ONE OF the business buzz terms in recent years has been "the brand" ... we have been busy "honouring the brand", "growing the brand" and so forth.
Even the All Blacks are now not only a footy team but a brand that must energetically defend its hard-won few square centimetres of the world stage.
The one area where this brand-building business could pay the biggest long-term dividends, though, is the one we conspicuously skirt around.
And that is brand New Zealand itself, and its potentially highly lucrative niche appeal on the world market.
This relates of course to our supposed clean green image - already a much sullied phrase, given the way it's been used and generally abused in its short existence in the lexicon.
Blessed with the natural resources that gave rise to the term in the first place, we've been spectacularly remiss in maintaining the link between image and an ongoing reality that's plundering those very core resources.
Most notably we had the marketing genius who brainwaved the "100% Pure" nonsense, and those who shamelessly thrashed the fiction abroad.
We should all thank the UK television interviewer who very publicly outed our Prime Minister for peddling this demonstrably puerile gibberish in the international arena.
But here's the thing: how much better would it be - both economically and ecologically - if it were actually true? Or as near as. What if we were seen to be not only resolutely walking a walk that matched the talk, but setting the bar for the rest of the world?
Earlier this month, Portugal met its electricity requirements - albeit just for a four-day stretch - through 100 per cent renewable sources.
Hearty congratulations to Portugal, but given our abundant natural resources and small population, this should have been us.
Instead, we're delivering a lesser percentage of electricity through clean energy sources than we were back in 1980.
Dirty water? Oh, that's easy - just ratchet down the definition of dirty. Carbon credits? Let's find some back-alley dealer where we can pick up just enough shonky ones to tick the boxes. Solar power? Let's not reward and subsidise those seeking a more efficient alternative to feed into the grid, but penalise them for bucking the system.
And so it goes ...
It's ironic that while dairy prices for industrial milk are through the floor, Fonterra is suddenly paying about double for organic milk, and can't get enough of it.
The nearest I get to hands-on farming these days is growing a few veges and watching Country Calendar, but it's heartening reading stories of former conventional farmers trying organic alternatives, dropping synthetic fertilisers, reverting to grass-only fed herds and the like.
And what with win-win-win payoffs - less stress on the farmer, the land, the stock and the general environment for more profitability. Geez, Wayne.
What would be even better, though, would be a Government that didn't shimmy around the shadows and, instead, proactively declared and facilitated a clear commitment to an honest brand, all the more profitable for it. A brand which could be our breadwinner far into the future.
Many forget that it was only a few generations ago - in pre-DDT days - that all produce was more or less organic. It isn't some unattainable agricultural and horticultural nirvana.
We're one of the few countries on the planet still capable of implementing this course, should we wish.
And to do this we must both build and protect the brand - which is why vested interest groups pushing for nuclear options, for GE options and the like must be resisted.
It's not that there mightn't be some benefits to be had, it is that whatever those benefits might be pale into insignificance - in economic terms alone, let alone environmental, ecological and physiological - against being able to niche market a truly clean, green, organic, sustainable Kiwi brand driven by renewable energy.