Climb The Green Ladder
Make
Your Company and Career More Sustainable
By Shari Aaron and Amy Fetzer
Be sure and pick up a copy of this book, many inspiring stories-including Sams Club and Walmarts GAME CHANGING entry into organics. A great framework for taking action now---
By Coral Rose
Original post here:The University of Delaware's online FIBER JOURNAL publication
We have witnessed decades of
widespread global economic growth, in which we have seen the standard of living
for millions of people around the world rise to unprecedented levels. As China
and India enter the age of consumerism, global economic development is linked
not only to the core practices of business, but that of environmental and
social issues as well.
Our planet now supports 6.5 billion
people. We are adding to that, about 70 million people each year. Some may
assert that the current global economic business model cannot support or
sustain social and economic progress for the projected 8 billion people who
will live on this planet by 2050.
In the world of globalization,
fundamentally social and environmental issues are business issues and are
inseparable from one another.
According to a recent poll conducted
by the Global Strategy Group, 87 percent of consumers are more likely to buy
products from a retailer that is committed to environmentally sound practices.
With increased awareness, the
concern for many companies becomes how to achieve the maximum economic benefit
from environmentally and socially responsible products and practices while at
the same time increasing shareholder value and increasing stakeholder trust.
Hidden from our View
Today, the majority of products’
social and environmental impacts are hidden from our view — that is, the
effects of a product’s social and environmental impacts (life cycle) before it
hits the shelves and consumers’ hands. The average designer to purchasing agent
(consumers as well) is unaware of the global impacts of their decisions. Hidden
from their sight is what lies upstream; all the impacts of growing, processing,
manufacturing and transporting raw materials and component parts.
Twentieth-century business practices have taught these professionals to focus
only on what is downstream (production to consumer).
In the United States in 1960, we
were generating 2.7 pounds of waste per person per day. In 2006, that number is
4.6 pounds of waste per person per day. By the time that waste fills one
garbage can, 70 garbage cans of waste was created upstream to make the stuff that
is now going to the landfill.
To begin to create an accurate
picture of what and who are upstream and to make informed decisions about what
actions we will take downstream, we must begin to ask: What is the source of
our raw materials? Where were the materials harvested, processed, produced? And
who and what (people-animals-environment) in the supply chain is affected by
the harvesting, processing, and production of our products?
Considering all the social and
environmental impacts from harvest/processing to waste/reuse is a total mindset
shift at the product design and creation level and a key component to
sustainable economic development strategies.
Supply chain transparency is one of
the basic tenents or “rules of engagement” for any 21st-century business model.
Ethical Consumerism
Ethical consumerism is on the rise.
It’s a movement based on purchasing products that have been ethically produced
by organizations that are involved in a process of ensuring that the basic
labor rights of the employees of their Third World suppliers are respected.
According to a recent study reported
by the Wall Street Journal, companies that embrace more ethical
production practices (social and environmental) that are third-party certified,
may produce larger profit margins.
What are consumers willing to pay
for a pound of coffee based on what they were told about the company’s
production standards?
Source: WSJ — Does Being Ethical Pay?
Consumers may be willing to purchase
unethically produced products, but at a steep discount. A recent survey by BBMG
indicated that 35 percent of all Americans have avoided buying a product
because of a company’s practices. Return on investment (ROI) in the 21st
century is clearly rooted in social and environmental responsibility and the
ability of a company to look upstream when making sourcing decisions.
Fair Trade — Supply Chain Transparency
Fair Trade Certification is a
market-based model of international trade that benefits over one million
farmers and farm workers in developing countries. Fair Trade products have
experienced consistent global growth in the 40 percent range over the last few
years, making Fair Trade good for business.
The roots of Fair Trade can be
traced back to churches in North America and Europe in the late 1940s. The goal
of these organizations was to provide relief to refugees and other
poverty-stricken communities by selling their handicrafts to Northern markets.
In the U.S., Alternative Trade Organizations (ATOs), such as Ten Thousand
Villages and Equal Exchange, purchase from worker-owned cooperatives. The ATOs
were formed to import Fair Trade crafts and coffee to the U.S. market.
In 1988, world coffee prices began a
sharp decline, The Netherlands’ Max Havelar offered the mainstream coffee
industry the first standardized system of Fair Trade criteria. Currently,
Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO) is the “umbrella
organization” that establishes Fair Trade standards globally for the industry
using a multi-stakeholder process.
Fair Trade standards require
sustainable farming techniques and offer further price premiums for organic
production, but Fair Trade certification does not guarantee that a product was
organically grown. Where farmers are not certified organic, they are required
to implement a system of integrated crop management (ICM). FLO stiuplates that
the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) conventions be followed.
One hundred million people around
the world rely on cotton for their livelihoods. Fairtrade certified cotton
carrying the FAIRTRADE Mark was launched in April 2005. Countries and producers
receiving certification for cotton include farmers in India, Mali, Peru, and
Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Egypt. Pakistan and Brazil will follow in the near
future.
Note: Under the FAIRTRADE Mark it is only the cotton that is
certified Fairtrade, not the yarn, fabric, or garment. Therefore, a product can
only be referred to as Fairtrade Cotton NOT for example a Fairtrade Cotton
shirt. The label must read: “Made with FAIRTRADE Certified Cotton.”
Currently The United Nations “Least Developed” Countries are the only countries
eligible for Fair Trade Certification.
The term Fair Trade is
sometimes used interchangeably with Ethical Trading. Ethical Trading
refers to organizations. The FAIRTRADE Mark, applies to products
rather than organizations.
Walmart — Increasing Social and
Environmental Global Supply Chain Standards
Walmart Stores, Inc., recently
announced in Beijing, China, that the company will focus on taking a number of
steps to strengthen and enforce supplier compliance with rigorous social and
environmental standards, including the creation of a new supplier agreement and
scorecards that will require factories to certify compliance with laws and
regulations where they operate.
The agreement will be phased in
beginning with suppliers in China in January 2009. It will expand to suppliers
globally by 2011. In terms of supply chain transparency, by 2009, Walmart will
require all direct import suppliers plus all suppliers of private label and
non-branded products to provide the name and location of every factory they use
to make the products it sells. The company will also instruct all suppliers it
buys from directly to source 95 percent of their production from factories that
meet the company’s highest ratings on social and environmental practices by
2012.
Looking Forward
Organizations not communicating
their social and environmental practices and progress may lose out to their
competitors that do. Here are some steps you can take:
Economic success in the 21st century
will be measured and led by brands and retailers that can successfully create
long-term brand value and stakeholder loyalty by creating products, processes,
and services that consider the environmental and social impacts of their supply
chains.
EcoTextileNews Cover Story-November 2008 issue
by Coral Rose
As a result of the U.S. credit
crunch and slowing economy, we are now seeing consumers including, ethical
consumers become more economically
conscious. What remains to be seen is how, if and when this might affect
the solid upward trend of organic and sustainable fibers and products.
The Lenzing Group recently released results for
the first half of 2008. With noted strong sales increases of 17.4%, they
may be the first to acknowledge a shift in the market; “First signs of a
weakening global fiber market were perceptible already from the beginning of
the second quarter.” And “The
unfavorable economic development that started in the USA clouds expectations
for the global economy. The weak dollar and turbulent raw material and energy
markets will add further pressure”
In a
global economy, U.S. issues are global issues. There are now concerns
that the U.S. credit crisis is spreading to Europe and quickly becoming a
global economic hurtle.
“In the short run, I hear people saying that
we won’t have the resources to address sustainability now that we’re spending a
trillion rescuing the financial system. That seems backwards. We
need to address climate change and resource shortages even more aggressively.
It’s about risk management. The leaner we are, the less stuff we
use to make every product and service, the better prepared we are for whatever
comes our way.” Andrew Winston, Founder of Eco-Strategies,
and Co-Author Green to Gold.
We have witnessed decades of widespread global economic
growth, in which we have seen the standard of living for millions of people,
around the world rise to unprecedented levels.
As China and India enter the age of consumerism, global economic
development is linked not only to the core practices of business, but that of
environmental and social issues as well.
Our planet now supports 6.5 billion people. We are adding
to that, about 70 million people each year. Some might assert that the current
global economic business model cannot support or sustain economic progress for
the projected 8 billion people who will live on this planet by 2050.
“In many ways, the credit crunch is
the epitome of non-sustainability. Observing this crisis, you can study the
consequences of non-sustainable (economic) actions that - in the end -
will affect people, in other words the social/societal dimension of
sustainability. For us this development strengthens the conviction that
sustainable management is the only way of succeeding in the long run and we
will continue to focus on sustainability in all respects." Friedrich Weninger, Vice-President,
Lenzing AG.
In the coming months, we will invariably
see organizations implementing mid-course short term adjustments to their long
term strategies. Some consider this the opportunity of the 21st
Century; to bring fresh ideas, knowledge, collaborative resources and
innovation together in ways that link sustainability, with opportunities for
sustainable economic growth.
David Basson, President
of Greensource Organic Company, views sustainability as “the competitive
advantage to the slowing economy.” “Sustainability is front and center on consumer’s minds right now,
with high energy costs being a primary focus of
the current Presidential elections.”
“We are seeing a tighter economy;
consumers are looking for value and shopping
at stores that they had not previously frequented.” He noted
a recent trip where he observed many high - end cars in a Walmart parking
lot, he sees this as an enormous opportunity for Mass Market retailers.
While the current
economic slowdown is not affecting Greensource fiber strategies, David Basson
noted that pricing is still a large factor. As a vertical supplier he stressed
the importance of long term relationships in his supply chain, as being “key to
being able to service his customers through any economic challenges that may
occur.”
Patagonia is a brand that has successfully
created long term brand value and stakeholder loyalty by considering the
environmental and social impacts of their supply chain and products. Levi
Straus & Co. recently reported that the current economic slowdown “is not
hindering any product initiatives or other work LS&CO is doing in this
(sustainability) area.”
"Marc Gunther, Senior Writer Fortune Magazine, who writes about the impact of business on society, with a focus on environmental issues, says “that this turmoil in the capital markets can't be good for the sustainability movement.” however, “if nothing else the economic slowdown is a huge distraction. But this will pass, eventually, and then there is no way that companies, and consumers, are going to be able to ignore sustainability"
"Walmart remains committed to
Sustainability," according to Walmart spokeswoman Shannon Frederick; “At
Walmart, we believe that being environmentally friendly and running a good
business go hand in hand during times of economic prosperity as well as during
tough economic times like our customers are currently experiencing. We remain
committed to our sustainability-focused goals to be supplied 100% by renewable
energy, to create zero waste, and to sell products that sustain our resources
and the environment. All along we have said that we believe families should
have access to affordable environmentally-friendly products. And we're
committed to making sure our customers don't have to choose between a more
sustainable product and one they can afford.”
How might the economic slowdown
affect consumer purchasing behavior? Natural Marketing Institute recently reported that consumers state higher purchases
of “Natural” versus “Organic” foods
and beverages. “This is driven by a wide range of factors; levels of
understanding, availability, price, and perceived benefits.” Will
we see this trend from organic to ‘natural’ (sustainable) in the fiber market?
As the impacts of a slowing
economy are felt, companies that can adapt quickly to the
troubled economy and become focused on the cost savings of sustainable business
practices may be the ones to deliver a return on investment in tough times. Cost
savings derived from increased energy efficiency of the supply chain, could lead
us to a more localized and regionalized supply chain versus one that is globalized.
Economically tough times of the past
yield us some insight to forthcoming possible actions; Retailers may sharpen
margins and work towards leaner inventories; this will trickle down the supply
chain. Brands and retailers may be less willing to make long term commitments
at least for the short term until the rising economic tide has passed. Consumers
will invariably spend less money while at the same time looking for products
with added brand value, and consumers will shift to purchasing practical-no
frills basics, this includes upcoming holiday gift purchases.
It is clear that companies who can strategize to thrive during this time, will no doubt be well situated for long term sustainable economic development and growth.
Copyright(C) 2008 Mowbry Communications Limited
The sales volume of
organic products, which had been growing at 20 percent a year in recent years,
slowed to a much lower growth rate in the last few months, according to the
Nielsen Company, a market research firm.
“Organics continue to grow and outpace many
categories,” the Nielsen Company concluded in an October report. “However,
recent weeks are showing slower growths, possibly a start of an organics growth
plateau.”
For the four-week period
that ended Oct. 4, the volume of organic products sold rose just 4 percent
compared with the same period a year earlier.
If the slowdown
continues, it could have broad implications beyond the organic industry, whose
success spawned a growing number of products with values-based marketing claims,
from fair trade coffee to hormone-free beef to humanely raised chickens. Nearly
all of them command a premium price.
While a group of core
customers considers organic or locally produced products a top priority, the
growth of recent years was driven by a far larger group of less committed
customers. The weak economy is prompting many of them to choose which marketing
claim, if any, is really important to them.
Among organic products,
those marketed to children will probably continue to thrive because they appeal
to parents’ concerns about health, said Laurie Demeritt, the president and
chief operating officer of the Hartman Group, a market research firm for the
health and wellness industry. But products that do not have as much perceived
benefit, like processed foods for adults, may struggle.
Theresa Marquez, the
chief marketing executive for Organic Valley, which sells primarily dairy
products, said she was not worried about core customers because they were so
committed to buying organic.
“I’m not sure the
periphery — those that purchase perhaps only four or so times a month — will
break the industry,” she said in an e-mail conversation after the convention.
“But I am concerned that those periphery customers are important to the growth
of the industry and without them, organic growth is sure to go flat.”
Organic Valley’s sales
have slowed in the last four months, in part because of price increases,
company officials said.
Robert Atallah, the
owner of Cedarlane Foods, which makes organic and natural frozen meals, said
his business had slowed in the last 18 months, a problem he attributed to
increased competition and the economy. He said that he believed a newly
developed line of products could help sales but cannot convince buyers for
grocery chains to commit.
“The morale of buyers is
so low, they don’t want to buy anything,” he said. “It’s a sick feeling all the
way around. People don’t know if their job is going to be there.”
But others said they had
not yet noticed a slowdown and were optimistic that sales would remain steady —
or possibly improve — as consumers ate fewer meals in restaurants and devoted
more time to cooking. Some store-brand manufacturers said they were thriving as
consumers looked for cheaper alternatives to branded products.
Some others said they
were cutting back on organic food to save money.Joni Heard, a 29-year-old
mother of two who lives in central Florida, said that in the past she would buy
organic milk, cheese and produce but had cut back because it was too expensive.
“I’m a stay-at-home mom and my husband — you never know if he’s going to be
laid off,” she said in an interview, explaining that her husband works in
construction. “I can’t justify spending $2 or $3 more for a single item.”
The shift to “NATURAL”
The Natural Marketing
Institute recently reported that consumers state higher purchases of “Natural” versus “Organic” foods and beverages.
“This is driven by a wide range of factors; levels of understanding,
availability, price, and perceived benefits.” *Note: there is not a USDA Standard with third party certification in
place for products with a “Natural” identifier as there is for and “Organic”
label.
Will we see this trend from organic
to ‘natural’ (sustainable) in the fiber market?
Portions originally posted
Here by The New York Times;
Budgets Squeezed, Some Families
Bypass Organics
Originally posted here on Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business Blog
by Mary Hunt
All that
rock climbing must be what makes Patagonia fearless in the business world.
Today they announced that they'll be
using their retail reach to encourage individuals to "Vote the Environment" and
are using You Tube to get the message across.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3V6ThF6dc&feature=user
Casey
Sheahan, president and CEO of Patagonia says, "We're using our story-telling and marketing
expertise to get this message out during a critical time in our country's
history. We know that some customers may be put off by the strong environmental
message. Not
all our customers are environmentalists. But we are."
That last
line is the most telling about Patagonia's brand, they stick to their mission
regardless of who may not agree. That's being authentic at at a time when trust
in corporations is at an all time low.
Patagonia
understands its responsibility to not only make a profit, but to use its
advertising and retail distribution connections to provide continuing education
to the masses. If repetitive advertising can change a buying behavior,
then it also can change a social responsibility behavior.
It's
hard to tell where the .com stops and the .org starts.
Patagonia
has already given over $30 million to grassroots environmental activists since
1985. These are mostly micro projects, such as cleaning up a local river or
bringing an environmental education class to a small town. Those actions
don't make the big press releases, but are the ultimate in consumer
engagement. It must be working, they crested $280 million in
sales last year.
What I
appreciate most is their ability to educate their base on both the micro and
the macro issues impacting the planet. To do so they hold their own story
up to scrutiny. Their "Footprint Chronicles"
provide a retail-lite, Life Cycle Assessment. It falls short on
quantified numbers, but does give a nod to the good and the bad
of each product. That's a big step towards transparency.
"Vote
the Environment" doesn't pick a party, it provides educational links
for individuals to use and decide for themself who will do a better
job. In the primaries, according to research by the Nathan Cummings
Foundation, the environment was #18 on the list of top voter concerns
across party lines. With this new initiative, Patagonia is hoping to put
environmental issues into the #1 spot.
Contact Mary
at Mary@InWomenWeTrust.com
Originally posted here on UD Journal: FIBER
by Gail Baugh
Cotton is t
he “green”
fiber! Polyester is bad for the environment! Simple, right? Our choices are not
so simple anymore. With broadened awareness of fiber and textile innovations
and of human impact on our environment, we must consider our choices with new
enlightenment. Is it possible that polyester fiber is more eco-friendly than
cotton fiber?
I did a consulting
project last fall comparing the environmental impact of cotton and polyester
fiber production with surprising results. I concluded recycled polyester fiber,
produced from existing polyester products, is more sustainable than cotton
fiber.
Since the mid-1980s,
cotton and polyester fiber production have grown dramatically, so that today,
these two fibers account for more than 80% of all fiber production worldwide.
The quantity of production of these two fibers is nearly equal. Future
production of these fibers will confront new problems. Petroleum production
will continue to decline, and arable land for fiber production may also be
reduced, as the demand for biofuel and food production take priority over
fiber.
There are ongoing
innovations in fiber and textiles. For the past 15+ years, plastic bottles have
been recycled 
into low-grade polyester fiber. The big news is that it is now
possible to recycle polyester fiber, yarn, fabric, and garments into new,
high-quality polyester fiber. Cotton fiber can also be recycled into new yarn
and fabric, but the quality of the fiber is reduced, so the res ulting product
is not as high quality as the original fiber. For both fibers, it is a new
concept that it is now possible to recycle and create new fiber and products
from existing fiber.
Let’s clarify some of
the terms the press and the fashion industry are using to tell customers how
they can help prevent pollution. There are no standard industry definitions to
describe the ecology of the fashion business. The result is confusion regarding
the complex nature of fiber, fabric, and garment production and the impact each
has on the environment and resources.
As I compared cotton
with polyester fiber, I developed a set of questions to determine which fiber
used more sustainable practices:
In my consulting project
last fall, I compared the production of cotton fiber (both conventionally and
organically grown) to virgin polyester and recycled polyester fiber production.
Using three questions above to compare the environmental impact of each fiber,
I concluded recycled polyester fiber involved more sustainable practices than
any cotton fiber. Here’s why:
Is the fiber easily
renewable?
Cotton Summary — Water
and energy use are high, and the useable fiber is one-third of the total
harvest volume.
Water use: Both conventionally and organically grown
cotton fiber require large quantities of water for a consistent crop yield.
Estimates range from 1,400–3,400 gallons per pound of fiber. (1 lb of fiber =
about two t-shirts.)
Fiber yield per acre: About two-thirds of an acre’s harvest volume is
discarded, leaving one-third of the harvest volume available for textile
production.
Energy use: About 8.6–9.4 Kwh per pound of fiber for both
types of cotton. However, energy used to move water for irrigation (organic and
conventional cotton) and to produce synthetic fertilizers (mostly
petroleum-based products — conventional cotton only) is not considered in this
figure. By adding in this additional energy use, conventional cotton fiber
energy consumption is estimated to be nearly the same as virgin polyester
energy consumption.
Recycled Polyester Fiber
Summary — Low water use. Energy use is high, though one-third less than virgin
fiber. Very little waste in fiber production.
Water use: Water used in recycled fiber production is
almost nil. Even in virgin fiber production, water is used as a coolant, in
very small amounts.
Fiber yield: Compared to raw materials used, which must be
measured by weight. There was some weight loss, but nothing close to the
two-thirds lost in the cotton harvest.
Energy use: About 13.8 Kwh per pound of fiber. Energy used
to produce the original virgin fiber was about 18.3 Kwh per pound of fiber.
Is the fiber produced
using nonpolluting methods?
Cotton Summary —
Synthetic chemicals used continue to pose significant water, soil, and air
pollution threats.
Use of chemicals: Conventionally grown cotton uses synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides (mostly petroleum-based). Pesticides have been
greatly reduced due to genetically modified seed. However, these same GM seeds
seem to require specific synthetic fertilizers and irrigation to have better
yields than other seed. The use of these synthetic fertilizers has polluted the
soil, ground water, nearby streams/lakes, and potential human water supplies.
Emissions from spraying also contaminate surfaces and endanger nearby human
habitation. Mono-crop cultivation reduces the future soil enrichment. Cotton
does not return nutrients to the soil as other fiber crops do naturally.
Organically grown fiber does not use GM seeds, synthetic fertilizers, or
pesticides.
Recycled Polyester Fiber
Summary — Chemicals used for recycled polyester fiber production are recycled
back to produce more fiber.
Use of chemicals: Most or all of the chemicals used to recreate
polyester fiber from the recycled material are then recycled back into more
recycled fiber production — it’s a closed-loop production system. It’s unlikely
that toxic chemicals enter the water supply. There are some emissions but less
exposure to the population than in cotton aerial spraying. In virgin polyester
production, there are more emissions than in recycled fiber production.
However, if this closed-loop system becomes marketable, there may not be as
much need to produce virgin polyester.
Is the fiber recyclable?
Cotton Summary —
Recycled cotton fiber is lower quality than the original fiber.
The physics of breaking
down a cotton fabric into fiber, called “opening,” breaks the cotton fiber into
shorter fibers. When spinning the fiber into yarn, these short fibers create
weak, low-quality yarns. There are on-going experiments to improve the yarn
quality by introducing other fibers. So far, the perfect blend hasn’t been
developed. But the fact remains that recycling cotton products back into fiber
and new products is possible and is ongoing now. Of course, the idea of using
existing cotton fabrics as a resource to create recycled yarn and fabric is a
new concept. The issue remains that cotton fiber quality is reduced when
recycled. Therefore, the recycled fiber may need other nontextile uses to stay
out of the landfill.
I suggest that there be new research efforts to recycle cotton fiber into new
fabrics. There has been extensive research for growing new fiber more
efficiently. I suggest that this same energy also focus on how to use the
existing cotton fiber supply. Also, perhaps there can be new ways to evaluate
cotton fiber. For example, organically grown, the least available fiber, should
be used for the highest quality items; transitional cotton (chemical-free production)
for most production; and finally, recycled cotton fiber in low-quality items.
Recycled Polyester Fiber
Summary — Recycled polyester fiber is the same quality as the original fiber.
This fiber, produced
from existing polyester textile products, meets or exceeds the quality of
virgin polyester. Continuously recycling the enormous quantity of existing
polyester productions into new polyester fiber does not reduce the quality of
the new fiber. Is it possible to nearly eliminate the production of virgin
polyester?
I suggest that we review
Patagonia’s example of collection and recycling of their products, particularly
their partnerships with Teijin and Toray and other suppliers. In my
conversations with my industry colleagues, it is clear that recycling polyester
into new fiber is very costly. However, with the petroleum supply continuing to
decline, it seems this innovation will be become more necessary and cost
effective.
My study led me to
conclude that recycled polyester fiber, produced from existing polyester
fabrics, either post-industrial or post-consumer products, is more sustainable
than conventional or organic cotton fiber. Cotton fiber research has
concentrated on genetic modification to control pests and reduce water use for
new fiber production. The polyester fiber mills, recognizing the shrinking
petroleum supply and the environmental problems of virgin polyester fiber
production, have eclipsed the cotton fiber innovation effort.
We find ourselves in a world where climate change and oil supplies will force the textile industry to make different choices. It must reevaluate its raw material sources and the environmental impact of its production methods. With over 80% of all fiber production in polyester and cotton fibers, fiber and fabric producers must diversify raw materials (incorporating existing fiber stock as a raw material source), lower water and energy consumption, improve soil restoration, and reduce pollutants in production while maintaining the fiber and fabric supply we had come to assume was unlimited.
*Please note the findings in this article may be contrary to findings posted by other organizations and studies~Coral Rose
The Challenge of Ethical Consumerism originally posted here on Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business
by Coral Rose
The world is shifting, companies
will take note and drive sustainable change or they will become part of (what
one of my former supervisors deemed) “the Left Behind Series.” In other words,
companies not communicating their environmental and social progress will lose
out to their competitors that do.
Imagine what would
happen if all consumers looked at all their disposable income and decided they
were going to only purchase products that supported a sustainable, healthy and
socially just world? Imagine what your business would look like if you weren't
prepared for that day.
According to a recent poll conducted by the
Global Strategy Group, 87% of consumers are more likely to buy products from a
retailer that is committed to environmentally sound practices.
With this increased
awareness, the question for many companies becomes, how to achieve the maximum economic benefit from
environmentally and socially responsible products and practices while at the
same time increasing shareholder value and increasing stakeholder trust?
Looking Up and Down-Stream
· In 1960 we
were generating 2.7 pounds of waste per person PER DAY.
· In 2006
that number is 4.6 pounds of waste per person PER DAY.
· By the
time that waste fills 1 garbage can, 70 garbage cans of manufacturing waste
were created upstream to make the stuff that is now junk.
Source:2006
EPA Facts and Story of Stuff
(Read that last bullet point again. From the source of the
product through the sale-use, disposal and or reuse it takes 70 times the
resources to produce that one can of garbage! That's a bad ROI - Return on
Investment or ROJ Return on Junk, any way you look at it.)
Jared Diamond in, "What's Your Consumption Factor"? expands
that “1 can” to its worldly impact, "The average rates at which people
consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and
greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America,
Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world.”
When we talk to consumers about
greening up their life, usually it's in terms of what they can do after the
fact or "downstream" from their point of contact, i.e. bringing down
the size of their 1 personal can of trash. How do you think they'll react
when they know that 70 more cans were created prior to reaching them? Will they
get angry, or will they just give up?
Today, the majority of products' environmental and social
impacts are hidden from our view. Consumers don't ask because they really don't
know to do so, or perhaps they don’t want to know what's behind the curtain
- either way, with more awareness, Ethical Consumerism is on the rise. It's a movement based
on purchasing products that have been ethically produced - products that have
been made without harming the environment or exploiting individuals and
animals.
Defining exactly what is or isn't
ethical will be one of the most difficult issues of our economic times.
While many new labels have come to
market recently, they have not yet matched the impact of programs such as
ENERGY STAR. This is one label that has become a simplified clear choice, but
it only represents one aspect of the product's value - low energy.
The acceptance of the labels with the highest recognition in
today's market follows closely to what impacts the consumer interests the most,
i.e. Energy (personal cost), Recycling (cost and handling issues), USDA Organic,
(safe to eat), Fair Trade (safe for global workers). They follow the same path
as what makes a company tick – profit, lean-manufacturing, safety and happy
workers. [SMaRT covers all four areas]
Does it Pay for Business to Be
Ethical?
According to a recent study reported
by the Wall Street Journal, moving your company to embrace more environmentally
and socially responsible practices-that are third party certified would be a
good investment. Green consumers may be willing to purchase unethically
produced products, but at a steep discount.
The return on investment and profits
of companies in the 21st Century are clearly rooted in social responsibility as
noted in these results:
Reward and Punishment
What are consumers were willing to
pay for a pound of coffee based on what they were told about the company's
production standards?
Ethical standards . .
. . . . . . $9.71
Unethical standards . . . . . . $5.89
Control (no information) . . . $8.31
Source: “WSJ-Does Being Ethical Pay”
A recent survey by BBMG indicated
that 35% of all Americans have avoided a product because of a
company’s practices. “People may not pay more for green products, but they
may punish
products and companies perceived as not socially or environmentally
responsible.” Andrew Winston.
With the rise of social media
including blogging,
if you're lucky, your consumers will punish you by not buying the
product. If you're unlucky, they'll punish you by putting up a bad
review on the Internet that will follow your company and the product around for
decades.
What Now?
Sustainability is becoming less
"optional" and is already becoming a necessary part of every
business strategy.
So, how will we conduct business in
the 21st Century where the consumer-becomes a conservative-ethically minded
conscious-consumer and actually practices the art of buying and spending
less?
The competitive
advantage of the 21st Century has arrived, be aware, educate yourself and your
teams
formulate
eco-strategies to save energy, lean up waste, stop the pollutants and take care
of workers producing your products. Those are the top areas that will
resonate with consumers.
What
else can you do?
1.) Not only understand but, “own”
your product's life cycle. This is a mindset shift at
the design level. Lifecycle includes understanding and owning the environmental
and social impacts along the supply value chain.
2.) Choose products that can be
authenticated to the source. Independent Third Party Certification of
Accredited Standards e.g. SMaRT, Organic, Fair Trade, etc.
3.) Educate your purchasing
agents, consumers and investors. Focus on energy saved, waste reduced,
pollutants eliminated and workers rights issues. Be prepared to link to a
source that can prove all of the above statements and tell the whole story
across the supply chain. Note both the successes and the places you have to
improve. Talking up the good and leaving out the bad is ok when talking about
your family, but not your products. Truth and proof is the new marketing
mantra.
4.) Keep your eye on the future.
Plan now. Should consumers opt to buy less and they will, how will this affect
your business model? Will you be offering more services to offset the
lower product sales?
If you have a plan in place you will
have the 21st Century edge.
Write Coral at Coral@eco-textiles.com
We welcome your
comments.
According to
a recent study reported by the Wall Street Journal, moving your company to
embrace more environmentally and socially responsible practices-that are third
party certified would be a good investment. Consumers may be willing to purchase
unethically produced products, but a steep discount.
The return
on investment and profits of companies in the 21st Century are
clearly rooted in social responsibility as noted in these results:
REWARD AND PUNISHMENT
What consumers were willing to pay for a
pound of coffee based on what they were told about the company's production
standards?
Ethical standards . .
. . . . . . $9.71
Unethical standards . .
. . . . . . 5.89
Control (no information) . .
. . . 8.31
Source: “WSJ-Does Being Ethical Pay”
A recent survey by BBMG indicated that 35% of all Americans have avoided a product because of a company’s practices. “People may not pay more for green products, but they may punish products and companies perceived as not socially or environmentally responsible.” Andrew Winston.
"The average rates at which
people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics
and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America,
Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world.”
“Today, there are more than 6.5
billion people on the planet, and that number may grow to around 9 billion
within this half-century. Several decades ago, many people considered rising
population to be the main challenge facing humanity. “Now we realize that it matters
only insofar as people consume and produce."
"If India as well as China were
to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. Some optimists claim that we
could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven’t met anyone crazy
enough to claim that we could support 72 billion."
"The world has serious consumption problems, but we can solve them if we choose to do so."
For full article: "What's Your Consumption Factor" by Jared Diamond click here
“Green consumption” makes Wikipedia’s “List
of Genuine Oxymora”. The reason: consumption by its very nature has an impact
on the environment – to some degree or another – and therefore, is hard to call
truly green."
Paul Hawken, author and longtime environmental activist, said the current boom in earth-friendly products offers a false promise. “Green consumerism is an oxymoronic phrase,” he said. He blamed the news media and marketers for turning environmentalism into fashion and distracting from serious issues. "
There has to be some way for Business to stay in Business and become a better Corporate Citizen. There is, it is the paradigm shift to Sustainable Business.
Business is in business to do business--e.g. be profitable, so just how
does business define what is needed to maintain a competitive edge in the market? And at the same time minimize the extraction of non-renewables and treat workers fairly?
They will continue to drive sales defining their businesses, while marketing to 21st Century consumers....so just what kind of consumers are they?
Here are the primary consumer movement drivers, we are not talking LOHAS here, those of us who are LOHAS fall withing conscious consumerism one of these categories already.
These are the growing groups to keep an eye on:
1.) Ethical consumerism is a movement based on purchasing products that have been
ethically produced. In General terms products that have produced without harm
to the environment or the exploitation and harm of individuals and animals.
2.) Conscious consumerism is a community minded-social
movement, which generally describes those who have voluntarily chosen a life of
simplicity. A life where they focus on work-life balance-this focus allows them
to enjoy life without putting importance on material possessions “keeping up
with the Jones’s”. When they do purchase they tend to look first to options
such as flea markets, second hand stores, free-cycle etc.
When they do make it
purchase it is well thought out and not by impulse. Of high importance to them
is their values, supporting the local economy, and is this a product that will
last or perhaps once the use is complete is there another use for it?
