This isn’t very scientific, but it is a fun study in what the true values and priorities of organisations might be through the lens of their surface presentation.
In my last post I noted my immediate visceral response to the RSPO website vs the Rainforest Alliance website. This helped me make a much faster (and hopefully more accurate) decision about whether either organisation, whose logos are on the products I buy, actually deliver on the promise.
This visceral reaction tells me a lot, very quickly, as to whether their heart and my own are aligned in the same direction. See what you think…
Compare and contrast:
- Pic of something I DON’T care about and DON’T think they should be prioritising: Namely their head honcho: Secretary General & Team at the RSPO Secretariat (Seriously, how many ‘secretary-related’ things do they need? It immediately makes me think ‘paper pushing’).
- A slew of Corporate-speak and assorted pdfs, processes and approved minutes – all measuring INPUTS (process, meetings, signatories etc) but not so easy to get a clear outline on how they are MEASURING RESULTS / OUTPUTS that make a difference for wildlife, environment and local folk .
- An approach that seems geared largely towards large corporations rather than building a community of awareness around all of us involved in the production, sale and consumption.
- I can’t immediately see how they have people on the ground checking the reality of the situation on wildlife etc in their certified plantations, and if they do it is generally in corporate rather than scientific terms.
- Pic of something I DO care about and DO think they should be prioritising people, local environment and wildlife
- Section on what is ULTIMATELY IMPORTANT to me as a consumer -how they actually prove / measure the impact of their approach on the things they / I care about: environment, social and economic sustainability.
- An approach that brings together all stakeholders: me as a consumer, businesses, and local communities.
- I am getting an immediate impression that they are actually putting people on the ground to check wildlife improvements and impact etc in a scientific way.
Like I say, not terribly scientific, but guess which one I am more likely to believe gets the right results?