Company cars are often a financially valuable part of a benefits package, but something is very wrong with they way they are handed out...
Importantly, where I work the scale is DEFINED by CO2 emissions.
Say there are 5 levels of company car grades, A, B, C, D, E.
"A" is for the CEO & directors cars, and "E" is for the trainees and new starter's cars.
Entry level grade "E" is restricted to company cars up to 130 g/km and are typically the smaller, lighter cars such as Vauxhall Corsa, Toyota Yaris, etc.
But what strikes a disharmonic chord, is that as each level increases, the emissions permitted increases too. So;
E = Up to 130g/km,
D = Up to170 g/km,
and so on, until
A = Over 240g/km
Effectively this is categorising career path success as an entitlement to pollute more.
What!?! Surely as business people become promoted in to the ranks of directorship and above, they are seen as embodying the company values?
And since it’s this hierarchical level from which much of the sustainable / corporate responsiblity policies come from, isn't it MASSIVELY hypocritical for a some top dog CEO to be signing commitment to the latest green initiative one minute, then hauling their lard-arse in to a 4 Litre 240g/km mobile power station for the journey home!
This poses a further question – Do corporate leaders actually believe in the green policies they create? Do they live according to the same demands they expect of their staff? E.g. recycling, using renewable energies, using sustainable transport, cutting their personal carbon footprint, not wasting water and electricity, etc. I wonder.
Anyway, many big-wig / top-dogs / (CEO's etc) are knocking on a bit. One assumes any offspring would have left the family home by now, so they don't need a people carrier. Perhaps CEO's only need a small car to transport their partner, their golf clubs and their shopping. A Vauxhall Corsa works... ;-)
