I just ask, because I have been wondering if the cause of neutrality (which I was going to say is at least better than nothing, but of course is sort of, by definition, just that), is often enough.
What has inspired me to ask is nothing quite as global as world wars (and Iraqis may have a view on the answer I allude to above), or even Kyoto, though it is sort of related to the latter.
It's just that every day we get several PR releases from major businesses trumpeting that they have gone carbon neutral. Usually this means they have at last stopped chucking their paper in the landfill or donate their PC's to the requisite worthy causes. On occasion, they have facilitated staff doing something helpful. But it just all seems so internal. Even when there is an outreach of sorts, it usually some bit of PR tokenism like supporting the MD's wife's hairdresser's dog walker's eco-consultant's fun run.
So we tend to say 'well done', and not mention it in our pages. It's simply hard to imagine what possible interest it would have with our readers... who are not dissimilar to their existing and/or potential customers.
What always seems to be missing is the next step. It's a bit like every bit of plastic, cardboard & paper product I use having an arrowed triangle on it with mysterious numbers inside. The maker has done their bit, can point to such commitment at the CSR section of the AGM, and then forget about making it really, truly, madly, deeply, mean something that the public can and will respond to. By telling them, helping them and guding them to use such efforts in a positive and mutually-beneficial way.
So please Mr/Mrs/Ms blue-chip PR person, next time you fire off something about what you are doing, spare a thought for how it could be made to make your public work with you to make things better.
Maybe we should call it Carbon Positive. That... I'll buy into.
No comments:
Post a Comment