Public Relations 101: How to Screw It Up

Yesterday I was pointed to a press release issued by Catalyst Papers, a Canadian paper company who seems to be taking their environmental impact quite seriously. Since the paper and pulp industry is the 3rd largest industrial polluter in North America (or is it the U.S., will have to check on that), it's fantastic to see larger companies commit to reducing their impact and offsetting the difference. Catalyst's news release was about Rolling Stone magazine's use of one of their papers. The release, however, featured a very misleading statement:

"Catalyst Cooled paper is manufactured carbon-neutral, which means during its production it adds no carbon dioxide to the environment... Catalyst was able to support the Rolling Stone initiative by...offsetting the few remaining direct emissions through a carefully chosen ecosystem restoration project."

I sent an email to Catalyst's press contact published with the release. In it, I explained that the definition of carbon neutral does not mean that no CO2 is added to the environment, but that any CO2 emitted is offset in some way. This is a significant difference, as the press release makes it sound like Catalyst's paper production is totally clean. It's not—and they reveal this contradiction by admitting that they do, in fact emit CO2 that they then offset.

The response I got (from someone else entirely) reveals a lot about how the company handles their green marketing. The email I got back was certainly prompt, but this was what it said:

Thank you for your interest in our company, and for your comments on the Catalyst Cooled paper news release. I have attached a fact sheet that may help clarify our approach to carbon neutrality.

Thanks,

That's it, in it's entirety. And the "fact" sheet? It describes how Catalyst defines carbon neutrality, which is a definition much different from what most would consider accurate. Catalyst spends untold amounts of money reducing emissions and offsetting those they do produce, but they completely undermine their efforts by greenwashing their marketing. This is not a small thing; they are positioning themselves to appeal to the very market who would be offended by such actions. If they're not honest with me in their marketing materials, how can I trust that they'll be honest with me in our business dealings?

There is another problem with Catalyst's response beyond redefining terms to suit their needs. My original email was six paragraphs long, and I took great care to provide a detailed and researched explanation of my dissatisfaction. I also closed with a direct question: "Can you please explain how a company that has claimed as much of a commitment to environmental stewardship as Catalyst has, can then disseminate such false information to the public?"

Their response not only ignored my question outright, but the company threw a "fact sheet" at me that also ignored my question, expecting me to do even more work to change my own mind. Now that's the perfect example of a company that doesn't care what its customers think. If a customer complains to you, or asks for an explanation of a policy they take issue with, you need to address it directly and honestly. A "Thanks for writing" just doesn't cut it and, in fact, makes the situation much worse. Consumers expect more from businesses these days, and the ones that recognize this are the ones who will succeed.