A go-ahead to keep damaging the planet
Name and address withheld
Sir; Has anyone asked why Procter & Gamble has chosen to go it alone with eco-labelling, why Unilever is so quiet on this issue and why Reckitt Benckiser has jumped on the eco-bandwagon with a tokenistic re-launch? ('P&G goes it alone with eco-labelling', The Grocer, 8 September, p5) P&G can be congratulated to an extent on communicating an important issue. However, what is required is true breakthrough technology and innovation - not marginal changes - to achieve a quick win based on marketing skill. I would suspect that the marketing experts in their glass house in Weybridge, or Leatherhead and Slough for that matter, full of plastic bottles and paper cups, would not be so keen for us to know the real carbon footprint of their products. The truth would not be a competitive advantage. Instead, they appear to have usedtheir superior marketing capability to gain competitive advantage and find a quick way to cash in on the current climate. The Future Friendly label gives consumers the go-ahead to continue to damage the planet while they do their laundry and clean their homes, when the environmental footprint from the newer packaging, chemicals and ensuing waste is, at best, only a marginal improvement. As a shopper I agree labels can get confusing, but at least give us something meaningful. Come on P&G, use your massive research and development capability, consumer knowledge and industrial might to demonstrate real leadership and true breakthrough ideas instead of opting for the easy option and then opening up this cop-out for other manufacturers to join. Very disappointing.
Name and address withheld
Sir; Has anyone asked why Procter & Gamble has chosen to go it alone with eco-labelling, why Unilever is so quiet on this issue and why Reckitt Benckiser has jumped on the eco-bandwagon with a tokenistic re-launch? ('P&G goes it alone with eco-labelling', The Grocer, 8 September, p5) P&G can be congratulated to an extent on communicating an important issue. However, what is required is true breakthrough technology and innovation - not marginal changes - to achieve a quick win based on marketing skill. I would suspect that the marketing experts in their glass house in Weybridge, or Leatherhead and Slough for that matter, full of plastic bottles and paper cups, would not be so keen for us to know the real carbon footprint of their products. The truth would not be a competitive advantage. Instead, they appear to have usedtheir superior marketing capability to gain competitive advantage and find a quick way to cash in on the current climate. The Future Friendly label gives consumers the go-ahead to continue to damage the planet while they do their laundry and clean their homes, when the environmental footprint from the newer packaging, chemicals and ensuing waste is, at best, only a marginal improvement. As a shopper I agree labels can get confusing, but at least give us something meaningful. Come on P&G, use your massive research and development capability, consumer knowledge and industrial might to demonstrate real leadership and true breakthrough ideas instead of opting for the easy option and then opening up this cop-out for other manufacturers to join. Very disappointing.
No comments yet