Articles by Levick Experts

As more and more companies claim bragging rights for protecting the climate, the public is growing wise to spurious claims of carbon neutrality, creating a special communications problem in the process. Particularly affected are firms that purchase carbon offsets, paying others to curtail air pollution instead of taking steps to cut their own carbon dioxide emissions.

Even companies thought of as environmentally enlightened face an inconvenient truth about their own carbon emission claims – including, ironically, bottled water companies that rely on images of snowy peaks or sparkling mountain lakes to sell their products. In fact, that $11 billion industry is in hot water as consumers realize these companies use more than 8 million tons of plastic in the U.S. alone. Manufacturing and shipping their product contributes as much to global warming each year as emissions from 2.2 million automobiles.

Firms worldwide want to be perceived as doing their share to save the planet – which is why carbon emissions trading markets are on the rise. In 2007, U.S. companies will pump an estimated $100 million into America’s booming market for carbon offsets. As CEOs seek to reposition their firms as keen on green, lowered CO2  emissions and carbon neutrality are fast becoming yardsticks for success. For example, Lord John Browne, former chief executive of British Petroleum, pledged to move BP “Beyond Petroleum,” as the logo says, and take a leadership role in emission reduction.

Meanwhile, food companies in Britain have begun printing “carbon labels” on packages, stipulating the amount of gas released during manufacturing, packaging, and distribution. To encourage corporate activism, the European Union developed the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It is the world's most advanced carbon cap-and-trade scheme, putting limits on total emissions and penalizing companies that exceed their caps by compelling them to buy “credits” from companies that pollute less than their allowances.

While carbon trading schemes hold tremendous profit potential, companies must beware not to send mixed messages about “going green.” Carbon offsets, for example, are coming under scrutiny in part because they’re essentially transactions that pass the environmental buck.

In 2005, for instance, Seattle City Light claimed it had made up for every ton of greenhouse gases it emitted by paying other organizations to cut their emissions. Seattle mayor Greg Nichols said, “We can power our city without toasting our planet.” But the power company still spews 200,000 tons of greenhouse gases each year and the environmentally conscious folks of the Pacific Northwest know it.

While such examples underscore the communications conundrums facing companies, some measures point toward solutions:

• Draft and distribute a statement that illustrates your company’s commitment to cutting carbon emissions. For this statement to be credible, highlight the specific policies empowering that commitment. If appropriate, specify how you arrived at carbon neutrality and describe how measurements are taken.
• Specifically identify your organization’s successful carbon reduction efforts. Strategically target your media outlets and consider offering interviews about your program with either employees or board members or both.
• Don’t rely on checkbook environmentalism. Companies claiming to be entirely carbon-neutral are being accused of propagating feel-good hype by making symbolic offset deals without achieving real inroads to reduce their own emissions.
• Provide details about your carbon deals. If you purchase carbon-neutral certification or RECs (renewable energy certificates) from a paid consultant, be sure the sellers can verify how the transaction reduces emissions, if they’re asked. Secretiveness breeds skepticism.
• Don’t treat emissions trading as a quick fix solution. Increasingly, companies are forced to admit that they haven’t done all they can to counterbalance the effects of their own greenhouse gas emissions. The last thing you want is public perception that reducing emissions is a bother or burden to you.

Captains of industry are turning to crisis playbooks geared specifically toward influencing environmentally conscious publics, including state and federal officials who are meeting to decide what to do about carbon emissions. These CEOs well know the old Washington maxim…

If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.