What Green College Rankings Reveal

Sierra Magazine has released its annual “Cool Schools” environmental rankings of U.S. colleges and universities. Their rating appears to be just that—an assessment of the school’s green hip factor. At least, that’s what I’m left to guess. The magazine based its ratings on questionnaires sent to the schools and doesn’t disclose many details about how it evaluated the answers.

A comparison of the top 10 rankings from all three years Sierra has ranked these institutions shows the ratings aren’t consistent, either. Only two—Middlebury and Oberlin—made the top 10 all three years. Yale, a model of sustainability, has never hit the top of the list (it’s #14 this year). And Warren Wilson, a school that lives and breathes environmentalism, ranked #3 in 2007 but dropped to #18 this year.

As a result, it’s not very credible, even though the Sierra Club is a highly respected organization. (Full disclosure: I’m a member.)

Part of this can be explained by the explosion of schools that are making sustainability a priority. There are simply lots more colleges and universities making green claims. Now more than ever, those that communicate best about their programs—providing full information, with clear measures of success—will get the recognition.

I’ve found that educational institutions are uncomfortable about trumpeting their work generally and about marketing in particular. But they shouldn’t be. There’s a lot at stake. Both parents and prospective students care a lot about whether a school is green, with two-thirds of them saying the it would influence their decision to apply or attend, according to Princeton Review’s 2009 “College Hopes and Worries” survey.

With Eco-label Claims, Credibility Is Key

We are awash in eco-labels and certifications, as Sustainable Industries shows in its recent article, The Great Eco-label Shakedown.” I’ve been tracking them for a while now, and I’m not even close to knowing about all of them—there are about 300 worldwide, as tallied by Big Room’s www.ecolabelling.org (and it’s not a comprehensive list).

Whether these stamps of approval are useful or just another method of greenwashing depends on the label’s credibility—and on how well people understand what the label means.

Many are calling for governmental oversight, as the article points out, and I’m in that camp. But that’s not going to happen soon, so until then marketers should be mindful of the credibility of product claims, including eco-labels.

Credibility requires that the eco-label represents third-party verification derived from well-defined guidelines and standards. The certifying organizations should communicate clearly what the standards are and how they verify adherence. (Excellent examples are William McDonough’s Cradle to Cradle, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and Scientific Certification Systems.)

Then that information needs to be passed on to the purchaser in an easily understood, digestible form. This is where the chain of information often breaks.

My own recent experience looking for printer paper is a case in point. The three big-box office supply stores (yes, I wish I could have shopped with a local stationer) stocked what I wanted: all-purpose, 20 lb. printer paper made from 100 percent post-consumer waste. I chose to buy my paper from the one store that advertised FSC-certified products and explained what that meant. It also pointed out that the Rainforest Alliance had endorsed the paper. (Note that none explained why post-consumer recycled content is preferable.)

I’d have been happy to go with the FSC certification alone. But I think companies (and marketers) have a responsibility to educate customers about sustainability issues until that knowledge becomes commonplace. It will help keep greenwashing to a minimum, and possibly bring customer loyalty to the brands and stores that take the time to educate.

I’m going to keep an eye on the different eco-labels, in particular their crediblity—how well they are (or aren’t) communicating what they do and how they do it, as well as governmental oversight efforts. I’ll post what I find out here.

UL Needs to Do More with UL Environment Certification

Underwriters Laboratory’s UL Environment, which is certifying green products and verifying green product claims, has just announced the first product to be rated: Serious Materials’ EcoRock drywall. The product appears genuine, based on the excellent information on the company website, and it’s also got Cradle to Cradle certification.

While the UL assessment has UL’s brand clout behind it, they could add assurance and help alleviate consumer confusion over what’s truly friendly for the environment by providing complete disclosure about what their certifications mean on their website. Right now, there’s nothing on the UL Environment website that makes the label credible (except for the aforementioned brand power). By comparison, the Cradle to Cradle site has full disclosure.

Some questions they can answer: How and what are they testing? What is the process? What are the benchmarks and standards? Are they only looking at claims made or are they also comparing the product to similar ones? Do they consider what’s possible, so that if a company is only doing the bare minimum, it counts less?

Eco-labels are proliferating at a pretty fast clip. If they’re going to clear up confusion and help consumers sort out conflicting environmental claims and know what makes one thing greener than another, certifiers (and product marketers) need to help educate.

For more on the UL rollout, see Sustainable Industries’ excellent article. It was also covered at GreenBiz.com.

The Thinkshift Credibility Quotient Goes Beta

I’m excited to report that the Thinkshift® Credibility Quotient™ is ready for public consumption: we are beta testing it now, and would love your feedback.

We’ve been working on the CQ (as we call it in-house) for some time, and it’s exciting because as far as we know, this is the first system for measuring the credibility of communications—and letting people see how they stack up against competitors.

Why credibility? It’s a huge issue for companies trying to get people to adopt clean technology or a new approach, and for any company or institution promoting sustainability initiatives. (Don’t want to be accused of greenwashing? You’d better be credible.) It’s essential to being persuasive, whether you’re trying to convince people to buy a product or service, support your endeavors, or take action on an issue. And it’s just too important to assess based solely on insider impressions.

The CQ rates the credibility of any type of communication (websites, reports, marketing collateral) on a weighted 100-point scale. The system considers 10 factors integral to credibility and scores for each, with the most important receiving the most weight. The CQ rating (or grade) is the sum of those scores.

Thinkshift can provide a Credibility Quotient for a single communications vehicle or an entire program, or benchmark an organization’s communications against others in its field.

You can download a PDF that tells you more about how the CQ works and includes sample ratings (short versions) here: http://www.thinkshiftcom.com/ThinkshiftCQ_beta.pdf.

We’d love to know what you think: Do you see the value? Is it something your organization, or one you’re familiar with, could use?

Keep the Silver Bullet Talk In-House

People trying to turn an innovative sustainability technology into a market-leading product or service often develop a religious fervor: theirs is the one true path to salvation. And that spirit can be great for maintaining organizational morale and motivating everyone to forge ahead through tough times. But it’s bad marketing.

Our sustainability challenges are enormous and fast-moving, and the reality is, there’s probably not a single solution to any one of them. When you say you have a silver bullet—the one thing that’s going to solve all our problems—you’re more likely to raise suspicions than inspire converts. Why? “I have the one best way” is an impossible claim to prove (at least until you’ve realized your dream), and it invites skeptics to pick your solution apart. Besides, we’ve all heard these boasts from others whose solutions didn’t pan out (or haven’t yet).

Maintaining credibility with outside audiences may require disciplining your enthusiasm a bit. “Over deliver and under promise” is still good advice, and it keeps the luster on your reputation.