Reflections from Jen
On Wednesday, I published an article about “paperless” messaging and whether organizations that use such messaging are in danger of violating FTC Green Guides. The article focused on recommendations from the Environmental Paper Network (EPN) on how to ensure that, if your company is using “green” marketing messages around paper reductions, the claims are accurate and not deceptive. Clearly, the article hit a nerve.
One of the recommendations I wrote about was that companies be sure to acknowledge that electronic communications also have environmental impacts. When using messaging about how much paper was saved or how much waste was reduced by “going paperless,” it should be clearly noted that the benefits cited are based solely on paper savings, the article recommended.
But some of our readers felt that suggestion did not go nearly far enough, and we received some strong reactions from folks in the forest products industry. One reader in particular had some thoughts I’d like to share. He wrote (in part) that a claim about how many trees were not cut down to make the paper for billing statements is incomplete, in that such a statement “fails to acknowledge how many trees were planted, cared for and grew to maturity BECAUSE the forest products industry manages forests.” He went on to write:
“In Sweden, for example, a tiny little Nordic country which also happens to be the 3rd largest forest products exporter (behind the US and Canada), and a country where the forest has been the lifeblood of its economy since it had an economy, forest mass in a given hectare has actually doubled in the last 90 years despite Sweden’s massive export of paper and wood products! This forest growth is NOT an accident. Rather it is a result of the forest products industry carefully managing what is arguably the country’s most valuable asset. Paper and wood products are indeed a renewable natural resource, whereas electricity on the other hand is not. Since we are not capturing electricity from lightening bolts, we must generate the electricity to power our devices, computers, cars, air conditioners, etc…Anyone stopped to consider how we generate electricity? That’s right…by burning non-renewable fossil fuels.”
Another reader agreed that the article “does not address the environmental impact associated with electronic communication.”
We were also scolded by a reader with the reminder that one of the three pillars of sustainability is financial sustainability. As a publication that focuses on how businesses can be sustainable while still turning a profit – and, better yet, how businesses can turn a profit because of their sustainability initiatives – I wanted to ensure that this topic is given more coverage in terms of the business case of paper use. I’ve reached out to some of the readers who shared their concerns, and I would also welcome thoughts from others with knowledge on the topic.
Please note that my goal is not to judge, choose sides, or make pronouncements on what is “right” or “wrong” (in fact, that has never been, and never will be, our goal). Rather, I’m interested in what you think from a business perspective: what impact does the use of paper have on your bottom line? Do you save money by reducing paper use? Do customers seem to appreciate marketing messages about “going paperless?” or do they see it as just another “greenwashing claim?” What about the business costs of electronic communications? Do you spend more in online support? What are the other considerations your company has?
As always, I look forward to hearing from you at jen@environmentalleader.com. Stay tuned for more on the topic, and enjoy your weekend.
Jen
