I apologize for the late response, but I have a relevant reason.  One thing that's been keeping me busy is that I'm returning to college, this time with a major in Organizational Communications.  That relates to this article, particularly because I expect to apply what I learn to supporting causes including environmental work.

What surprised me about this article is that the writer appears very startled that green consumers compare products, read labels, etc. and compare products marketed as green to other products.  Somehow, "they" (marketers) have lost track of the fact that "we" (as consumers) use our minds.  I guess that complicates life for marketers and manufacturers whose job, after all, is making money much more than doing good.  It's still up to us to teach them that they have to deliver the "good" part all the way down the line, not just in marketing, if they want to sell to us.  I agree with prior comments that not everything labelled "green" actually benefits the environment.  If I must use three or four times as much of a given "green" product, (vs. an "ordinary" product), then it must needs reduce resource usage and pollution per unit pretty dramatically to be "green" in my outlook.  In addition, consider the additional resources that I must use in making money to buy more expensive products.  I certainly do. 

Of course, the companies that are making that effort will need to find ways to reach us other than whatever they're doing now.  Of all the "green" companies mentioned, I was only aware of Hewlett-Packard's efforts, and not very much of theirs.  In that, they can learn from those who have succeeded in their marketing efforts, including the likes of Wal-Mart.  I don't like Wal-Mart all that well, but they have obviously found ways of reaching consumers.  In the end, it matters what works.  I guess my point here is that business is still about money.  In order for Nestle or Estee Lauder, for example, to make money on their green initiatives, they still need much more effective marketing.  Maybe when I get my degree, I can work on that.

Interesting research here. The fact that such a large percentage of consumers is cutting back on consuming goods--green or otherwise--is a "green" statement in and of itself.

I didn't realize that a lot of the businesses mentioned were considered green! I knew that Origins, a line of cosmetics owned by Estee Lauder (I had heard it was started by Lauder's son), was always marketed as an eco-friendly brand. In fact, they used to give discounts when you returned their glass bottles for recycling. And I also heard that Lauder recently acquired Aveda, another brand which touts itself as green, green, green. But Lauder itself? I would never have guessed.

Thanks for posting!

ALL was the key word.

Queen size sheet sets:

Organic cotton: $198 .. http://www.gaiam.com/product/gift-guide/gifts-by-occasion/wedding/organic+cotton+jacquard+sheet+set.do

Plain Egyptian cotton: $30 .. http://www.overstock.com/cart?addid521259=579779&addqty521259=1&war521259=&BUY.x=85&BUY.y=18

Not all green products are expensive.  But I see your point.

It would also help if "green" products weren't 3 or 4 times as expensive, as their conventional counterparts! I recently bought a "green" line of power towel from a national manufacturer; it was totally unabsorbant. So what's the benefit of it being "green", when it takes 2 sheets to mop up a spill, when it only takes one of those 1/3-sheets of a conventional paper towel to do the same thing?!