Sustainability Buzzword or Bullseye?
I left Toronto in 2014 to receive my MBA with a Sustainable Business designation at the University of Oregon. At that time, I wanted the word ‘sustainable’ behind my credentials. Now, I struggle to find the correct terminology to describe my interests — as I’ve begun to consider the word kind of buzz-y. I decided to include it in my business name, Greenvine Sustainable, but with the intention of redefining it. Currently Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:
sustainability /səˌsteɪ.nəˈbɪl.ə.ti/
The quality of causing little or no damage to the environment and therefore able to continue for a long time
…
Everyone throws ‘sustainable’ haphazardly behind their latest initiative — seeing it on the back of a massive garbage truck was the latest place that gave me pause. Working for an innovative waste solution company has lent me some insight into the massively dirty industry that is waste transport. The more that I’ve learnt, the more I’ve realized that there are nuances to every option out there. I wanted to address some of the terminology that pops up in the sustainability industry and how you can interpret it.
Photo by Sanmeet Chahil on Unsplash
Green Washing
This is a good one to start with. It is the idea that a company (ExampleCo) is conducting business sustainably, as promoted by ExampleCo. In reality, ExampleCo is misleading consumers to capitalize on the sustainability trend.
My favourite example is H&M — the fast fashion conglomerate! I will give credit that H&M is on the board of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) — which exists to make global cotton production more transparent and better for the people who produce it, better for the environment it grows in and better for the sector’s future. This is not a greenwash. They’re legitimately striving to change inputs to their supply chain for the better.
Where the greenwashing starts to comes in, is the existence of H&M’s Conscious Collection. This ongoing collection, though well-intended, lacks qualifying criteria and lacks public acumen around what makes something sustainable, particularly in the fashion industry.
At present, their website states:
“Our aim is for all our products to be made from recycled or other sustainably sourced materials by 2030. This actually already applies to 57% of the materials that we use.”
First off, I’d like to point out that the above statistic did not change from their 2018 to 2019 Sustainability Report. A lot of progress in a year :| They must have some pretty big changes in mind in order to move the dial 43% in the next 10 years.
Secondly, this collection makes up only 7% (512/7052) [as of May 6, 2020] of the products available online — and very vaguely states how each product has been made more ‘conscious.’
Consumer education is required to understand the positive impact of this ‘conscious collection,’ but knowledge is power. H&M is keeping consumers blissfully ignorant in their low quality, weekly in-vogue, pesticide infused cotton — or synthetic fabric clothing. What about the other 93% of products? Are they therefore unconscionable, if not conscious? H&M has a resale platform, a rental platform, a refurbishment partner — all sustainability trends, but the fact remains that their product is so low cost, and therefore low quality, that it doesn’t last to the point of being able to be refurbished or resold. This is them greenwashing you. In my opinion, H&M designed the Conscious Collection to comfort its own conscious, not ours. Rant complete.
Recyclable
Items that, once passed through a special industrial process, can be broken down for further treatment or use. It is important to check with your city’s waste program to see what they accept in your recycling program — as it varies by municipalities. Companies like ReCollect have partnered with many municipalities to make the information available to residents, take a look to see if your city is using it.
I didn’t inherently know that some materials, like plastic, degrade in quality after being processed. Does it degrade but is still able to be recycled, and ultimately reused? I’m going to zoom in on water bottle plastic, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), to illustrate ‘recyclability’ — as the elimination of this type of single use item is a hot button issue. According to the National Association for PET Container Resources, in its 2017 annual “Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling Activity,” only 29.2% of PET is recycled. I thought everything we put in the recycling bin was recycled?
Of the 5,913 MMlbs (million pounds), or 29.2%, of PET available for recycle in 2017 in the United States, only 18% is made into recycled PET (rPET) clean flake for remanufacturing. This needs to be made more publicly available so that consumers can consider this when making purchasing decisions. Consumer demand influences a company’s product offerings, so we need to take an active interest in what we’re consuming.
Aluminum on the other hand, has an overall recycling rate of nearly 50 percent, the highest recycling rate for any beverage container. Additionally, due to the infinite recyclability of aluminum, 75 percent of all aluminum produced is still in circulation.
My point? There is more to the recyclable story than we realize, and we need to become more aware. ♲
Upcyclable
Upcycling has yet to reach mainstream popularity, but it is the process of refurbishing, or repurposing existing items. Like sanding and repainting an old night stand destined for the curb, or turning a broken mug into a new home for a plant. It is more kitsch-y, but value can be derived from this practice.
My favourite real-world practice of this? Turning the aforementioned used PET bottles into fleece. This first involves the downcycling of the PET bottles into tiny plastic pellets, which are then upcycled into yarn, then fleece. Many brands have adopted this practice, like Patagonia, Everlane, Frank & Oak, and Mountain Equipment Co-Op.
One person’s trash (/recycling) is another persons treasure, right?
Biodegradable
An item is considered biodegradable if — given the right conditions and presence of microorganisms, fungi, or bacteria — it will eventually break down to its basic components (organic matter, carbon dioxide, and water vapour).
The adverb to pay attention to here — eventually — is what many people are not aware of. There is no time frame to how long it takes for something to biodegrade. So, even plastic is biodegradable — in 1,000+ years. Something to take into consideration. Read more here.
Compostable
Compostable has the time frame that biodegradability lacks — 90 days. Products that are considered to be compostable are nutrient-rich, and because of this, they need a compost setting in order to be rendered into its organic elements. This means the availability of water, oxygen and heat. These conditions can be achieved in a backyard compost, or your city’s composting facility, but cannot be achieved in landfill. Heat and water make it to the landfill, but once it is covered with other garbage, the process is rendered anaerobic (lacking oxygen).
Anaerobic decomposition produces methane — a GHG 28x as potent as CO₂.
The creation and labelling of products like compostable bioplastics (made from sugars or by microorganisms) also contain a caveat: these items can only be composted in a commercial composting setting. They require such high temperatures to compost that a backyard compost will not do the trick. Also, these products, if confused with plastic, can contaminate an entire bale of plastic at the recycling plant — so, a statement on proper disposal should be made to users. So are you saying even the ‘sustainable’ options, aren’t sustainable? Yes, and no. I will post another article about this topic.
Carbon Offset
Carbon offsetting allows you to compensate for the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions you produce by reducing emissions somewhere elsewhere — in the manufacture or transport of the product, for example. These offsets are made by the company that is generating them. Offsets can made by planting trees, for example, which absorb CO₂ and release O₂ in its place.
Other methods to offset GHGs in greater amounts include renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biofuel), energy efficient systems (updated heating, lighting, and cooling systems), and fuel efficient systems (replacement of a system that uses greater amounts of fuel, for one that requires less). This is less of a buzzword, requiring greater capital investments — so companies are applauded for this move towards sustainability.
Eco-Friendly/Environmentally-Friendly
This nomenclature broadly refers to items that are “not harmful” to the environment. Lacking restrictions or requirements, this verbiage renders the item in question unproven. Sellers are able to make statements that may only address one facet of its impact on the environment, not a wholistic one.
I am wary of companies that promote their products as environmentally friendly (see ‘Greenwashing’ above). They are not all bad, just make sure you see if they have the credentials to back it up.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Otherwise known as CSR, is an evolving business practice that incorporates sustainable development into a company’s business model. It also includes improved conditions for employees and supporting other social causes. Sounds promising right? From the environmental perspective, everything I read from the business side speaks of ‘company image,’ ‘positive attention,’ and ‘strategy.’ Whereas environmentalists speak of ‘HR strategy,’ ‘insincere,’ ‘fragmented,’ and ‘misaligned.’ Today, Fortune Global 500 firms spend around $20 billion a year on CSR activities.
There is a lot of research around perceived value and loyalty generated by CSR strategies — but it is not a guarantee. One report showed that 87% of respondents will purchase a product because a company advocated for an issue they cared about. However, a second report shows 29% of people think that businesses support social movements only to earn money. More importantly, roughly 75% will refuse to buy from a company if they learn it supports an issue contrary to their own beliefs.
The jury is still out on CSR strategies, both from the company and consumer perspective. What the takeaway is: don’t make it a strategy, initiative, or something to take a stance on — make it a part of how a business operates.
…
By reading through acceptable sustainability claims from a marketing standpoint (US/Canada) — you’ll notice that there is a lot of grey area, deception is possible with the right copywriter. From the Government of Canada:
Sustainability can be measured only over a very long period and there are no definitive methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment at this time. Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability should be made.
Verifying these claims is the time consuming aspect of sustainability, as well as understanding which claim trumps which claim. Say you are opting for a product made with recycled content — but maybe the recycled content actually produces more GHGs in the process. Circling back to H&M — in Norway, the Consumer Authority (CA) concluded that H&M’s portrayal of the sustainability of its collection breaches Norwegian marketing laws. There are watch dogs out there, but global standards do not exist. As sustainable thinking develops, manufacturers and suppliers will adapt, but it will take time.
Hopefully by reading this you learnt something new, and I managed to pique your interest to learn more.There are a lot of organizations and governments seeking to standardize all things sustainable, but in the meantime there is a lot we can do to mediate buzzwords vs bullseyes.
Reading the label
Re-reading the label
Researching
Questioning
I’ve always considered that to be sustainable means to not be lazy. We cannot accept that what is put in front of us, is the best for us/the environment — we have to do some work.
So, how do I want to define sustainability for my business:
Foregoing the use of materials/systems/processes that are easily superseded by ones of equally adequate, or increasingly adequate capabilities. These materials/systems/processes should generate fewer GHG emissions in the manufacture, transport, use, and disposal of the material/system/process in question.
Source: Harvard Business Review
