Sustainability in the outdoor industry

[Craig]

I think Walmart was the first big consumer corporation to announce a sustainability initiative. It looks like they may be putting their money where their mouth is in implementing what appears to be an ambitious endeavor.

Now it appears Golite has established a corporate sustainability initiative. At first blush it looks pretty impressive. They even have a program where you can send in your used/abused Golite stuff in to them and get 20% credit towards your next purchase.
Good marketing?

I’m no expert at corporate sustainability but I have to wonder:

1. Is this a case of big business having too much money and not enough places to spend it?
2. Is this just marketing to a consumer segment that is typically more environmentally aware than other market consumers?
3. Is this a way to cut cost and increase margins?
4. Or, is this a case where corporate folks really believe they can make a difference on their environmental impact and they are taking whatever steps are available at this time to help.

Below are the conclusions from this article.

That was an eye opening exercise. Some companies in the outdoor industry seem to get the environmental sustainability movement and many others don't, at least, based on external appearances. I am hopeful that this will change as it become clearer that environmentally sustainable manufacturing and cause marketing provide companies with a competitive advantage. In the meantime, vote with your wallet and tell the outdoor industry that values matter more than hype.

What do you think?

I think I’m going to send my old skivvies’ back to Golite..

 

[Neil]

Craig,

Now I know why my Go-Lite gear is so damned expensive. But, I like it what they claim to be doing. Good PR for sure!

I have a really beat-up Jam pack. But, I won't send it to them yet because I can still use it. The 3 R's: reduce, re-use, recycle. (Not sure if I have the correct order).

 

[earlylite]

The sustainability position at Golite is quite sincere - this isn't a greenwashing job. I've gotten to know Kim Coupounas, the co-founder and chief sustainability officer of Golite, since I posted that article. She is spearheading efforts in this area within the Outdoor Industry Association's Eco Working Group and Golite's new programs are the results of many years of hard word and evangelism on her part.

Philip Werner
http://sectionhiker.com

 

[Neil]

Yeah I agree totally. What I was trying to convey was that reducing the eco footprint costs $$. It's about putting our money where our mouths are. Walking the talk.

 

[Chugach001]

A lot of it is pure marketing. I used Patagonia's numbers which they shared with me in an Accounting paper I wrote in grad school.

The move to Organic cotton in t-shirts allowed them to increase their price, their gross profit percent and their gross profit dollars. And look like real heroes.

Meanwhile there were surprisingly minimal environmental benefits from the move. 90+% of the environmental "costs" of a t-shirt happen "post purchase", mostly through washings, detergents, etc. If you really want to minimize the impact of a t-shirt, wear out your old ones and don't wash them as much. Printing another catalog to sell new t-shirts never benefits the environment but can benefit the bottom line.

I think Patagonia is smart enough to "do well by doing good" and hats off to them for pulling it off.

 

[Neil]

If you really want to minimize the impact of a t-shirt, wear out your old ones and don't wash them as much.

This is akin to the concept of "last mile".

Sure you can grow strawberries (or make a pack) with the latest organic, minimalist footprint techniques available but the carbon footprint of the store itself and getting it from point of purchase to the buyer's home (or the shipping from an on-line store) are often a much bigger part of the equation than we would like to think about.

I wash my underwear once a month, whether it needs it or not.

 

[DougPaul]

Yeah I agree totally. What I was trying to convey was that reducing the eco footprint costs $$. It's about putting our money where our mouths are. Walking the talk.

Ultimately, sustainable products/services/energy will have to be cheaper if one wishes them to have a large impact.

Doug

 

[Neil]

Ultimately, sustainable products/services/energy will have to be cheaper if one wishes them to have a large impact.

Doug

You mean, less should be cheaper? What a crazy idea!

 

[Chugach001]

How long ago did you write the paper and use the Patagonia numbers?

Ah, you got me there - 1996. They were very open with their information.

Neil - you can get an extra free month by turning them inside out.

 

[Grumpy]

I am inclined to think that, in important ways, the durability of my outdoor gear is linked with what we have come to call the (ecological) sustainability of its manufacture.

For example, I question that the leather uppers and rubber soles in my Limmer boots are made of especially eco-friendly materials. But the durability of both the materials and the boots’ manufacture is undeniable. Because both materials and construction are tough and durable, my boots remain serviceable longer than those made of lesser stuff. My net consumption of the materials and the negative impacts inherent in their production thus is reduced over the long haul.

G.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

A lot of it is pure marketing. I used Patagonia's numbers which they shared with me in an Accounting paper I wrote in grad school.

The move to Organic cotton in t-shirts allowed them to increase their price, their gross profit percent and their gross profit dollars. And look like real heroes.

Meanwhile there were surprisingly minimal environmental benefits from the move. 90+% of the environmental "costs" of a t-shirt happen "post purchase", mostly through washings, detergents, etc. If you really want to minimize the impact of a t-shirt, wear out your old ones and don't wash them as much. Printing another catalog to sell new t-shirts never benefits the environment but can benefit the bottom line.

I think Patagonia is smart enough to "do well by doing good" and hats off to them for pulling it off.

I am not sure about how much Chouinard increased Patagonia's "gross profit percent and gross profit dollars" [in 1996] by using only organically grown cotton, but he was the first, I believe, to commit a percentage of his company's profits to non-profit environmental and sustainable causes. Also, I would argue that the beneficial environmental aspects of using only organically grown cotton involve externalities that are difficult to quantify in dollar terms. Finally, if 90% of the environmental costs of t-shirts are "post-purchase," it seems to me that one should only look at the environmental benefits of the other 10% for which the manufacturer has some control.

 

[Craig]

It is my understanding that Walmart is leading the charge in this area by trying to establish a universal sustainability index. Walmart would then be able to tag every item sold with a label that would readily identify that products carbon footprint.

The issue at hand is who will establish this index, who will establish the standards the index uses and who will modify the standards as the environmental issues change.

For instance, let say a universal index is created that has a numbering system of 1-5.
A 1 would mean that product has a wicked bad carbon footprint.
A 5 would mean that product has a wicked good carbon footprint.

Walmart's vision is to label every product they sell with a sustainability index number. This would allow the consumer to make chooses based, not only on price but also environmental friendliness.

If this whole thing isn't a fad you may one day walk into EMS to buy a new pair of boots and be able to compare each products sustainability rating along with it's price.

The point Grumpy makes is a good one. Would this universal index take into account issues of durability and longevity. And would this universal index filter down to the small business like Limmer.

Also how will this effect the service sector?

 

[Snowflea]

If you really want to minimize the impact of a t-shirt, wear out your old ones and don't wash them as much.

Hmm... sounds like thru-hiking the Appalachian Trail equals a wicked good carbon footprint on many levels.

I wash my underwear once a month, whether it needs it or not.

Less impact would be not wearing any at all, Neil. AND you don't hafta worry about panty lines. Jus' sayin'...

 

[Remix]

PT Barnum had something to say about this.

It seems to me that a large percentage of Walmart's products and many fabric products are produced in China, where there are no laws to protect the environment, let alone the health and safety of the workers. Its been repeatedly pointed out by everybody that manufacturing has gone to China because of low wages, but the real issue is low cost of manufacturing.

Low manufacturing costs are not only due to low wages, but also no health care and an unwillingness to introduce pollution controls. In fact, one can even make the case that the consumer is exposed to danger from some Chinese products, but I will leave that aside. If anyone knows of an effective Chinese equivalent of OSHA or the EPA please correct me.

A real sustainability campaign would shun manufacturing in countries where there is such disregard for the environment. This is window dressing and clever marketing and gets Walmart publicity and good PR without incurring advertising expenses. Clever marketing means that Walmart has done a study that shows people will spend their money more freely if they believe certain specific things.

I am not sure how the Go Lite program figures into sustainability. Getting 20% off your new Go Lite gear by trading in your old Go Lite Gear means that Go Lite does not have to advertise as much to keep its customers. That means a reduction of expenses. I'm also guessing that you have to deal directly with Go Lite, instead of a Go Lite retailer. That means they don't have to pay the retailer a portion of the purchase price.

4. Or, is this a case where corporate folks really believe they can make a difference on their environmental impact and they are taking whatever steps are available at this time to help.

ROFLMAO.

 

[Neil]

Sustainability is quite the buzz-word.

On MEC's home page the word is an active link and leads you to this page:

http://blog.mec.ca/connecting_with_factory_workers/


I am proud to say I only own one tent, two stoves, and uh.....7 packs. Almost every piece of gear I own has Made in China written on the tag.

 

[Remix]

That is a really nice article Neil.

Now if the Chinese government would let their currency float according to market rates instead of dictating an exchange rate, all the workers referenced in the article would have a much higher standard of living and less difficulty.

After reading the article, however, I got a hint that if we bought more we would be helping these people improve the quality of their life and they would not have to carry their babies on motorcycles.

I guess you could say I am deeply cynical.

 

[Craig]

Actually, China is leading the world in renewable energy mandates as well as new infrastructure.

Article

Article

One could argue that china is hedging its bets so they will be poised to be the manufacturing hub for sustainable technologies moving forward. Canada is trying to gain market share in wind manufacturing capitalizing on lower transportation costs to this area of the world.

This still leaves me with the question: why is retail and service sector corporations focused on sustainability? It seems to be a North American movement?

 

[Craig]

With regard to service sector sustainability.

Nols is arguably the leader in outdoor education with a core philosophy of environmental sustainability through education.
They offer outdoor educational classes on subjects ranging from hiking, climbing, river running etc. Each class requires their participants to fly, drive etc to reach the location of their classes. Some of their clients travel from other countries.
Nols admittedly has a huge carbon footprint with each class they offer. They are looking to offset that problem by suggesting clients by carbon offset.

How will Nols, and service providers like them, reconcile their huge carbon footprint with their educational model? Will the proposed universal index take into account the perceived benefits of education on the future impacts to our environment?

 

[Bob]

With regard to service sector sustainability.

Nols admittedly has a huge carbon footprint with each class they offer. They are looking to offset that problem by suggesting clients by carbon offset.

How will Nols, and service providers like them, reconcile their huge carbon footprint with their educational model? Will the proposed universal index take into account the perceived benefits of education on the future impacts to our environment?

Carbon offsets are a joke- only making companies like GE richer.

 

[TCD]

China...

China is on course to lead the world in pollution.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/16/chinasoot_pla_02.html?category=earth&guid=20070316160030

Like all countries, they have a tremendous amount of work to do. I'm glad they're starting, but let's not hold them up as a great example.