artigo 6 - the aesthetic turn in green merketing environmental consumer ethics of natural personal...

8/19/2019 Artigo 6 - The aesthetic turn in green merketing environmental consumer ethics of natural personal care products.…

1/18

Anne Marie Todd

Ethics & the Environment, Volume 9, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2004, pp.

86-102 (Article)

Published by Indiana University Press

DOI: 10.1353/een.2005.0009

For additional information about this article

Access provided by UFMS-Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (24 Jun 2014 15:27 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/een/summary/v009/9.2todd.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/een/summary/v009/9.2todd.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/een/summary/v009/9.2todd.html


2/18

86 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 9(2) 2004

ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 9(2) 2004 ISSN: 1085-6633

©Indiana University Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.Direct all correspondence to: Journals Manager, Indiana University Press, 601 N. Morton St.,Bloomington. IN 47404 USA [email protected]

THE AESTHETIC TURN INGREEN MARKETING

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMER ETHICS OF

NATURAL PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS

ANNE MARIE TODD

ABSTRACT

Green consumerism is on the rise in America, but its environmental ef-

fects are contested. Does green marketing contribute to the greening of American consciousness, or does it encourage corporate greenwashing?

This tenuous ethical position means that eco-marketers must carefully

frame their environmental products in a way that appeals to consumers

with environmental ethics and buyers who consider natural products as

well as conventional items. Thus, eco-marketing constructs a complicated

ethical identity for the green consumer. Environmentally aware individu-

als are already guided by their personal ethics. In trying to attract new

consumers, environmentally minded businesses attach an aesthetic qual-

ity to environmental goods. In an era where environmentalism is increas-

ingly hip, what are the implications for an environmental ethics infused

with a sense of aesthetics?

This article analyzes the promotional materials of three companies

that advertise their environmental consciousness: Burt’s Bee’s Inc., Tom’s

of Maine, Inc., and The Body Shop Inc. Responding to an increasing


3/18

87 ANNE MARIE TODD THE AESTHETIC TURN IN GREEN MARKETING

online shopping market, these companies make their promotional and

marketing materials available online, and these web-based materials rep-

licate their printed catalogs and indoor advertisements. As part of selling

products to consumers based on a set of ideological values, these compa-

nies employ two specific discursive strategies to sell their products: theycreate enhanced notions of beauty by emphasizing the performance of

their natural products, and thus infuse green consumerism with a uniqueenvironmental aesthetic. They also convey ideas of health through com-

munity values, which in turn enhances notions of personal health to in-

clude ecological well-being. This article explicates the ethical implications

of a personal natural care discourse for eco-marketing strategies, and the

significance of a green consumer aesthetic for environmental conscious-

ness in general.

The intensification of the environmental crisis has reached alarmingproportions, which, for some, has fostered a greening of public perception.For example, a niche market of ecologically minded consumers has emerged,provoking a variety of corporate responses to this popular reevaluation of human consumption habits. Green consumerism is on the rise in America;it has been noted that more people recycle than vote for president.1 Theenvironmental effects of green consumerism are hotly contested. Some ar-

gue that it contributes to the greening of American consciousness, in partbecause it creates a balance between consumer’s expectations and businessprofit motives (e.g., Hailes 1998). Others argue that green consumerismdoes not address the root cause of environmental problems because it doesnot encourage a decline in consumption, and in fact encourages corporategreenwashing that misleads consumers about “sustainable” business prac-tices (e.g., Smith 1998; Stauber and Rampton, 2000).

This debate leaves green marketers in a unique ethical position. Inattempts to build up their market share, companies engaging in envi-

ronmental marketing must direct messages toward a dual audience: con-sumers whose buying habits already reflect an awareness of ecologicalimplications of consumption, as well as a vast number of potential con-sumers—those who must be convinced that the eco-costs of products areimportant.2 Therefore, eco-marketing strategies must carefully define theethical motivation for environmental products in a way that appeals bothto consumers with environmental ethics and buyers who consider naturalproducts as well as conventional ones.


4/18


While green marketing has a variety of connotations, it can be broadlyunderstood as commercial messages and consumer behavior that reflect“concern about the effects of manufacturing and consumption on the natu-ral environment” (Wagner 1997, 1). Green consumers share common val-

ues in their concern for the state of the environment and their awareness of the effect of over-consumption on the rate of environmental devastation.These values are reflected in an increased emphasis on the eco-costs of aproduct, which include its collective social and long term economic im-pacts. Sustainable marketing reconceptualizes production-consumptionsystems with several basic tenets (Fuller 1999): ecosystems pose a physicallimitation on production; businesses must account for the entire productlife cycle; pollution prevention and resource recovery are appropriate sus-tainable business practices; small environmental improvements translateinto large absolute improvements; and sustainable marketing is not anexercise in corporate altruism, but a social obligation (Fuller 1999, 5–6).These principles indicate the unique set of responsibilities facing environ-mental marketers.

Further, green consumer goods are ideological by their very nature,and thus represent an ethics-based market with a consumer culture shapedby environmentally aware shoppers. Thus, eco-marketing constructs a com-plicated ethical identity for the green consumer. Environmentally-aware

individuals are already guided by their personal ethics. In trying to attractnew consumers, environmentally-minded businesses attach an aestheticquality to environmental goods. Aesthetics can be broadly understood assensuous knowledge and perception of beauty (Goldman 2001) and hasdeveloped as a branch of philosophy originally tied to the study of ethicsand epistemology. Aristotle’s Poetics posited art forms as a means of rep-resentation and communication (1941); Benjamin (1934) explored theimpact of mechanical reproduction on art appreciation; and Kant (1987)extended a sense of aesthetics to mean judgments of beauty in art and

nature. Aesthetics has been described as the mother of ethics (Brodsky 1988,17), and like ethical terms, aesthetic terms are invoked with the purpose of eliciting a certain response (Ayer 1952, 114). The connection between eth-ics and aesthetics is of significant interest for scholars of environmentalethics and particularly the ethical dynamics of green consumerism. In anera where environmentalism is increasingly hip, what are the implicationsfor an environmental ethics infused with a sense of aesthetics?

Personal care products provide a unique lens with which to evaluate


5/18


the ethics of green consumers for two reasons. These products are consid-ered a necessity by most consumers even at the most basic level of personalhygiene; also the personal nature of hygiene products reveal intimate de-tails about consumers’ buying habits and indeed sense of self. This self-

conscious(ness) is the hallmark of personal product advertisements. Manysuch products are hawked as self-improvement aids: guaranteed to im-prove our self-image and thus self-esteem. Indeed, this is seen in a widerange of products—we see it in ads for clothing, cars, and alcoholic bever-ages which tell us that their products will make us beautiful, more success-ful, or more popular. With personal products—items directly targeted toimprove one’s appearance—this marketing strategy is particularly evident:miracle creams are guaranteed to reverse the aging process by reducinglines or wrinkles, deodorants and perfumes mask offensive odors, while acontemporary shampoo promises to give you an “organic” (read “orgas-mic”) experience.

The marketing strategies for eco-friendly personal care products re-veal the intersection of aesthetics and green consumer ethics. I analyze thepromotional materials of three companies that advertise their environmentalconsciousness: Burt’s Bee’s Inc., Tom’s of Maine, Inc., and The Body Shop,Inc. I chose these three companies because they represent two differentmodels of environmental business. Both Burt’s Bees and Tom’s of Maine

are small companies which do not operate their own retail outlets, but sellmany of their products in natural and organic groceries around the coun-try. The Body Shop is a large British retail chain specializing in cosmeticsand personal care products. The Body Shop has built its empire sellingenvironmentally friendly and ethically produced products, and The BodyShop now has stores in shopping malls across America, thanks in largepart to its politically progressive image. For each company, I analyze pub-lic advertisements, printed materials (magazine ads, catalogs), productpackaging(packaging vividness and messaging), and websites (company

mission statements, ads, and product descriptions).Responding to an increase in online shopping, these companies make

their promotional and marketing materials available online, and these web-based materials replicate their printed catalogs and indoor advertisements.This paper explores the Internet as a rich text for environmental market-ing by analyzing the ways companies showcase details about their produc-tion methods, business philosophy and other facets of their ecological values.The Internet is a significant medium of communication for environmental


6/18


business as an alternative to paper-based communication. While each of these companies offers its products in stores, all of them have a significantweb presence, indicating the importance of online advertising for today’sretail markets.

Several common themes emerge from an analysis of the web discourseof Burt’s Bees, Tom’s of Maine, and the Body Shop. All three companies inthis study emphasize a set of values and beliefs that guide their businesspractices—this is the hallmark of environmental businesses and eco-mar-keting. First, I offer a brief introduction to the environmental ethics andthe ethical dynamics of environmental marketing. As part of selling prod-ucts to consumers based on a set of ideological values, the three companiesemploy two specific discursive strategies to sell their products. I next ar-ticulate how these companies create enhanced notions of beauty by em-phasizing the performance of their natural products, and thus infuse greenconsumerism with a unique environmental aesthetic. Third, I examine howBurt, Tom, and the Body Shop communicate ideas of health through com-munity values, which in turn expand notions of personal health to ecologi-cal well-being. I conclude with a discussion of the ethical implications of apersonal natural care discourse for eco-marketing strategies, and thesignificance of a green consumer aesthetic for environmental conscious-ness in general.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND THE DYNAMICS

OF GREEN MARKETING

Aristotle noted that in ethics “the decision rests with perception”(Rolston 1989, 31). An environmental ethics must consider how humansperceive themselves in relation to the rest of nature, and how they see theirobligation to protect nature. Herbert Marcuse saw aesthetic needs as asubversive force that could enable things to be seen and appreciated intheir own right (1972, 74). For Marcuse, “The emancipated senses, in

conjunction with a natural science proceeding on their basis, would guidethe ‘human appropriation’ of nature” (60). Marcuse’s view that the aes-thetic qualities of nature counter a life devoted to competition enhancingperformance provide the basis for a critical environmental philosophy (seeEckersley 1992, 71).

Indeed, nonhumans provide reasons for moral consideration based onaesthetic properties that endow them with intrinsic value (Elliot 1991, 290).These aesthetic properties depend on knowledge of an ecological system:


7/18


“knowing how the parts work in concert to maintain the whole mightassist us in seeing it as a thing of beauty” (Elliot 1991, 292). An ecologicalaesthetic emphasizes the interconnectedness of ecosystems, linking nature’sbeauty to its ecological sustainability (see Leopold 1966).The beauty and

integrity of nature endow it with intrinsic value that informs contempo-rary environmental consciousness. Eugene Hargrove (1989) argues thatnatural ecosystems have a special kind of beauty that is intrinsically valu-able and thus obligates humanity to preserve wild and unmanaged nature.Holmes Rolston (1989) posits that an ecological ethic must attend to is-sues of beauty and integrity. “The intrinsically valuable intellectual stimu-lation that the scientist defends is, in fact, a parallel to the aesthetic encounterthat the aesthetician defends, for both demand a distance from everydaypersonal needs and yet a participatory experience that is nontransferableto the uninitiated” (Rolston 1989, 81). Nature derives intrinsic value fromits life-sustaining ecological processes and its singular beauty. Environ-mental aesthetics influence how we think about resources, as well as howwe consume.

Therefore, an environmental aesthetic necessarily involves an ethicalsense of beauty: that one must act to preserve the value of the environment.Arnold Berleant’s (1990) ‘aesthetics of engagement,’ stresses an immedi-ate sensuous involvement, even immersion, in the object of appreciation.

Berleant (1992) posits that aesthetic experience is contextual, and theinterconnectedness of natural environments establishes the primary meansof environmental perception as engagement. An aesthetics of engagementcalls for intimate participation, and informs environmental aesthetics, whichencompass a broad sense of the world at large (Carlson 2001, 428). Greenconsumerism exhibits an aesthetics of engagement because product per-formance is evaluated not only by its beauty or health enhancing proper-ties, but also for its sense of environmental sustainability. In any sociallyprogressive business, “‘the intrinsic worth of the environment . . . must be

allowed its weight in any consideration of final ends’” (Whitehead [1925]in Holmes 1989, 159). Sustainable marketing ethics rely on an enhancedunderstanding of the costs of products that take into consideration theenvironmental and social impacts of production and consumption. PaulHawken (1993) locates primary responsibility for addressing the socialand ecological implications of human consumption patterns in the planet’sdominant institutions: corporations (xiii). Hawken articulates three press-ing issues that define this corporate responsibility: “what it takes,” the


8/18


material and energy resources extracted from ecosystems; “what it makes,”the commodity and service effects of industrial production processes; and“what it wastes,” the collective social and environmental costs to consum-ers, society and ecological habitats (1). While corporations are not the

harbinger of ecological responsibility, and consumption is a necessity of human existence, these principles of green consumerism offer a lens intothe transformative potential of human consumption. The power of con-sumer buying directly informs the nature of ecological market exchanges.Green consumerism represents a way for individuals to practice their envi-ronmental values (by purchasing from corporations that establish an eco-friendly brand identity.)

Advertising and brand image are persuasive strategies to publicize com-pany consciousness and business values. Corporations embrace citizenvalues such as community, honesty, and integrity in order to inspire brandloyalty. These “citizen brands” emphasize business ethics and social re-sponsibility as the “all-powerful consumer today expects a deepening levelof emotional commitment, sincerity, and social responsibility from brandsand corporations” (Gobé 2002, xx).3 Environmentally conscious consum-ers demand a deep level of ecological commitment and responsibilty fromcorporations and thus green entrepreneurs must sell the environmentalethics of their company, not just the eco-friendly nature of their products.

The social and environmental consciousness of green businesses reflectsthe ethical motivations of environmentally aware consumers. The conscious-ness of a company, communicated through advertisements and the prod-ucts themselves, connects to the values of consumers, who express theseethics through the products they buy. “Self-identity as a green consumeroften involves a particular ethical orientation, as also is likely to be thecase with blood donation . . . facets of people’s self-identities which invokesome moral imperative or consideration will influence intentions and be-havior independently if those influences are not revealed in expressed atti-

tudes” (Sparks and Sheperd 1992, 297). The ethical identity of greenconsumers is significant in the development of a green market, becausevalue-laden eco-costs drive sales of sustainable products, which dictatesan environmentally friendly company image: an environmental aesthetics.An examination of how Burt’s Bee’s and Tom’s of Maine’s earthy environ-mental marketing strategies compare to the slicker, trendy ads of The BodyShop sheds light on how ethics and aesthetics converge to create a nuancedenvironmental ethics for green consumerism.


9/18


NATURAL PERFORMANCE: A COSMETIC AESTHETIC

As discussed earlier, personal products generally promise self-improve-ment, and in this way, these products perform. They enhance the health or

appearance of the consumer as well as the well-being of the environment.All three companies studied offer health and beauty products; Tom’s of Maine emphasizes hygiene and health solutions while Burt’s presents suchremedies in addition to a broader variety of beauty products for face andskin. The Body Shop offers an exclusive emphasis on beauty with a wideselection of beauty products ranging from skin moisturizers and a colorfulpalette of make-up. These product lines provide insight into the expandedaesthetics offered by natural personal care products, one that is concernedwith ecological integrity as well as personal appearance. Burt’s, Tom’s, andThe Body Shop exemplify an environmental aesthetic that links personalappearance to environmental beauty: by purchasing environmentallyfriendly cosmetics, consumers are supporting their own environmentallyconscious lifestyle and are also promoting ecological sustainability.

Tom’s of Maine’s slogan, “Naturally it works,” promises the perfor-mance of nature, the enriched beneficial qualities of ecological systems,through its overt celebration of natural ingredients without synthetic addi-tives. While promising a naturally guaranteed result, this is also an im-

plicit argument for less intervention into the ecosystems that provide theseresources: “We believe in working with the pure, simple ingredients natureprovides to create Natural Care products that work; for you, the environ-ment and our communities” (Tom’s of Maine 2003). Tom’s argues thattheir products are effective for personal care, but also invest and help en-hance the company’s esteem in the larger consumer community. This is animportant ethical connection, because (to borrow a still relevant phrase)the personal is political, and as consumers, our choices matter, not only forproduct or performance, but also for a more holistic ecological perfor-

mance.Burt’s offers a similar kind of performance, claiming “we deliver what

others only promise!” (Burt’s Bees Catalog 1999, 22). On its website, Burt’sexplains how the company reduces waste by using very little plastic andsimple, safe, and effective materials such as cotton, paper, metal and glass.They reuse, as many of their containers can be used again; and recycle, byencouraging their customers to bring back their empties, which they willreuse or recycle at their plant in North Carolina (Burt’s Bees Catalog 1999,


10/18


22). Burt’s “sensual skin solutions” promise to “help your hands and treatyour feet” (Burt’s Bees 2003). This product promotion declares that it isokay to pamper yourself. Instead of trying to reduce consumption, thesecompanies celebrate responsible consumption. This tactic promotes an

environmental ethic that does not rely on consumer guilt, but empowersconsumers to feel good about their consumption choices. Burt’s offers onlya limited cosmetic line, which it promotes as “clean and classic minimalmakeup.” Make-up’s nonessential role in the company’s product line im-plies it is not an essential part of the human daily routine. The make-up isclean and minimal—an easy transference to the need for humans to strivefor a minimal environmental impact for a cleaner Earth. As a symbol of itsminimal impact on the environment, Burt’s offers a cosmetic line that val-ues customers’ natural beauty and eschews artificial colors and exagger-ated features.

The Body Shop urges visitors to its website to “feel good, naturally”(Body Shop 2003). This mantra establishes a connection between naturalingredients and performance that makes a connection between ethics andaesthetics, linking human beauty with natural integrity. Unlike Burt’s, theBody Shop offers an extensive line of makeup. While using advertisingstrategies typical of generic cosmetics, it emphasizes the beauty enhancingqualities of its make-up, but also redefines what beauty is.

How do you define great make-up? We think it not only makes youlook good, but feel good and does good too. It gives the wearerconfidence and is enjoyable to use.

Our quest for the best has been exhaustive and means that TheBody Shop make-up now combines the best advances in cosmetic sci-ence with our years of expertise of natural ingredients—some of whichare now mainstays of cosmetics and some of which are exclusive toThe Body Shop make-up. . . . ‘High performance’ or ‘simply great’?Don’t just take our word for it—come to The Body Shop and try it for

yourself. (Body Shop 2003)The Body Shop’s performance claims expand the beauty aesthetic that drivesthe cosmetic industry. “Make-up is no longer simply about looking good,but feeling good and doing good too” (Body Shop 2003). Reframing beautyideals is an important part of the Body Shop’s image of high-quality and environmentally friendly products. If products containing natural ingredi-ents have outstanding beauty results, more people can be persuaded tobuy these environmentally friendly products instead of cosmetics produced


11/18


12/18


conceals natural “flaws” and manipulates diverse female forms to reflecta socially constructed “perfect body.” There is a certain transparency re-garding natural products—knowing what goes into beauty products re-veals connections between production processes and environmental effects

—revealing connections between our consumption habits and natural habi-tats. Transparent production processes parallel transparent beauty idealsthat emphasize natural beauty rather than hiding “imperfections” thatdeviate from an artificial ideal. Burt’s Bees and Tom’s of Maine promotethe performance of natural products in the enhancement of personal beauty,while The Body Shop redefines conventional notions of beauty to includeecological well-being. Both strategies reveal an environmental aestheticthat emphasizes natural beauty and both personal and ecological integrity.

CONSUMER ACTIVISM AND COMMUNITY HEALTH

The transparency of the production of personal products establishesconnections between consumer choices and community well-being. All threecompanies publicize their community involvement and their promotionsgo further than encouraging product purchases; they provide opportuni-ties for community involvement, promote actions to protect the environ-ment, and seek contributions to conservation efforts on their websites.Tom’s of Maine’s main cause is river stewardship, Burt’s Bees raises funds

for conservation of wilderness land in Maine, and the Body Shop investsits resources in impoverished communities worldwide. Through their em-phasis on community involvement to build healthy communities, all threecompanies in this analysis make connections between consumer health andthe larger environment. Consumption is linked to environmental activismin both consumer and corporate practices.

Tom’s of Maine’s “Natural Care” philosophy, “take care of your bodyand community” (Tom’s of Maine 2003), attaches environmental value topersonal care. Their slogan “conservation, restoration, stewardship” (Tom’s

of Maine 2003) makes clear connections between actions and philosophythat are holistic, not isolated in the consumption of their products. Tom’staps into the environmental consciousness of their customers, which ex-tends beyond purchasing green products. And offers them additional ven-ues for environmental activism. Their website includes things that customerscan do besides consuming—“Did you know . . . washing your car on pave-ment can cause soap and oil to flow into rivers? Learn more and take


13/18


action for rivers . . . Tom’s of Maine—working with nature to make a dif-ference” (Tom’s of Maine 2003). Burt’s Bees’ main cause is protection of land by preserving open space. In July 1999, Burt’s Bees pledged $2 mil-lion to save 185,000 acres of Maine forest. Their effort was part of “the

single largest conservation acquisition in Maine’s history. It is also the largesttract of land ever purchased for conservation in the northeastern UnitedStates” (News and Information 1999). Their protection efforts continuecurrently as the company tries to raise funds to expand this forest pre-serve, exemplifying Burt’s philosophy “to protect, utilize and enjoy thefinest ingredients found within nature” (News and Information 1999).Green consumerism is about more than getting people to purchase prod-ucts, as it often encourages them to donate to environmental protectionefforts. Eco-marketing tactics are designed to inspire people to do morefor their community; whereas purchasing the product has a tangible benefit,the green marketing tactics of Burt’s, Tom’s, and The Body Shop incorpo-rate donations to the cause, where the less tangible cause—the protectionof wild lands and rivers—is linked to the company and its commodities.The Body Shop promotes self-esteem, urging customers to “feel good aboutyourself from head to toe,” a metaphor that illustrates connections be-tween beauty and health, and personal and global well-being. Their mis-sion evokes the tenets of sustainable business practices.

As a socially responsible business we campaign for the protection of the environment, human and civil rights and against animal testingwithin the cosmetics and toiletries industry.

Volunteering supports this work enabling us to positively con-tribute to the local, national and global communities in which we op-erate. . . . at the same time as considering the changing expectations of society and the growing environmental and ethical concerns. In un-derstanding this we realize that our support is fundamental and con-tinually explore imaginative new ways of working. (Body Shop 2003)

The self-esteem promoted by use of their personal products mirrors theBody Shop’s sense of their own impact on the global community. The con-nection between self and community is an important way green businessescan support their causes while at the same time selling their products. Whileextolling the moisturizing virtues of its marula nut oil, the Body Shop adds“What is more, this ingredient is Community Traded from Namibia, so itdoes good too” (Body Shop 2003). Here the connection between looking


14/18


good and feeling good conveys that beauty is not just superficial, but partof a natural human aesthetic that is enhancing the well-being of the largerglobal community.

Some argue that seeking environmental change through consumer

habits absolves people of guilt because their purchase of these productsseemingly takes care of their environmental obligations. According to thisthinking, any environmental ethic linked to the consumption of these prod-ucts distracts customers from considering the environmental impact of therest of their consumption practices and other daily activities. The commu-nity connection emphasized by these three companies responds to suchclaims. “Our values: never doubt that a group of thoughtful, committedcitizens can change the world, indeed it’s the only thing it ever does” (BodyShop 2003). Social responsibility does not end with the purchase of theproduct; rather, green consumerism incorporates a self-identity that is as-sociated with well-being of community. This sense of the greater commu-nity instills a connection between individual actions and their largerenvironmental implications. In this way, The Body Shop promotes an aes-thetics of engagement. Consumption does not occur in a vacuum; our con-sumer choices have significant ecological implications. Green marketinglinks ethics and aesthetics to offer consumer choices that promote ecologi-cal health and beauty.

As noted in the introduction, by buying into green marketing, onerisks falling prey to greenwashing: excusing corporations for the endlesspursuit of waste and consumption, because of a few environmentally-themed advertisements. Certainly, there are companies that advertise naturalremedies and botanical products inspired by nature. For example, Bathand Body Works, one of The Body Shop’s main competitors, promises todeliver “innovation from nature,” and the “pure simplicity” of “nature’smiracles” (Bath & Body Works 2004). This strategy reveals a differentagenda: using a solitary line of natural beauty products to enhance the

company’s overall environmental image. For Bath and Body Works, “liv-ing beautifully” means interior decorating and “protection” means wrinkledefense. Their animal testing policy—“we don’t ask anyone who may behelping us develop or make our products to conduct [animal] tests on ourbehalf” (Bath and Body Works 2004)—is vague and noncommittal, espe-cially when compared to The Body Shop, who has a strict purchasing policyagainst ingredients tested on animals and wages an active campaign againstsuch practices (Body Shop 2003). Whereas an environmental aesthetic in-


15/18


cludes a sense of ethical responsibility, Bath and Body Works offers moreof a “corporate cosmetic.”4 Thus the danger of environmental ethics markedonly by aesthetics is that ecologically-minded consumers may make deci-sions based on a company’s green image rather than the actual qualities of

their products. Green consumerism requires an ethics of engagement inwhich customers evaluate product quality as part of corporate aesthetics.In turn, an engaged corporate aesthetics emphasizes informed consumerchoices with details about production processes and policies. In contrastto Bath and Body Works, for example, Burt’s, Tom’s, and The Body Shopavoid simply greenwashing by offering detailed information on theirwebsites, on their packaging, and in their advertisements about their in-gredients, philanthropic commitments, and ethical practices. In doing so,these companies perform an ethical aesthetic that goes beyond simply a“green” corporate cosmetic.

CONCLUSION: ENGAGED AESTHETICS: ETHICAL

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HEALTH AND BEAUTY

The ethical dimensions of green marketing require a balance betweenproduct performance and environmental sustainability. “Both science andart have the capacity to help us see much further than our everyday economyrequires” (Rolston 1989, 82). Natural, personal care products blend aes-

thetics and environmental science because they use natural ingredients toproduce high quality cosmetics and other personal beauty and health prod-ucts that combine scientific guarantees with an enhanced aesthetic of na-ture. Human beauty is seen in the context of a larger sense of naturalbeauty and the functioning of the ecosystem. Thus, the marketing of envi-ronmentally friendly products involves a complicated sense of aesthetics,one that invokes connections between health and beauty. This aesthetic ismarked not by image politics, but by a sense of beauty that reflects the eco-costs of a product, and thus its impact on greater ecological integrity. These

connections between self and community, ethics and aesthetics, and hu-mans and nature synthesize traditional social, cultural, and ecological hi-erarchies that perpetuate certain values to the exclusion of others. Theselinks allow eco-marketers to appeal to a dual audience: those motivatedby ecological awareness, and those who are not. Eco-marketing strategiesmerge ethics and aesthetics so that people attracted by the aesthetics of natural personal care products grow to understand and believe the envi-ronmental ethics behind the products. The connection between natural


16/18


ingredients and performance encourage consumers to make the connec-tion between the ethics of production and the aesthetics of the beauty prod-ucts, which fosters an understanding of the relationship between consumerchoices and environmental beauty. Thus an environmental aesthetics of

engagement changes the nature of consumption, because personal healthand beauty is inextricably linked to the well-being of our surrounding natu-ral environment.

The aesthetics of engagement also prompts green marketers to includethe company’s community involvement with environmental issues. Theconnections with community offers a discursive turn, because instead of hiding the production processes and only selling the final products—thoseproduction processes which are often unseemly—the advertisements forthese natural products celebrate the production process. This transpar-ency makes connections visible, and emphasizes harmony between humansand nature. These connections offer visions for a world where environ-mental aesthetics influences corporate decisions. Through calls for thegreater good of community, Burt’s Bees, Tom’s of Maine, and the BodyShop make explicit connections between individual actions and larger en-vironmental implications. The belief that individual consumer choices makea difference underscores the marketing of each of these companies. Whilemany companies invest in their communities, environmental marketing

emphasizes the interconnectedness of the ecological community and anethical aesthetic that relies on the well-being of the global community sup-ported by a healthy environment. While eco-marketing does not eradicateconsumption, nor undermine the normative power of the beauty industry,an environmental aesthetic that emphasizes ecological beauty and com-munity health does espouse a consumer ethic that considers the perfor-mance of the brand, not just the product.

This environmental aesthetic promotes an ethic that is guided by ho-listic beauty. The ethical principles of green marketing are based on per-

spective of humans as part of a complicated and intrinsically valuableecosystem. Social change must happen gradually; community activismimbues consumers with agency because through personal purchases, indi-viduals can cause change. These environmental messages create a compli-cated ethical consumer identity where being green is not just cool, butpeople are hip to the need for action to protect the environment—and thusthe need to consider the eco-costs of their actions. The aesthetic turn ingreen marketing creates an ethical aesthetic where beauty is more than

skin deep.


17/18


NOTES

I thank the editors and reviewers of Ethics & the Environment for their con-siderable insight and extremely helpful comments.

1. 150 Million Americans recycle everyday (Schueller 2002), while 105 Ameri-cans voted for president in 2000 (Center for Voting and Democracy 2002. Seealso Watson 2004.

2. Environmental marketing refers to “sustainable marketing” as conceived bySheth and Parvatiyar (1995), who aim to reconcile the economic and ecologi-cal factors of production systems. In this article, this term is interchangeablewith “green marketing,” and “eco-marketing.” I acknowledge the connotativedifferences among such terms, and use them in reference to a broad array of marketing strategies. For a more specific overview of distinct practices of “sus-tainable marketing” see Fuller (1999, 1–46).

3. See Gobé (2002) for a full explanation of The Body Shop’s influential model of community programs for customers and employees.

4. I am indebted to Christine Harold for her suggestion of this term.

REFERENCES

Aristotle. 1941). “De poetica.” In. R. McKeon (Ed.). The Basic Works of Aristotle.New York: Random House, pp. 1455–87.

Ayer, A.J. 1952. Language, Truth and Logic. New York: Dover.

Bath & Body Works. 2004 [Online]. Available: www.bbw.com/

Berleant, A. 1990. Art and Engagement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.———. 1992. The Aesthetics of Environment . Philadelphia: Temple University

Press.

Body Shop, The. 2003, [Online]. Available: www.thebodyshop.com/

———. 1999. “The Body Shop: About Us” [On-line]. http://www.usa.the-body-shop.com/aboutus/body-home.html.

Brodsky, J. March-April 1988. “Uncommon visage,” Poets and Writers Magazine.

Burt’s Bees. 2003. “Burt’s Bees” [Online]. Available: www.burtsbees.com/

———. 1999. Catalog: “The Buccaneer of Buzz,” Raleigh, N.C.: Burt’s Bees, Inc.

———. 1999. “News and Information”, last updated 1 September [On-line].Available: http://www.burtsbees.com/cgi-bin/bb.cgi/whatsnew.phtml.

Carlson, A. 2001. “Environmental Aesthetics.” In B. Gaut and D.M. Lopes (Eds.),Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. London: Routledge, pp. 423–36.

Center for Voting and Democracy. 2002. “Voter turnout and mobilization” [Online].

Available: http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/#general.Eckersly, R. 1992. “Environmentalism and Political Theory,” Albany: State Uni-

versity of New York Press, 97–106. In Merchant, C. (Ed.) [1994]. Key Con-cepts in Critical Theory: Ecology. New Jersey: Humanities Press, pp. 65–76.


18/18


Elliot, R. 1991. “Environmental Ethics.” In Singer, P. (Ed.), A Companion to Eth-ics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 284–93.

Fuller, D. 1999. Sustainable Marketing: Managerial-Ecological Issues. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage.

Gobé, M. 2002. Citizen Brand . New York: Alworth Press.Goldman, A. 2001. “The Aesthetic.” In B.Gaut and D. M. Lopes (Eds.), RoutledgeCompanion to Aesthetics. London: Routledge, pp. 181–92.

Hailes, J. 26 February1998. “Understanding the green consumer.” Presentation atthe International Symposium on Consumption and the Environment in Tokyo, Japan [Online]. Available: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/green-consumer.html.

Hargrove, E.C. 1989. Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hawken, P. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability.New York: HarperCollins.

Kant, I. 1987. Critique of Judgment , trans. W.S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Leopold, A. 1966. “Conservation Esthetic.” In A Sand County Almanac. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Marcuse, H. 1972. Counter Revolution and Revolt . London: Allen Lane.

Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Rolston, H. 1989. Philosophy Gone Wild . Buffalo, N. Y.: Prometheus Books.

Schueller, G. Fall 2002. “Wasting Away,” Onearth [Online]. Available: http:// www.nrdc.org/onearth/02fal/recycling1.asp.

Sheth, J., & Parvatiyar, A. 1995. “Ecological Imperatives and the Role of Market-ing.” In M. Polonsky & A. Mintu-Wumsall (Eds.), Environmental Marketing:Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. New York: Haworth, pp. 3–20.

Smith, T. 1998. The Myth of Green Marketing: Tending Our Goats at the Edge of the Apocalypse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Sparks, P. & Sheperd, R. December 1992. “Self-identity and the Theory of PlannedBehavior: Assessing the Role of Identification with ‘Green Consumerism,’” So-cial Psychology Quarterly 55 (4):388–99.

Stauber, J. & Rampton, S. 1995. Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Monroe, Me.:Common Courage Press.

Tom’s of Maine. 2003. www.tomsofmaine.com/

Wagner, S. 1997. Understanding Green Consumer Behavior: A Qualitative Cogni-tive Approach. London: Routledge.

Watson, T. 11 July 2004. “Recycling is Old News,” USA Today [Online]. Avail-able: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0711recycle11.html.

Whitehead, A.N. 1925, 1964. Science and the Modern World . New York: MentorBooks, New American Library, p. 175.

artigo 6 - the aesthetic turn in green merketing environmental consumer ethics of natural personal...

Documents