![]() ![]() The Paper Calculator is supported by the Environmental Paper Network’s 140 not-for-profit organizations and it is peer reviewed. It points to the as a means to add it all up. Nevertheless, the group says that companies must back up their claims - not just with hifalutin statements but with specific facts - things that can quantified: If a certain number of customers switched to paperless billing, it would save a specific amount of paper and a defined number of trees. At the same time, it eliminates the possibility of paper theft, although it does not eliminate the risk of being hacked on the Internet. Indeed, reducing the amount of paper also means cutting down on ink and postage, as well as disposal of the waste. Two sides surveyed 2,000 customers and said that 6 in 10 of them preferred vendors who offer real billing - not paperless billing.īut the Environmental Paper Network says that the goal here is to review the entire product cycle - not just the one dimensional aspect of cutting down trees to make paper. “We just want companies to stop misleading consumers by using vague and unsubstantiated environmental claims and to continue offering no-cost paper options to people who say they want and need them.” “We fully understand the advantages of electronic billing,” Riebel added. Simply, it wants to make sure companies can substantiate their claims. The FTC prohibits false claims about the environmental benefits of paperless billing. Those who continue to use unsubstantiated environmental claims as a smokescreen for reducing costs also risk greater scrutiny by the U.S. “When it comes to billing, consumer choice should not be a casualty of the digital revolution,” Phil Riebel, president of Two Sides said. “The American public has spoken, and billing companies that don’t listen risk losing business. The volume of trees on US timberland, it says, is growing by 22,000 tennis courts per day because of sustainable forestry practices. Stated differently, if those trees are not used to make paper, Two Sides says, then the land is often sold off and the trees are cut down to produce agriculture or to create real estate development - never to be replanted again. In other words, just because trees are not cut down down to make paper does not mean that they are preserved. Take the point about “saving trees,” which the group says is a “false” narrative. ![]() Rather, they say, it is a science-based argument that goes something like this: Their message is not of the feel-good variety and one that gives customers the false impression that they are doing right by the environment. But there remains a risk, as such companies as Target and Equifax have learned - that getting hacked is bad for business, and worse than the benefits of being perceived as environmentally friendly.įor that reason and more, the notion of going paperless is under challenge by the companies that produce pulp and paper - about 244 of them all and many from the Fortune 100, and one calling themselves Two Sides. On the issue of cost per se, companies can save money by sending out electronic bills - as long as sending out paper bills remains an option to avoid losing the more traditional customers. ![]() But is going paperless contrary to a business model or is it in line with the message the company hopes to send? This may, in fact, be a generational issue as older customers may prefer to stick with what they know best while the younger ones may like the convenience - and eco-benefits - of paying on line. After, by paying utility bills on line, for example, corporations can avoid sending out an invoice while allowing customers to wire funds - through their bank - to the company seeking payment.īusinesses will do what their customers want while also trying to reduce expenses. When it comes to going paperless, most companies say that it is more environmentally friendly, not to mention more efficient. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |