The Buffalo Blog

Going green again - the second round of environmental communications

Today is a big day for green communications. It’s official, many of the world’s largest companies are back on the green trail, doing all they can to convey their environmental credentials. The launch of the Sunday Times 2009 Green list, coincides with the launch of a Ogilvy Earth from advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather. The new global practice is designed to handle sustainability communications for its clients. Some of the big campaigns it is launching include Smart Planet for IBM and Beyond Petroleum for BP.

You may be thinking we’ve heard all this before and to a large extent we have. Greenwash, the practice of making an organisation look green through the art of communications, has been yet another sad bit of history for the public relations industry. Companies did it, consultancies advised and communicated it and people and businesses got stung. As with any communications, those in the practice of greenwashing found that if the substance was not there or the product did not do what it says on the tin, communicating was an uphill battle.

That’s why this second round, green communication resurgence is so interesting. Surely no company would be crass enough to think they could dupe customers on green all over again. And in today’s ‘nothing is private’ world of communications, trying to communicate any green promises with no tangible basis in reality, would quickly be discovered and put down.

No, the interesting thing about the new ‘green wave’ is that there appears to be substance behind many of the claims. The Times Green list for example rates companies by Performance, Training and Motivation, Policies and Systems and Reporting and Communications (after all, you have to tell people about it!). The list looks at 60 companies with exceptional environmental credentials, up from 50 last year. Many of the companies are making real changes in the consumption of energy, recycling and in preparing their businesses for a greener future.

The move to substance over fluff has been marked on the political scene too. It’s now becoming cooler and more appropriate for businesses to take and act on their green positioning. Obama for example is making waves and ruffling as many feathers as possible across the pond where the environment is concerned. The success of his drive for a green America led by ‘green collar’ workers will continue to shape the way the rest of the world approaches and communicates environmental thinking.

Governments and the business world are beginning to realize that oil as an easily accessible resource, simply will not be there forever. And as a result many are starting to make moves in the right direction. Communications of what’s being done and why will play a large part in the success of these environmental leaders but it must be backed up with substance. Getting green and green communications right the second time round should take note from the UK driving test’s popular ‘Mirror, Signal, Maneuver’ adage.

Mirror – find out what people think and what needs to be done business and communications-wise

Signal – tell people what’s been discovered and what the company is doing

Maneuver – begin to deliver on promises and keep on signaling as time goes by

Swine Fever!

I am compelled, like most in the world, to share my views on the latest global pandemic (or almost pandemic) of swine flu. My interest, as someone who works in communications, is how and why the outbreak has been reported within the media the way it has.

In terms of infection levels, swine flu is very similar to Avian flu (bird flu) and SARS (if you can think far back enough to those outbreaks). However, the coverage that swine flu has received does feel a little more intense and menacing in its predicted effects. For example a Google search of bird flu, which has been on the radar for several years, yields 35.4 million results. A search of swine flu, which has been around for days, yields 103 million results. Why is this?

One of the reasons may be because of the increased use of social media in reporting and global communications. Many have heralded the role that social media has played in the spread of information throughout the swine flu outbreak as significant. Some would argue that social media has helped to fuel the fire, along with the constant coverage on the news. A writer on CNET has claimed that "for better or for worse, social media is likely to be one of the primary mediums through which information spreads in a crisis moving forward."

However, being the pessimist that I am, I can’t help but think there is a more sobering aspect to the differing press coverage. It is important to note that because of the internet and new methods of communication, we now inhabit a ‘global village’. Nevertheless, like any village, inequalities still exist. The West no doubt inhabits the top of this cultural hierarchy. With this in mind, it is interesting to note the difference between the countries that have been affected by the three outbreaks. Swine flu has reached countries such as New Zealand, the US and Germany whereas bird flu has reached countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan and SARS; Singapore, China, and Vietnam. Does geography play such a massive role in our global village that volume of press coverage is directly linked to it?

This leaves me wondering; are American, New Zealand and German lives more newsworthy than those in Egypt, Pakistan or China? Or can I sleep easy at night believing that the volume and type of coverage is purely a consequence of our modern obsession with twittering and blogging?