The blog post I am critiquing comes from trendwatching.com titled “Eco-Bounty.” The post explores how the rise in environmentalism and green technology has transformed the way consumers purchase their various items and goods. “Eco-Bounty” argues that consumers have turned to waste-reduction, sustainability, and environment friendly purchasing behavior because the rise in pollution is destroying the planet. The blog not only argues that the change in consumer behavior is on the rise throughout the world, but that it is becoming profitable and trendy to go green. But I wonder just how much “bounty” there is in consumers buying less and being more economical. Can the green movement stimulate the economy? Or will the global economy shrink as a whole as a result of less consumption? These are the questions the world will have to find out as we collectively move to a more sustainable world.

One of the problems I see with the economy shifting to an environmentally conscious business world is that growth will not be apart of the process. Since the Industrial Revolution, this country has prided itself on moving forward and making the greatest profit possible through massive increases and growth. That has been the way of the whole 20th century. Companies always complain that if there isn’t growth in a quarter earnings, then that means they are doing poorly. For example, the North American box office has been on fire since the start of the year producing record numbers and contributing to the healthy revitalization of the movie industry. Yet industry leaders always compare the results of this year to other record years (like 2004) and claim that overall attendance is down. What I don’t understand is why people can’t simply be satisfied with the current situation. If the box office returns are up and the studios are reaping a profit, why is that considered poor performance? The reason is because people are never satisfied. Growth is the only solution they see to satiate their avaricious appetites. And because this is true of human nature, I believe the article may be wrong in claiming that going green will bring healthy profits. However, because the green movement is about sustainability and recycling, perhaps the resources, time, and money saved by being environmentally conscious will lead to greater profits. Essentially, the green movement will cut costs while keeping revenues the same leading to an increase in net income. There isn’t a single CEO in the world who doesn’t like a bigger bottom line. For example, in my Principles of Marketing class I took in the fall, an executive from Sam’s Club came and spoke about new efforts to stay competitive and maintain healthy profits. One of the examples he shared was how Sam’s Club changed the shape of the standard gallon of milk jug to a square jug in order to save space on the trucks transporting the goods. He claimed that they were able to fit twice as many square jugs of milk on each truck than before leading to 700,000 miles of travel time saved by the fleet of trucks. Savings like these lead to lower costs that lead to lower prices which means a better customer experience.

One of the other arguments the post makes that I found interesting is that consumers enjoy the “eco-status” of going green. What this means is that consumers’ status changes when they begin to purchase eco-friendly items and goods. I’m skeptical of this assertion because it seems that there are still millions of Americans who don’t care about the green movement and believe their status would be tarnished if they moved to sustainability. This may be only observable in the south where the freedom to be destructive and irresponsible is valued more than the health of the planet. But as it is, amongst my peers, friends, family, and acquaintances, the green movement does not bring the “eco-status” the post argues is the trend popping up in the economy.