainable-ness’ of a product has to be scored. Because we’re talking about a systems design with multiple parties though, a manufacturer’s product can only be graded so far. For disposal of CFLs, there’s either the local hazmat disposal facility, or there’s IKEA and Home Depot (insert other retailer in case they have a program). Because of this situation, Paul Hawken and other environmentalists have called greater emphasis on products as services to be rented/leased, instead of owned, so that the burden of disposal isn’t placed on the user.”

My comment is that there is some validity to Mr. Moore’s points. Plasticizers and elastomers are the agents that really make PVC based products dangerous to human health.

However, I’m not qualified at this point to consider end-of-life cycle best practices for PVC products and packaging. All I’d like to see is less packaging waste on retail shelves, in landfills, and in the ocean.