Windhoek — I read somewhere that some large companies pay attention to litter in the design phase of packaging. Beyond the idea that packaging should be biodegradable, they also spend some amount of money ensuring that if dropped on a pavement, the packaging will still have a certain amount of visual appeal.

I am not sure if this ludicrous idea is an urban legend. All I can say is that it gives me the creeps. Like all Namibians, I have a sense of the environment. People who litter are relegated to the role of foreign stereotype. Locals who litter are filed under 'disappointment' or 'avoid'. I am not unusual: many Namibians feel the same way as I do. This sense extends into my buying patterns. If a company pollutes, it needs to take measures to stop the pollution. If a company becomes associated with litter, it needs to take a stance that is visibly against litter. If a company damages the environment, it must repair the environment and take measures to prevent damage to the environment. Once again, many Namibians feel the same way I do.

If the environment is perceived as an asset that is the property of everyone, then any damage to the environment associated with a brand will lead to poor perceptions. This effect will be driven by consumers who like me will develop barriers to purchasing, probably at a subconscious level. It will also lead to a less obliging attitude on the part of stakeholders, either through legal sanction or through more subtle social sanctions.

There are three elements that need to be kept under control: they are pollution from processes, the environment and litter. I am least qualified to discuss the aspect of pollution due to processes, but if a process does pollute, particularly the water supply, but also the air, cleaner processes should be implemented. If a product may pollute the environment, it may well be worth giving guidelines for disposal. The environment should be a matter of major concern, though in some cases, such as mining, disruption to the environment is unavoidable. If the environmental impact assessment allows the process to go ahead, the company may want to sponsor initiatives concerning the environment in other areas, and draw up plans for restoring the environment once the process has come to an end.

Of particular note in this regard are the many wildlife projects that are open to sponsorship. Litter is the most visible and annoying facet of environmental concerns. It is also probably the element that is least under control of the organization. However there are a number of steps that the manufacturer can take. The most obvious is biodegradability pf packaging. If this is not possible, reusability of packaging might be considered, though this can be a very expensive undertaking. Reusability should seek two avenues: either by return to the manufacturing company or in the household. It is worth noting though that reusability in the household should not be difficult for the consumer or require major modification of the packaging. Packaging that is not designed for reusability should emphasise an anti-littering message. If the packaging can be recycled, it should state where the packaging could be deposited.

Although none of this is entirely within the control of the company, communication of the company's environmental policy should be clear and visible. This should be split into three broad fields, one to the consumers, a second to the press and third to the stakeholders. The approach not only wins markets, understanding on the part of the press and goodwill on the part of the stakeholders, but it can also serve as a first line of defence in the event of an emergency.

By stating good intent at the outset, any crisis will not immediately refer to a poor record, but will allow the company to rectify the situation with the understanding that the incident was not due to callous negligence, but actually was in spite of a good environmental track record.