Paul Thomas

Environmental issues dominate the news agenda as we grapple with one of the greatest challenges our world has ever faced, climate change. But it is important to remember that this concern is quite a new phenomenon to our society.

It is surprisingly easy to forget that the environment's rise in prominence as a business issue is confined largely to the past three or four years. If we look at the coverage across eight UK national newspapers, for example, we can see that they reported a little more than 200 stories on climate change in 2002, compared with more than 10,157 articles in 2007 – that is 29 articles every day.

The media and the communications industry has had to get to grips with these issues in a comparatively short period of time, and given the complexity of the subject matter, it is not surprising that they have often struggled to handle them effectively.

An example of this occurred earlier this year when the BBC reported the same story in two contradictory ways. The story related to the release of a study into the impact of climate change on the nation's health and was reported on BBC News Online with the headline Climate change "could kill thousands", detailing the impact that heatwaves will have on the elderly.

On the same day the BBC Six O'Clock News, reporting on the same study, led with the statement that climate change could actually improve life expectancy, making the point that elderly peoples' health will benefit from the expected milder winters. With so much coverage on global warming and the vastly differing ways it is reported we are guilty of causing a great deal of confusion.

But it is not just the media that struggles to communicate these issues with due care and attention. Recently there has been a rise in companies trying to gain competitive advantage through the green agenda. While it has been around for many years, so-called "greenwashing" is increasingly pernicious and on the rise. The Advertising Standards Authority banned 19 adverts last year for making spurious environmental claims – more than twice the number recorded in 2006.

Something that has concerned me over the past 18 months is the way in which companies make bold statements of intent without detailing how they are going to meet these objectives.

Tesco committed itself last year to labelling every one of its 70,000 products with details of its carbon footprint, and promised to slash carbon emissions from its stores by 75 per cent in the next few years. But within days of the announcement, it dawned on Tesco boss Sir Terry Leahy that getting hold of the information that would underpin the carbon-labelling revolution would not be as easy as popping down to one of his supermarkets for a pint of milk. One year on, Tesco is still in the early stages of trialling a carbon-labelling system on a small selection of its own-branded products.

Similarly, Marks & Spencer, through its much-trumpeted "Plan A" programme, is spending more than £200m to become a sustainable business. But by its own admission the company does not know how it is going to achieve some of the goals laid out in Plan A. Is this not a vital ingredient to any sustainability strategy?

So just how far are the aims and objectives laid out by companies realistic or achievable?

Businesses and indeed governments have a duty to set standards for responsible communication and this means setting targets that are backed up by proof points. This does not mean that Marks & Spencer and Tesco should be condemned for their approach. In fact, they are leading the way for many retailers with their innovative and ambitious strategies. Aspirations and intentions are important to businesses, as they show direction and leadership. However, there is a danger of losing credibility if there is no distinction made between actions and aspirations and if the strategy to meet these objectives is not communicated clearly enough.

It is simply not enough for companies just to show their good intentions. Statements on the environment should use clear and simple language and should be linked to binding targets. Claims should be backed up by statistics and performance should always be assessed by a genuinely independent industry body.

Public relations and marketing practitioners have a particular duty and indeed, an opportunity, to set standards for responsible communications in this area. The recently released Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) guidelines for sustainability communications have provided an excellent framework and are a solid step in the right direction.

Ultimately, it is PR professionals who must take the initiative and help companies adopt a credible approach to communicating these issues that is built not just on good intentions, but also solid action.

Paul Thomas is a senior consultant for the CSR Division of PR consultancy Trimedia