Direct marketing falls short on environment performance

by Alex Donohue, Brand Republic 24-Apr-07, 14:20

LONDON - The direct marketing industry is not doing enough to respond to criticism about its environmental policies, with only 24% of the UK's top 200 printing firms having recognised environmental standards, according to a study by DM specialist GI Direct.

The report said "little effort" was being made by companies to secure environmental accreditations, with just 24% of the UK's top 200 printing firms registered to ISO14001, the environmental management standard for recycling and waste disposal methods.

Additionally, only 14% of the printing companies polled had a certificate from Forest Stewardship Council, the international forestry NGO, to endorse their environmental practices. Fewer than 5% of the companies have been independently audited as carbon neutral.

GI Direct said the direct marketing industry was making itself an "easy target" for lobbyists and MPs about its environmental practices, and that more action was needed from trade bodies to "provide an effective counterpoint to environmental critics".

Patrick Headley, sales director of GI Direct, said: "There evidently needs to be an urgent and serious effort by the print industry to obtain a level of accreditation that clearly demonstrates through credible and independent audit the true environmental compliance of the sector."

The study follows a spate of recent criticism about the direct marketing industry's approach to environmental standards. David Milliband, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, has lambasted the industry's 555,000 annual tonnes of mail as "unacceptable for consumer's convenience and the environment".

The GI Direct study polled 200 printing companies in the UK, and measured their performance on the three most relevant industry standards; awarded by ISO14001, the Carbon Trust and the Forest Stewardship Council.

Comments

TONY ATTWOOD - 25/04/2007

What we really need is a comparison between the environmental impact of getting 1000 sales via a free newspaper, direct mail, TV, radio etc. The impact should cover the whole production cost of the ad as well as the distribution. Then we'd know. My suspicion is that the environmental impact of a TV ad is far higher than any other form of advertising.

Katie Sims - 26/04/2007

It's also worth comparing the carbon footprint of a direct mailing with an email that is subsequently printed out in the home or office. Paper consumption has increased with the computer age so to assume that emails remain unprinted is ludicrous. For example, sending transactional communications, such as statements or bills, by email would hardly be good for the environment if most recipients are then printing these out for financial/tax purposes. There has been much talk about paper, but who is factoring in the waste (often toxic) that comes from spent toner cartridges and other computer accessories? It appears that electronic media is somehow ducking under the radar. Given the energy consumption (even with an idling computer energy is used not to mention the enormous increase in energy consumption of a computer that is downloading a vast rich media document), the increased paper consumption in the computer age and the waste component - I'm not really sure why direct mail is continually coming under fire.