I'm back!

I'm back after a long and well deserved break....from blogging. I hope my tutors have already assessed my initial thoughts on the debate surrounding climate change and PR.

I think its high time i took on different issues. Please keep browsing.....will be with you shortly.

Changing Perceptions of Global Warming

When I started examining climate change or global warming and its likely impact on the practice of Public Relations, I was thinking of the green policies being adopted by business and governments to offset their carbon emissions.

I set out to analyse these policies and wondered whether the action being taken by the above organisations was not similar to the Corporate Social Responsibilty programmes that took the corporate world "by storm" in the 1980's and 90's - a rebirth of CSR of sorts.

However, along the way, the debate appears to have taken a different turn. While a number of governments including the UK were drafting policies on climate change, some scientists were questioning whether global warming was really a result of human activity.

I also came across literature that alleged that some scientists and grass root organisations had been paid by some oil companies (or bribed) to maintain a certain position in the debate. This got me thinking about lobbying and the question of legitimacy when it comes to lobbying.

If those who claim that global warming is real are to be believed then the environmentalists appear to have succeeded in what can be described as a powerful public affairs campaign. Many governments, big corporations and individuals have finally agreed that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind and they've started doing something about it. Any story that mentions global warming appears to be news headline material these days.

What I am still doubting however is the spirit in which these green policies aimed at offsetting carbon emissions are being taken. Are they really doing it genuinely or are they doing it in order to deflect public scrutiny like the CSR programmes? Some people refer to them as "greenwash". How would do you describe them?

The Smoke Screen

I attended a lecture yesterday by a visiting speaker from the Not for profit sector (NGO'S) and I was struck by some issues that she revealed about the sector - some may be obvious.

NGO's because of their political "leanings" do not qualify to be categorised as Charities. Therefore they do not receive any funding from the government. This means they have to do their work on really tight budgets.

So how do they manage to run huge international campaigns successfully without an enormous pool of funds?

According to the honourable speaker, one of the biggest tactics used by NGO's is by creating a "smoke screen". Here the limited available resources are used to position the campaign in key media or target areas that are bound to attract the attention of the authorities concerned. The smoke screen magnifies the issue and forces the authorities to act. I interpreted this "smoke screen" tactic as an exaggeration of the problem.

This got me wondering whether this global warming debate is not a "smoke screen" created by environmentalists who have for years been campaigning for global action. If you've been reading this blog, you may agree with me that it has been very successful.

Victory for Environmental Campaigners

The climate change debate in the UK entered a new phase this week with the introduction of a draft climate change bill. The bill calls for an independent panel to set ministers a carbon budget every five years, in a bid to cut emissions by 60% by 2050.

The opposition Tories have already outlined their "green proposals" and over the weekend EU leaders agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by the year 2020.

As some analysts have suggested, climate change looks set to become a vote issue come the next election. Politicians seem to believe that the public is concerned about the threats posed by global warming and want to see them do something about it - a belief that appears to be shared by big businesses as well.

This belief seems to be fuelled by the belief that the public is more aware and concerned about their environment, thanks to abundant information available from the media and the internet. Information about issues that were in the past viewed as too technical for people outside the scientific community to grasp, can now be found on the internet explained in simple terms.

It can be argued that this has given the public some power of sorts. They have now joined environmentalists in questioning activities that are deemed environmentally unfriendly or unethical.

I think the moves being taken by governments and politicians to address environmental issues proves that business leaders and politicians alike feel threatened by those who question their use of power and ethics. Should we say thanks to successful lobbying by environmental campaigners?

Now the Tories want Greener Skies

So the Tories are proposing a "green tax" specifically targeting frequent fliers to combat climate change. The proposals include levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights and a green air miles scheme. The proposal has however been rejected by the airline industry. Virgin says the taxes would damage the UK economy, while British Airways has described the proposal as an "extremely blunt instrument".

Low Cost airline Easyjet on the other hand while dismissing air passenger duty as "probably the worst tax ever invented" gave a cautious welcome to the idea of a "per flight" tax, saying it would help to sideline airlines using "dirty" aircraft. Could it be a tactical reaction because they operate domestic and short haul flights that have been criticised for their unenvironmentally friendly nature?

Well like i speculated in previous postings, being seen to care about the environment is indeed becoming very fashionable and it appears it will soon determine who leads us by becoming a vote winner - that's if we really care.

And it appears Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has quite rightly noticed that if you want to capture the media's attention nowadays, just come up with a "green" proposal. As he put it " the Tories are more interested in making a headline".

The Great Global Warming Swindle

After dedicating plenty of time researching about global warming and attempting to examine how it is likely to affect the practice of PR, my enthusiasm has been dampened by a documentary on Channel 4 this evening.

The Great Global Warming Swindle featured high profile climate scientists rubbishing recent evidence by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC that concluded that human activity is to blame for global warming.

According to the scientists featured on the Great Global Warming Swindle, the climate will and has always changed. And it happens naturally, NOT as a result of human activity or indeed carbondioxide.

So why would a panel of over two thousand top scientists who constituted the IPCC make such an alarming conclusion? According to Tim Ball a Professor Climatology at the the University of Winnipeg, their conclusions were politically driven. "Pure propaganda", he added. " The alarm was raised by climate scientists with a vested interest to get funds for research"

Nigel Calder a former Editor of the New Scientist attributes the hype to the emergence of "Environmental Journalists" who are biased and very eager to cover over dramatised evidence inorder to keep their jobs.

Professor Richard Lindzen of the department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology attributes the "alarm" to the rise of the environmental movement. According to him "Whenever you have a problem which involves the interaction of science with politics and where there are advocates, like the Environmental movement there’s a kind of battle for the public mind, and you are inevitably going to try and simplify the science as much as possible".

The Great Global Warming Swindle also features Patrick Moore, a Co-founder of Greenpeace who attributes the climate change hype to the rise of anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and anti-American movements.

What is worrying according to these experts is the political backing that the alarmists have succeeded in winning. The US which had for a long time been adamant appears to have succumbed to pressure from the environmentalists. And Climate science is now the most funded area; an estimated 4 billion US dollars is pumped into the sector annually in the United States alone.

And just as I was beginning to wonder who could have paid these experts to challenge a panel of over 2000 top world scientists, they one by one denied having received any penny from any oil company inorder to take the positions they've taken. "It's pure science", they argue.

So it is a great global warming swindle! why the fuss then? why are corporations taking it upon themselves to offset their carbon emissions? Why are heads of state and government of the European Union (EU) meeting this evening in Brussels to agree on binding goals to tackle climate change?

Whoever raised the alarm, whether it was the environmentalists or the media or the scientific community must be nodding their heads with satisfaction because their public relations campaign has succeeded in getting the attention of the media and most importantly action from governments worldwide.


The provocative documentary left me wondering why Channel 4 chose not to feature any opposing view - I mean the view of those who believe cimate change is the biggest threat facing mankind.

Ethical Communication or Greenwash?

It appears even PR trainers are taking climate change seriously. They too seem to have realised that climate change can sell a company's image and are taking advantage of the media hype surrounding the debate.

Today I came across an advert for a Seminar organised specially for PR practitioners by the Ethical Corporation, an independent publisher and organiser. The conference which should have started on the 6th March 2007, is scheduled to feature speakers from top Global companies offering advice and tips on dealing with climate change.

While the conference organiser refers to the course as "Ethical Communication", a cynical colleague of mine refers to it as Greenwash.

Whichever way you choose to describe it, here are some of the interesting topics and questions raised that caught my attention;

"1. Consumer reaction to climate change campaigns
2. Carbon Offsets: Act now to secure the high ground - and lower financial risk
3. Carbon offsets: What are they? How do you use them? What do you get back?
4. An offset strategy can benefit your company as well as the climate. Just for a start, it can reduce your financial risk. It can also establish you as an environmental leader, and enable you to truly differentiate your products and services. Equally important, offsets can help you build trust and goodwill with your consumers, as well as enabling you to become a consumer education resource.
5. Carbon neutrality: How can you make sure your strategy presents you as environmental leader - and avoid falling into the trap of developing a costly, complicated, fashion accessory?
The nuts and bolts of an offset programme:
6. Corporate reputation and climate change: Is your good name at risk?
7. Remember how fast people scorned fur coats. And the huge demos against animal testing and sweatshops? Is climate change next on the list for activists? And if so, what can you do to make sure your business isn't accused of being part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
8. After all, global warming is now headline news - and consumer awareness is on the way to building critical mass.
9. Will consumers punish companies that contribute to climate change and reward the ones that don't?
10. What happens when consumer concern over climate change turns into action?
11. How much is your good name worth? And what's the cost of a bad one?
12. Greenwash - when a good name turns sour: How do you prevent it?

The Denial Industry; Is this type of Lobbying legitimate?

The other day I was discussing Exxon and the spoof Al Gore video. Today I came across an article in The Guardian newspaper (published on 19th September 2006), that exposes what it describes as the denial industry - a network of fake citizens and scientific bodies that have allegedly been funded by the oil giant to claim that science of global warming is inconclusive.

Here's the list of over one hundred organisations allegedly funded by Exxon on this website set up environmental activists.

Exxonsecrets.org

It can be argued that this demonstrates how PR is playing a central role in the climate change debate. Campaigning and pressure groups are becoming some of the most important groups with whom companies need to have open dialogue with. And some companies are buying these "groups" inorder to be seen to have the necessary grassroot support.

It also perhaps emphasises lobbying as a powerful Public Relations tool with the need to get the backing of key stakeholders in an issue. But most importantly raises the issue of the legitimacy of lobbying as a campaign tool.

Is it legitimate for corporations to pay scientists and other grass root organisations to back their campaigns against certain policies that are deemed a threat to their businesses?

An Inconvenient Spoof!

Oil companies have been known to be in denial over the apparent global warming crisis. And it appears some of them have taken the campaign a step further by funding PR agencies and Think tanks to question scientific evidence about climate change.

If you've following the news lately, you may have heard of a film produced by the former US Vice President and global climate change activist Al Gore. "An Inconvenient Truth" is an Academy Award winning film that documents the earth's climate crisis.

Sometime last year however, a spoof video titled "Al Gore's Penguin Army" appeared on Youtube poking fun at Al Gore and his global warming campaign. On first sight, it was just like any of the amateur videos posted by thousands of people everyday.

However an investigation by a US journalist discovered that the film had actually came from a Republican public relations firm called DCI, which coincidentally happens to have oil giant ExxonMobil as a client.

Ofcourse Exxon denied any knowledge about the movie. But it is well documented that Exxon and other oil companies in denying the threat posed by climate change have gone as far as funding fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies to back their claims that science of global warming is inconclusive.

You can check out the spoof video via: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2270587

Is Global Warming a threat to big business?

While many organisations in the UK appear to have accepted a recent conclusion by top scientists that human activity is partly is to blame for global warming, and have apparently adopted policies to reduce their carbon emissions, a number of American corporations are still in denial.

Some of them view the climate change debate as an alarmist scare campaign by those who hate capitalism and love "big government". I came across a website by a US "think tank" known as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that is campaigning against what they describe as alarmist global warming theories.

The organisation produced two 60-second television spots focusing on the alleged global warming crisis and the calls by some environmental groups and politicians for reduced energy use that have been airing in 14 U.S. cities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA

I think this proves that there are a number of sceptics out there who do no believe or even care about this phenomenon that has been described as the greatest threat facing mankind. I'll try and check out some corporations that are not buying into this green fad.

PRofiting from Climate Change

Today I came across an article by Michael Gunter a renewable energy enthusiast who writes about his backyard technology experiments.

According to Gunter, corporations have now determined that there is a "tipping point" in terms of new business ventures to spawn and this is what is driving the recent climate change hype.

He answers the question I've been asking. What's in for these companies? Are they genuinely concerned about the environment? Anyway here are some extracts from his article:

"I would not be surprised if apparent grass-roots advocacy groups were getting support from mining and energy corporate interests. Banks will now lend; governments keen to appease a restless public will provide "corporate welfare" out of the public purse.

So of course, the market is signalling in flashing dollar signs, and the more they scare us the more money they think they can make out of our fear.

Emissions trading, Clean Development Mechanism ventures, geosequestration (burying carbon dioxide underground), uranium mining, nuclear fission reactors, and tree plantations are all just new business opportunities for amoral corporatists everywhere.

When civilisation collapses prematurely, having been led down the wrong energy-intensive overpopulated path, it will be the last failure of free markets.
Consumer society, consumptive planet".

Some of Michael Gunter's initiatives can be found on www.voltscommisar.net

Going Green: A Rebirth of Corporate Social Responsibility?

I recently wondered aloud why more and more organisations are adopting green policies as part of a fad that appears to be taking the corporate world by storm. I gave examples of such companies that include; Tesco, Marks and Spencer, HSBC, and even some politicians like Tony Blair and Conservative MP Tim Yeo.

I also wondered whether "going green" is not just another PR stunt that will be adopted by organisations inorder to deflect public scrutiny. Just like they did in the 1990's with corporate social responsiblity or CSR programmes.

How genuine are these green programmes? do these organisations or politicians really care about the environment or are they just adopting these policies inorder to make their companies look good? And who cares whether Tesco is investing £100 million in sustainable environmental technology and has plans to build the most environmentally-friendly store in the UK. Or whether Tim Yeo gets to Glasgow by train or by plane? Do the public really care about global warming and its effects on the environment?

In Rethinking Public Relations, Kevin Moloney argues that CSR came on to the PR agenda because of concern about the social, environmental and politial impacts of big business.

Ralph Tench and Liz Yeomans in Exploring Public Relations argue that "organisations in developed economies are today influenced by public opinion, shareholders, stakeholders and the political process". These organisations cannot afford therefore to ignore their operational environment.

Could this then explain the trend - going green? How is the debate surrounding climate change likely to affect the practice of Public Relations? And what about those skeptics who do not believe that global warming is a result of human activity? Those who maintain that the issue has been over exaggerated. How has this phenomenon risen to capture media headlines and government agendas?

These are some of the issues I will be examining over the next couple of weeks.

Big Brother: PR Stunt or PR Disaster?

I've been a "big brother" fan since the programme was launched a couple of years ago, however due to a busy schedule, I must confess that i hadn't watched the current series of celebrity big brother until it started making the headlines this week.

My initial reaction? Well, isn't that what big brother is all about? Maximising controversy to boost their audience ratings? So like the many millions who hadn't tuned in until the alleged racism made headlines, I made a conscious decision, accepting to be manipulated by the programme producers' PR machine and decided to watch the programme on Tuesday night.

It was unpleasant viewing. The unprovoked outbursts and insults by Jade and what Jermaine Jackson referred to as "her allies" kept me glued to channel 4. I've since been following every twist and turn to the story.

Jade's eviction last night was watched by an estimated 7.8million people. Channel 4 and Endemol have succeeded in boosting their audience figures. People in India who may never have heard about the show now know about it - thanks to the controversy (the grapevine has it that Shilpa Shetty was included in the show to promote it in India). Politicians both in India and Britain many of whom claim to have never watched the programme, now have a vague idea about "big brother".

The programme has made almost every front page of every British national newspaper, including the Financial Times. It has made the lead story on almost every TV and radio outlet and my...the blogosphere? How much would the producers have paid for such enormous publicity?

So a good PR stunt perhaps, but was the negative publicity worth it? Why did the channel choose to remain adamant as the debate surrounding the programme exploded? I usually watch the edited highlights of the programme at 21.00hrs. The fact that the edited version was as provocative as it was, appeared to suggest that it was indeed a PR stunt.

It was not until the main sponsors of the show - the Carphone Warehouse decided to pull the plug that the channel or producers reconsidered their earlier stance - attempting to deny that there was anything wrong with Jade's attitude.

Carphone warehouse arguably took advantage of the furore and gained free coverage that would otherwise have cost the company millions in advertising.

Now as if to limit the damage, big brother appears to have broken his own rules by first; tipping the housemates about what's happening in the outside world. Jade's behaviour in her final hours in the house appeared to have changed dramatically. She didn't appear surprised that she was met by Presenter Davina McCall and just the production crew- without the traditional live crowd. She was apologetic and denied being racist.

And now Channel four faces accusations that the eviction itself was stage managed. Why did they deny the live audience the chance to "handle" Jade? Why did they deny the press the opportunity to speak to Jade as demanded by big brother tradition? Why did Jade say that she knew why she was leaving? Why did she apologise to Shilpa? Why did Shilpa suddenly retract her comments that she thought that the "allies" attitude towards her amounted to racism? And now it has emerged that the show was not even as "live" as we were made to believe. Could some juicy bits have been edited out?

Whatever the case, the producers have been forced to donate the proceeds from last night's telephone eviction vote to charity. Some have described the whole saga as a PR stunt. Others prefer to refer to it as a PR disaster. How would you describe it?

Climate Change Vs Public Relations

I'd decided to take a break, but I've been prompted to think aloud, after observing what appears to be an emerging trend amongst corporations and politicians - influenced by the debate surrounding climate change.

Since Economist Sir Nicholas Stern released a major report last October, warning that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%, a number of organisations and politicians including Tony Blair appear to be under pressure to be seen to care about the environment.

On his return from a recent holiday in the United States, the British Prime Minister announced that he was working on a plan to offset carbon emissions from his long haul holiday flights. Conservative politician Tim Yeo recently announced that he too is making his contribution to tackling climate change and its effects, by replacing his flights to Glasgow with longer Train journeys.

Now am beginning to notice that a number of organisations including the Coop and HSBC are now offering so-called "green" mortages and loans that they claim are aimed at offsetting their carbon emissions by planting trees that will absorb that equivalent in developing countries.

Now high street chain Marks and Spencer has announced a 200 million pound "green" programme. Check out the details in this press release.

http://www2.marksandspencer.com/thecompany/mediacentre/pressreleases/2007/com2007-01-15-00.shtml

So are these organisations and individuals really concerned about the effects of their behaviour on the climate or is it just becoming a PR Fad?

Are we going to see more organsations adopt green policies like they adopted corporate social responsibility programmes years ago that have arguably been used to deflect public scrutiny? Over to you!

Does the growth of new media signal the "death" of the Press Release?

One of the traditional tools used in PR to draw media attention is the Press Release.

Whilst the format of the Press release has remained standard, the way it is delivered to media houses has evolved with the advancement of technology.

Gone are the days when embargoed Press releases were sent by post. Also disappearing, at least in developed countries, are faxed press releases. Organisations have resorted to emailing their press releases to media houses or posting copies on their websites.

So with the growth of new media. How is one of the major tools of the PR trade - the press release likely to be affected? Social networking groups, RSS, podcasts, 24 hour news networks etc

Well, some PR observers have started identifying ways of adopting new media technologies for press releases, and already a new format that takes into account new technology has been developed.

The format of the so-called "new social media news release" is more interactive than the traditional text based press release.

According to www.entrepreneur.com, the social media template is designed to contain the following:

• "A brief description of the news announcement


• Quotes from the CEO or other execs, customers and analysts, if applicable


• Photo/video attachments, or links to web pages that host these items


• Links inside the release copy to background information, and relevant links to other news stories or reference sources


• Digital tags (used to link to web tools such as Del.icio.us and Digg)


• RSS Feed links


• Links to podcasts and MP3 files, graphics and video"

The new format is said to be more user friendly as it takes into account new media technology, promotes greater online accessibility and provides users with the opportunity to feedback to the authors.

Rather good news for PR. But does this mark the end or the death of the traditional press release? It's name alone - press release or media release suggests the press release was specifically designed for the media. The social media release arguably suggests otherwise.

So PR has the ability to adapt to the changing technological environment. However, will journalists have the time to go through all the information provided? There's also a danger of concentrating on new technology and forgetting the substance or content of the press release. Is it still making a newsworthy announcement? And what about PR in developing countries where the majority of people do not yet have access to new media technology?

Here's an interesting discussion on the death of the press release!

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:94iBDlSZjq0J:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2006/02/die_press_relea.php+death+of+press+release&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2