When reading Katja's interview with UPM's Timo Kekki I started wondering companies whose core operations cause some kind of harm to the environment. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that UPM, for example, wants to do bad things. It's just that if you're producing paper, your actions have effect on the surrounding nature and also people living in that area. I guess you all agree with me when I say it would be more natural to leave those Uruguayan or Brazilian forests untouched.
Another example of a line of business I just described is aviation. Airlines' business is to get people and cargo from one place to another and there's nothing wrong about that. Air traffic, however, produces emissions and thereby speeds up global warming and climate change.
I ran across the theme of aviation when I read an article about Green Living Project and its newest media expedition to Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. GLP is an organization promoting sustainable living. One of its partners in this South American project is Chilean LAN Airlines.
We know sustainability is THE thing nowadays. No smart company ignores the topic in its annual report or strategy. For example, see LAN Airlines' annual report 2008. Question is, however, are companies taking sustainability seriously or are they just polishing their image taking 'green issues' into account.
Is LAN Airlines hypocrite when it's promoting sustainable development being in partnership with GLP? After all, air traffic isn't the most environmentally friendly business. On the other hand, there's no end of flying and travelling in sight so should we just be happy when airlines and travel agencies are trying to do their job sustainably?
In many South American countries tourism is fairly big business and therefore airlines', travel agencies' and tourism boards' 'greenness' matters. When it comes to those actors, is taking environment into account a necessary evil? Or is it a chance for PR professionals of those organizations to do their share for the common good? Is it PR manager's job to take responsibility for the environment? Public Relations Manager of Brazil Tourism Board, Mariana Szauter, is looking forward to work with GLP (see article). Is it to become a win-win situation when Brazil attracts tourists and makes income while partnership with GLP builds "an awareness around sustainability"? What do YOU think?
Writer: Anni H
Writer: Anni H
Posts
Note from the writer:
ReplyDeleteSanna had noticed (http://yvia313group9.blogspot.com/2009/11/pr-ars-suprema.html#comments) that our group member Iina's background as an art historian might give her a different perspective to PR when compared to organizational communication students. Like Iina, neither am I an org. comm. major. I'm studying social and public policy (https://www.jyu.fi/ytk/laitokset/yfi/oppiaineet/ykp/en/) and I guess that explains the viewpoints I've had in this blog so far.
Anni H
Anni,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, It's natural for us (living in a welfare state) to be concerned about for example exploiting rain forests in Southern America. It's true that large factories and plants will affect environment - UPM and Stora Enso will be polluting Brazil and Uruguay.
But for example Brazil's export products are coffee, sugar, Brazilian nuts, transportation equipment, iron ore, steel, soybeans, footwear, motor vehicles, orange juice, beef, and last but not least: TROPICAL HARDWOODS.
In my view, the change should come from inside.
:Katja
Thank you Anni for sharing your thoughts! I really liked the way you asked the questions and tried to find answers to them. You made me look deeper into these issues :)
ReplyDelete