Sometimes I think the environmental problems we face tend to be, or could be, problems of Biblical proportion. So I decided to see what the Bible says about sustainability which actually starts in Genesis. In Gen. 1:28 God commands humans to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over every living thing.” Certainly, ALL countries have fulfilled the command of "be fruitful and multiply..and fill the earth" to the point where it has become a problem. However, its get worse. The Hebrew word which we translate as “subdue” is kabash. This word is primarily used in a military context, where a soldier subdues an adversary by stepping on his neck. And the Hebrew word which we translate as “dominion” is rada which means “tread down” or “trample.” Clearly, Gen. 1:28 does not support the argument that we need to be good stewards of God’s creation (Fuesler, 2010). Wow, are you serious?
Surprisingly, many Christians use the argument that the world exists to serve the needs of humankind. According to Gen. 1, we have been created in God’s image to subjugate and trample the earth, or, as some say: to “Drill baby! Drill!” We are now killing God’s creation. We are stepping on our own necks and on the necks of our children! Who cares about the environment...we're tasked with the salvation of others for eternal life and this world will soon pass away. Wait a minute, are these Christians reading their Bibles?
God also gave humans another command. According to Gen 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden to till it and keep it.” The Hebrew word which that we translate as “till” is avad. This word means “to work and serve.” Avad is used over 250 times in the OT, most often in connection with serving God. Here it’s used in the context of serving God by working the garden. It is, after all, God’s garden! The Hebrew word for “keep” is shamar which means “to guard” in the sense of preserving or protecting (Fuesler, 2010). .
It is very clear that we have fulfilled the mandate of Gen..1:28 to fill and subdue the earth, our primary vocation now is to serve God by guarding and preserving creation. It is, after all, God’s creation and we are all subject to it (Fuesler, 2010)! As humans we need to remember that we have no right over nature but have the utmost responsibility for the care and protection of it.
Fuesler, R. (2010). Fill and Subdue. Sermon at United Methodist Church. Atascadero, CA.
Steven Karst, Chattanooga
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
18 February 2011
14 December 2010
Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia
Instead of looking at organizations that have made a commitment to environmental sustainability, I examined traditional organizations who have tried to market sustainable products. I addition, I found a trap, “Green Marketing Myopia,” a situation that many products and possibly organizations easily fall into. In a 1960 Harvard Business Review article, Harvard professor Theodore Levitt introduced the classic concept of “marketing myopia” to characterize businesses’ narrow vision on product features rather than consumer benefits. This meaning product oriented not customer oriented (Levitt, 1960).
Philips Corporation provides a valuable lesson on how to avoid the common pitfall of “green marketing myopia.” Philips called its original entry, Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulb, “EarthLight” to communicate the CFL environmental advantage. While noble, the benefit appealed to only the deepest green niche of consumers. The vast majority of consumers, however, will ask, “If I use ‘green’ products, what’s in it for me (Ottman, et. al., 2006)?” Phillips defined its business incorrectly. It thought it was in the “green” business when it actually was in the light bulb business. Instead of marketing them as green they could have marketed their long life and excellent energy savings. Toyota considered this when marketing it hybrid cars to the public.
Toyota recognized the ambiguity of the term “green” and discouraged its use in its marketing of its gas-electric hybrid cars. One proposed slogan, “Drive green, breathe blue” was dismissed in favor of specific claims about fuel efficiency, such as “Less gas in. Less gasses out (Farah, 2005).”
Green marketing must satisfy two objectives: improved environmental quality and customer satisfaction. Research indicates that many green products have failed because of green marketing myopia—marketers’ myopic focus on their products’ “greenness” over the broader expectations of consumers or other market players. To avoid green marketing myopia, marketers must fulfill consumer needs and interests beyond what is good for the environment. When consumers are convinced of the desirable “non-green” benefits of environmental products, they are more inclined to adopt them (Ottman, et. al., 2006).
Farah, S. (2005). “The Thin Green Line.” CMO Magazine. 1 December 2005.
Levitt, T. (1960). “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review 28, July-August (1960): 24–47. Reprint. Retrieved from http://www.casadogalo.com/marketingmyopia.pdf
Ottman, J. A., Stafford, E. R., Hartman, C. L. (June, 2006). Avoiding Green marketing Myopia: Ways to Improve Consumer Appeal for Environmentally Preferable Products. Environment. Volume 48, Number 5, pages 22—36. Heldref Publications. http://www.heldref.org/env.php
Steven Karst, Chattanooga
Philips Corporation provides a valuable lesson on how to avoid the common pitfall of “green marketing myopia.” Philips called its original entry, Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulb, “EarthLight” to communicate the CFL environmental advantage. While noble, the benefit appealed to only the deepest green niche of consumers. The vast majority of consumers, however, will ask, “If I use ‘green’ products, what’s in it for me (Ottman, et. al., 2006)?” Phillips defined its business incorrectly. It thought it was in the “green” business when it actually was in the light bulb business. Instead of marketing them as green they could have marketed their long life and excellent energy savings. Toyota considered this when marketing it hybrid cars to the public.
Toyota recognized the ambiguity of the term “green” and discouraged its use in its marketing of its gas-electric hybrid cars. One proposed slogan, “Drive green, breathe blue” was dismissed in favor of specific claims about fuel efficiency, such as “Less gas in. Less gasses out (Farah, 2005).”
Green marketing must satisfy two objectives: improved environmental quality and customer satisfaction. Research indicates that many green products have failed because of green marketing myopia—marketers’ myopic focus on their products’ “greenness” over the broader expectations of consumers or other market players. To avoid green marketing myopia, marketers must fulfill consumer needs and interests beyond what is good for the environment. When consumers are convinced of the desirable “non-green” benefits of environmental products, they are more inclined to adopt them (Ottman, et. al., 2006).
Farah, S. (2005). “The Thin Green Line.” CMO Magazine. 1 December 2005.
Levitt, T. (1960). “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review 28, July-August (1960): 24–47. Reprint. Retrieved from http://www.casadogalo.com/marketingmyopia.pdf
Ottman, J. A., Stafford, E. R., Hartman, C. L. (June, 2006). Avoiding Green marketing Myopia: Ways to Improve Consumer Appeal for Environmentally Preferable Products. Environment. Volume 48, Number 5, pages 22—36. Heldref Publications. http://www.heldref.org/env.php
Steven Karst, Chattanooga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)