A press release from the Carbon Trust caught my eye a few weeks ago. It announced the results of a You Gov poll into consumer attitudes towards buying green:

"The research shows that a business's green credentials have a significant impact on consumer buying choices. Two thirds (65%) of consumers say it's important to buy from environmentally responsible companies, with one in seven (14%) saying they have voted with their feet by deciding not to buy from a company based on their environmental reputation and almost a quarter based on a company's ethical reputation..."

Quite properly, it turns out that 59% of us are sceptical about the environmental claims companies make (sounds a bit low actually), and 44% of consumers would like more information on what companies are actually doing to be environmentally responsible. Public sector organisations are expected to be even more proactive in tackling climate change and cutting carbon.

But where do we find the 'proof' we need to judge an organisation's green claims?

Interestingly, it turns out that the two most important criteria currently used by consumers to make a judgement are:

* what they read in the media (38%) and
* third party endorsement or accreditation (34%).

Green advertising is by far the least convincing, and makes an easy target for campaign groups dedicated to weeding out greenwash. For example, at the end of last year Greenpeace launched its first Emerald Paintbrush Awards for advertising greenwash (great video guys!), and it surely won't be long before the UK gets its own version of this website which allows people to rate advertisements against a Greenwashing Index. Unsurprisingly, the advertising industry's regulatory body is now proposing a clampdown on bogus green claims following a big rise in complaints over recent years (the consultation is open until 19 June 09 by the way, in case you'd like to contribute).

Probably largely because of the eco-hyperbole of so many advertising campaigns, media and public scrutiny of green claims is getting sharper by the day. The Guardian launched an online column about greenwashing last year, and there are plenty of bloggers prepared to cry foul - take a look at Mark Brinkley's wonderful EcoBollocks Awards for example.

PR consultants like myself have to be very careful. Most journalists are born cynical, but in a recession like this their eyebrows shoot even higher when companies in the construction and property industries tout their environmental credentials. If our clients are to protect their hard-won reputations, they need to know how best to avoid even accidental greenwash (and it is usually unintentional).

A couple of years ago a marketing firm in the States, TerraChoice, conducted a study into environmental claims in US consumer markets. The result was its (trademarked!) "Six Sins of Greenwashing".

This work is just as relevant to companies in the UK's construction and property industries. 

For example, the Six Sins were brought to life by Nick Reilly, a sustainability specialist working in the UK construction industry, when he considered how they might apply to a contractor.

Inspired by Nick, here are some of my own examples of the Six Sins in action:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off - eg. our exciting new building product will ensure thermal mass and help you reduce carbon emissions (even though the other greenhouse gases involved in its manufacture are horrendous, it creates greater dust pollution during transportation and installation etc...)

2. Sin of No Proof - eg. our new low energy homes deliver the highest standards of eco-friendly living (but no, we haven't done any testing or post-occupancy evaluation and we haven't got around to formal Code assessment yet...)

3. Sin of Vagueness - eg. our products are natural, chemical-free and made from recycled materials (how much or what sort of recycled content we can't tell you, and actually nothing is ever chemical-free...)

4. Sin of Irrelevance - eg. we guarantee all our products to be ozone-friendly and CFC-free (never mind the fact that CFCs were banned from use 20 years ago...)

5. Sin of Fibbing - eg. our building methods achieve outstanding levels of airtightness (when we build in Germany, but not here in the UK...)

6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils - eg. we use the highest quality hardwoods to reduce use of artificial materials and ensure a more natural living environment (although we don't particularly care where the hardwood comes from...)

TerraChoice found that Sins 1 and 2 (hidden trade-off and no proof) are by far the most common errors made in green marketing campaigns, both in consumer and B2B markets. I have no doubt we would find the same among many of the organisations in our sector.

In a future blog post I shall consider ways in which we can work together to avoid these sins. [Postscript: See blog post '10 Steps to Absolution']

Just like the snow storms over the South East today, there has been a flurry of activity and comment recently on the topic of the relationship between blogging, social media and public relations (including media relations):

• The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (my professional institute) updated its Social Media Guidelines.
  
• At the same time, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising published its social media research paper.
• PR guru and veteran blogger Stuart Bruce was one of the first to comment, pointing to critical reviews of both publications by other PR experts and asking whether separate guidelines were even necessary, over and above the CIPR Code of Conduct.
• Sustainable building expert Mel Starrs also alerted me the other day to a post by Adam Singer on PR and its interactions with the blogosphere, which in turn took me off reading Louis Gray's comment on the relationship between PR companies and bloggers... and I could have gone on reading well into the night.

This topic will have been (and will surely continue to be) the topic of choice for every bright young thing on the CIPR Diploma, and I'm not going to attempt any sort of academic analysis of this still-drifting issue.

Nor am I going to get into blogging just about, well, blogging. That would be of very little interest to my clients and other Footings fans.

However, let me pull out a few points from the CIPR guidelines that you might find of interest:

The CIPR Code of Conduct is very clear on what you, the client, should expect from me, the PR professional. It is all based around three principles: Integrity, Competence and Confidentiality.

Taking them in reverse order:

Confidentiality is an absolute given. In any activities, whether I'm 'on duty' or not, and whether a client is past, present or future, privileged information stays confidential. In social media terms, that means no tweets, blog posts or online hints about what's not for the public domain.

Competence is clearly essential too - if I'm going to advise my clients about the use and impact of social media, I need to understand it (and use it) myself. I'm giving it a fair shot, as you can see! But I will always say if we are getting towards the limits of our professional competence, and I can pass you on to the specialist associates we work with.

Integrity is the slightly puzzling one when it comes to social media. Obviously I get it when the CIPR stresses the need for accuracy and honesty. That's a no brainer, as my kids would say. But the requirements for openness and disclosure do get a bit complex (and possibly over-cooked in places).

As a general rule, I always err on the side of total disclosure. Unlike many 'normal users' of social media, PR professionals are required to be completely up front about their identity, their interests and any potential conflicts of interest. No 'ghost' blogs, no false representation on blogs or other social media sites etc. I do not have multiple profiles on Twitter, for example - it's @lizmale or nothing I'm afraid.

But I have to admit that I find it a bit galling that I am recommended by the CIPR to state my profession even when 'off duty' - if I'm posting a comment on another blog unrelated to my work, for example. ("My name's Liz and I'm in PR. Liked last week's recipe, Nigella..." Yuk, that feels horrid.)

I do have personal views, political views even, that I want to air and that I should be able to express anonymously if necessary. Thankfully, it's rare that I would find it awkward not to put my name next to any viewpoint, and if a comment could impact on my clients or colleagues in any way then it's just not going to happen in the first place. But yes, I do discuss some issues online using a pseudonym. So long as I can demonstrate my integrity to the CIPR Disciplinary Committee (should that ever become necessary, God forbid), it should be ok.

Anyway, I think it is true that, in time, it will seem very odd that the CIPR has issued guidelines on the use of social media (there aren't separate guidelines interpreting the Code of Conduct for financial PR, for example).

But given that so many PR people are social media newbies just like me, I think some attempt at pinning down the implications are very helpful in places.

For example, I probably would not have considered so carefully the legal issues about quoting from others, or the need to check other websites' terms of use to see whether I am allowed to 'deep link', ie. create direct links to web pages deep within their sites instead of just linking to the Home page.

That particular point was quite a shock actually. In fact, I think I'd better do a quick check on previous posts before I get into trouble... excuse me a minute