Math is hard. I've never really liked it all that much. But that doesn't mean I don't understand its importance or have tremendous respect for the people who really get it.
A good friend who happens to work for Patagonia visited this past weekend. Her job, recently, has entailed gathering data and solving math equations (ones that would surely make me nauseous) for the company's new environmental web site, The Footprint Chronicles.
Don't worry: This is not a shameless plug for a friend's web site. I do have a point.
The Footprint Chronicles is, essentially, Patagonia's effort to tally the environmental impact of five of its products. Click on one and you can read how far the garment has traveled, how much waste was generated and how much energy used in the manufacturing process, and whether or not there are any questionable chemicals or materials involved.
For instance, their Eco Rain Shell travels a minimum of 14,125 miles before it is purchased, 15 pounds of CO2 are generated in its production and transportation (10 times the weight of the jacket), 5 oz of material are wasted, and 18kwh of energy is consumed.
And that's just the beginning. There's more information here than most of us even want, and it doesn't paint an entirely flattering portrait.
So, my point: This is a company that keeps the environment at the core of its mission statement, and it is constantly trying to improve. So, what about the other companies?
What if every manufacturer of every product we buy were required to make this sort of information readily available? What if they had to print the product's carbon footprint on the packaging, like the nutritional information on your cereal box? (Timberland has done it before.) How would that change the way we shop? Are there things that you buy today that you know you would probably stop purchasing?
Would it be helpful? Or would it be paralyzing?
Images -- cereal boxes via tmray02 and label via worldchanging.com
Copyright © 2008 Apartment Therapy
As long as the companies are abiding by all the laws they are supposed to abide by, it seems like forcing them to print their carbon footprint would an unfair burden for the company to have to bear.
Cigarettes kill the people who smoke them and the people around the people who smoke them. There should be some sort of warning on the package just like any other hazardous material. This may cause less of the product to be sold. I don't think we should force manufacturers of non-harmful products to do the same. Manufacturers operate under the microscope to a certain degree.
Let's not blame the shoemaker. Let's blame the lawmaker. Put the pressure on them. Let's print their voting record on their foreheads just like a box of cereal.
view art's profile
. So, what about the other companies?
Many companies have been publishing considerably more detailed information as an Environmental Report or Social Responsibility Report since the late 1990s. I wrote a couple for clients circa 1999 and published an article on the content of these reports back in 2003 or thereabouts, and there was no lack of data at the time.
Manufacturers already do operate a microscope of a complex array of environmental regulations. In the U.S., their compliance information is available on the EPA's Web site if they're a major source of various pollutants and (often) on a state environmental agency's site if they're a smaller source. EDF also tracks emissions and compliance.
The numbers on the faux cereal box don't really tell us much about their production. What are their air and water emissions? Where does their waste go? How are they generating the energy they use? Presumably these are in the larger report...
view wende in phoenix's profile
It is certainly better than nothing, but it is necessarily over-simplified.
2 KwH to product one pair of shoes - good information, but how much energy did it take to ship them from China to the US or from the port to the store? No child labor used in manufacturing them, but how about child-labor in gathering the raw materials or loading them on the truck?
Were the factory workers that made them paid a living wage?
I'm not criticizing your friend's company, but pointing out that these can be very complex calculations. I have nothing but admiration for Patagonia's commitment, but I see corporate PR in this label. It is suspicious to me that there is nothing is negative on it - all is perfect and that is just not realistic. Better would be an overall sustainability score for each product that encompasses these and other important parameters. Certainly if these issues are what Patagonia thinks are the primary issues associated with their products then list them, but they are not all there is to sustainability and it looks self-promoting as a result.
I also see that 100% of factories were assessed against Patagonia's Code of Conduct. OK, but how many passed? Do you see how a 100% score might look like just PR? How often are they assessed? What do the asessments measure? Better information would be something like "The factory that made this item had a Patagonia Sustainabilty Score of 89." (for example).
Hours served in our community: In what... a month? A year? 10 years? That particular statistic is meaningless and has no relationship to the shoes at all.
I applaud Patagonia's effort in developing this, but they should make it more meaningful and less "fluffy".
view instarx's profile