Sustainability in the outdoor industry

[Bob]

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.

Have you checked the tags on patagonia stuff lately? maybe Chounard should be directing more of those profits into paying decent wages for the workers making the clothes.

 

[Neil]

China is on course to lead the world in pollution.

One new coal burning power plant to be built per week for a couple of years if I'm not mistaken.

Most, if not all of us, profit from cheap and dirty energy, to get "reasonably priced" packs and tents.

Additionally, the product gets shipped across the ocean (not by sailboat or canoe).

And finally we drive, usually alone, in our cars to the store to go and get the stuff.

(Not to mention the number of trips made to the hills in order to wear that stuff out).

 

[Chip]

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.

Good point. I feel the same way about ours cars. The manufacture of a car must have a huge "footprint". If I maintain our vehicles vs buying new every 4 or 5 years, I'm pretty sure that's going to have a bigger impact than some smaller "feel good" measures might. I also either use my gear forever, or recycle it on Ebay before it's worn out.

The other thing our family does everyday is to wash and re-use zip-lock bags and plastic water bottles, or we use 1/2 liter Camelback bottles and reusable food containers. We produce very little trash (our garbage man often comments on this, as a family of 4 we produce about 3 small plastic grocery bags of garbage per week, plus the recyclables.)

 

[mtnpa]

...The move...allowed them to increase their price, their gross profit percent and their gross profit dollars...

The only real green initiative

 

[chinooktrail]

Does anyone else think it is ironic that Walmart wants to put yet an additional tag on their products telling you how small the carbon footprint is?

Will the tags be made from recycled paper and printed with soy ink and tied on with hemp thread? Doubt it.

What would the reduction be if instead of that they simply stopped purchasing and giving out those plastic bags when people buy things in the store?

Just curious...

 

[Stash]

Walmart, like Patagonia and other companies that are more PC, is there to make money. Blanket statements indicating that Walmart will never do anything positive are as ludicrous as statements that companies like Patagonia are in business solely to be wonderful for the environment. If sustainability or green will increase profits or increase market share a well run business will pursue it, whether they're one of the "good" companies or one of the "evil" ones. Some spin it better than others but if the net result is a benefit to the environment then it's a plus in my book.

 

[Neil]

If sustainability or green will increase profits or increase market share a well run business will pursue it, whether they're one of the "good" companies or one of the "evil" ones.

Good post.

My "spin": it's ultimately the consumer who drives policy by voting with his wallet, every day. Right now most of us are voting for China, cheap labor and dirty energy. And not just coal. The Athabasca tar sands (not cheap, not clean either) provides the US with 10% of it's oil and that figure will climb to 40 withing the next 10 years.


People want oat bran? Bang! 10 brands of cereal with oat bran in them on the shelves within a month.

 

[Paradox]

The other thing our family does everyday is to wash and re-use zip-lock bags and plastic water bottles, or we use 1/2 liter Camelback bottles and reusable food containers. We produce very little trash (our garbage man often comments on this, as a family of 4 we produce about 3 small plastic grocery bags of garbage per week, plus the recyclables.)

Kudos! How do you get them to do that? My family was away for a week. I produced less than one "kitchen sized bag" of trash. When they are here, I haul out more than a dozen to the curb.

 

[Snowflea]

Americans jump all over China for it's coal burning while at the same time about half of our own energy production comes from coal, much of it extracted via mountaintop removal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

Isn't it ironic?

Have to agree w/Neil: sadly, most of us ARE voting for China.

 

[spencer]

I have a lot to say on the matter, much of which I've said before but I'll start with my basic premise:

People should stop buying so much stuff that they 1) can't really afford (including external costs) or 2) don't need, or both. This would solve many of our collective problems. Reduce, reuse, recycle - in that order. It really is that simple.

Of course buying products that are marketed as "green" (i.e., greenwashing) makes us feel good. I'm well aware of the brilliance of marketing folks and I am a full-blown curmudgeon on such matters so I find myself in an odd mindset where I want to rebel against the movement. Just today, I chose AGAINST the baby wipes with the leaf on the package indicating its greenness (looks like Guinness but doesn't taste as good) b/c that company is probably making out like gang-busters with their green branding yet is not actually accomplishing anything (with the possible exception that there is some educational inertia they are helping society to overcome) and I resent such folks pretending to be helping... Yet, I thought nothing of perusing the kayak.com listings for airfares to go galavant with a bunch of friends at weddings this summer. Have you ever used a footprint calculator? One jet trip a year pretty much makes all the homemade environmental detractions we try to make in our daily lives (e.g. composting, recycling, lowering the temperature on the hot water heater, etc.) turn into decimal dust.

How many times does VFTT have one of those gear bragging threads where we all talk about how many packs, tents, stoves, pairs of skis, etc. we have? If those of us who are interested in reading, discussing and sharing conservation reductionist ideals (or more generally "environmental issues") still claim to be environmentally conscious yet consume magnitudes more than our fair share of resources, how can we expect the poor slobs for whom the Walmart end-cap Cheetos displays are designed to entice to help solve the problems of the world?

The real hero is the guy who doesn't need the fancy wicking organic t-shirt b/c he's happy with the ratty one he's been wearing for years. The rest of us are just pretending to be helping...

 

[Grumpy]

(The parallel “Patagonia” thread raises an interesting question about profitability, but I think the general discussion about “sustainability” probably is best carried on here.)

I think the question is very complex.

First of all, it is a bad assumption to equate high prices (a relative term) with high profit margins. Products that incorporate premium materials and first class manufacture usually are costly to make, and so must be sold at relatively high prices in order to maintain even modest profit margins.

As for the “sustainability” question: When higher price reflects the use of premium materials and quality manufacture, and that in turn translates to greater durability in the product, it is logical to surmise that net impact of that product on our environment may be less than that of an alternative (lesser) item. If a company operates consistently under that concept across its whole product line, then the company’s claim to “sustainable” operations may have some justification.

Then, we get to the very definition of “sustainability.” What does it mean? I have to think there is more to it than “carbon footprint,” although I don’t dismiss that as one of perhaps several criteria.

At least one criterion in the sustainability definition, in my view, is whether the materials from which an item is made are from a renewable natural resource. Thus, I would favor materials like wool, cotton or leather over the great array of synthetics.

But even then, there’s a small hitch.

For example, I’ve long been impressed with Polartec™ fabrics, produced by Malden Mills. Serviceable, reasonably durable stuff, but the kicker is that these fabrics were produced from recycled plastic (bottles?). So, reuse (recycling) can overcome some less desirable aspects of materials, in my book. The company’s history of addressing environmental concerns involving its operations also is commendable.

I was impressed with Malden Mills on one other point, as well: Its response to the 1995 fire that destroyed the company’s facilities. Looking after the welfare of its employees as the company did – by rebuilding and bringing people back to work, and making sure they had income during reconstruction – was a remarkable move. Using up and discarding human employees and moving facilities (and their jobs) offshore may be “good business,” but it is not what I particularly regard as a “sustainable” (or socially responsible) or humane practice.

One other criterion in the “sustainability” definition, for me, is whether an item is maintainable or repairable. I am not a fan of throwaway goods, recognizing, nonetheless, that stuff can come to the end of its useful (usable) life. When you get the point there’s more patch than original cloth in a pair of pants, for example, it might be time to consider getting a new pair. In that case the old ones probably don’t owe you, or anybody else, anything. But it might be tough bidding good-bye to an old friend.

Finally, I think some people have mentioned how the travel component of our hiking passion quickly can erase any sustainability points we may have accumulated by being circumspect in our gear and clothing purchases. That is a very serious point to ponder. Perhaps – if we really are concerned about this issue – we should put greater effort into finding places to hike closer to home?

Another, related train of thought in this regard has me considering recent “exercise” threads in which all kinds of gym- and gear-based activities are suggested to help people “get fit.” What about good old walking, which is, after all, what hiking comes down to for the most part? Or low-tech stretching and calisthenics exercises?

Regarding those last two points, please understand that I am not being critical of anyone. I simply am tossing out points to consider as we approach our sport.

G.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Excellent points, Grumpy.

A couple of other approaches to manufacturing which reduces wastes/increases sustainability is 1) requiring manufacturers of consumer goods like washers, dryer, TV's, refrigerators, etc to take back and recycle after the item is worn out, and 2) reducing packaging.

On the first point - it's my understanding that it is required in many European countries, and at first was met with huge resistance. However, government didn't back down, and soon manufacturers discovered it was good business, and actually increased their profits. As part of that process, many items were re-engineered, so as to make it easier for the manufacturer to recyle their own products. And of course - fewer resources are used, less landfill space consumed, etc.

On the second point - mega-retailers like Walmart have huge clout and place requirements/demands on manufacturers who wish to sell to them. It would increase sustainability if they emulated Ikea, a huge retailer based in Sweden (I think) which is now expanding in this country They complete in many areas with Walmart (and mostly do it better) in part because they require their suppliers to use the least amount of packaging to get the item intact to the consumer's home. Personally, I find it much easier to deal with - opening items which come in blister-packs from some retailers can be a dangerous. Simply reducing excess packaging would go a long way towards increasing sustainability.

 

[grog]

moving towards minimalism

I have some good stuff to donate to some one who needs it. Anyone on this board have a boy scout troop or something I could donate to?

grog

 

[Bob]

Just today, I chose AGAINST the baby wipes with the leaf on the package indicating its greenness (looks like Guinness but doesn't taste as good) b/c that company is probably making out like gang-busters with their green branding yet is not actually accomplishing anything

ha ha I just saw a label on BOTTLED WATER bragging how they are now using caps that are about 1/8 " shorter....OY VEY!

 

[Craig]

Is investing and promoting in sustainability by the outdoor industry purely altruistic?

I remain skeptical...

Is politics involved? I think it may be.

1. The sustainability buzz has only been around for a couple of years.
2. The buzz seems to be most pronounced in the US and Canada
3. A couple or three years ago our government started drafting legislation regarding regulating carbon emissions. (aka cap & trade)
4. Now it appears cap & trade is dead and a carbon tax will be proposed.

It appears both of these bills would have a direct impact on suppliers of the materials and/or goods that are sold by golite and others.
It is unclear how this legislation would effect, if at all, non-profits and service providers.
Furthermore, it's unclear who would be taxed, under these proposals. If the material and/or products are made outside the U.S. would companies like golite be taxed for the sins of their suppliers in their supply chain outside the U.S.?

I think it may be possible that U.S. companies saw the writing on the wall and decided to get out in front of this inevitable legislation.

I like most comsumers have chooses when I buy goods and services. For me money isn't always the bottom line. I also give consideration to the company’s sincerity in the way they promote their business and causes.
If I thought golite, for example, was spending tons of money trying to greenwash me while being solely concerned about future taxes or penalties, then that may factor heavily in my decision to do business with them or others going forward.

 

[Craig]

Here is some information that supports the thought that businesses may be trying to get out in front of pending legislation to their economic advantage.

USCAP is an expanding alliance of major businesses and leading climate and environmental groups that have come together to call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

USCAP published a 2007 report that lays out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market driven approach to climate protection. This report is called “A Call for Action”

One of their recommendation is found on pg 5 entitled “Encourage Early Action”

Prior to the effective date of mandatory emission limits, every reasonable effort should be made to reduce emissions. Those companies that take early action should be given appropriate credit or otherwise be rewarded for their early reductions in GHG emissions.

Another of their recommendations is found on pg 8 entitled “Credit for Early Action”

It will take time to get a cap and trade program up and running. We need to reward those firms that have acted to reduce GHG emissions and encourage others to do so while the program is being established. Legislation should require regulations to be promulgated by no later than the end of 2008 establishing an early action program that grants a credit for reductions made starting from a specified date, such as 1995, until such time as the mandatory program becomes effective. Claimants would be required to demonstrate their eligibility for the credit based on accurate data.

USCAP pulished a 1/15/09 report that details a framework for legislation to address climate change. This report is called “A blueprint for legislative Action”

One of their recommendation is found on pg 3 entitled “Credit for Early Action”

USCAP recommends a robust program to provide credit for early action for those who have or will take early actions to reduce emissions. This is an important cost‐containment mechanism for early actors to ensure they will not be at a relative disadvantage compared with those who wait to take action.

 

[Remix]

The state of the economy has reduced emissions more than any legislation.

 

[Grumpy]

Is investing and promoting in sustainability by the outdoor industry purely altruistic? ...

Probably not. After all, the purpose of being in business ("the outdoor industry") is to generate profit. No profit = defunct business.

The bigger question may be, does altruism really matter in this case?

Or, more accurately, is motivation the best or all that useful a criterion to apply in judging a company's claim regarding "sustainability"?

I think not.

Performance that I can appraise in some way is a lot more telling and valuable in my decision-making than any claim or speculation about a company's or organization's motives.

 

[Craig]

For me, it depends on how it is marketed. Marketing can be as much about what is not said (implied) as what is said (direct statement)

If folks believe that the sustainability movement by the outdoor industry is a reflection of their core business values than that may be a visceral motivating force (for this industries demographics) for doing business with those firms.

If however, the public was made aware of the driving force behind this movement (if in fact pending legislation is the motivator) than any sustainability initiatives adopted by these industries become unusable in motivating consumer behavior.

Is the implied message by the outdoor industry?:

Hey folks, we really care about the environment, as I’m sure you do. Please take a look at all the money we are spending to do whatever we can to help. Oh, by the way, if you would like to help please send us your junk and we’ll pay you for it (in the case of golite).

From sectionhiker.com – I wonder how may folks feel this way?

Instead, I'm a lot more interested in what a company stands for in the areas of wilderness preservation and environmental sustainability and how they incorporate those values into the fabric of their business.

I'm sure alot of folks feel this way.

...
I'd be interested in knowing how much of that additional cost is based on a firm's efforts to be environmentally sustainable -- in other words, closer to the true cost of a product made in such a manner that does not generate waste, toxic by-products, etc.

To that end, I'm happy to pay that premium (well, not being made of money, perhaps not "happy") in order to support such a business model and, in a small way, encourage other such businesses to adopt similar practices.

This sort of stuff matters to me.

 

[Craig]

Energy and Climate Policies of the Appalachian Mountain Club

This updated energy policy just landed in my box. I didn’t think it deserved its own thread but thought some might be interested.

After scanning the document, it doesn’t appear to speak directly to the broader discussion of sustainability, but it does outline their overall goals for energy efficiencies and policies on renewables.

It is AMC’s policy that the most effective and environmentally benign strategy to reduce
air pollutants and green house gas emissions is energy efficiency. This policy includes,
but is not limited to:
a) support for requirements and incentives for more energy efficient vehicles;
b) support of national energy efficiency initiatives and policies;
c) development of public transportation systems and alternatives that provide access
to and within public lands and waterways;
d) promotion of appropriate limits on motorized recreation on public lands and
waterways to reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and ecological
resource damage; and
e) commitment to making all AMC operations more energy efficient and
sustainable, with a goal of reducing AMC’s net carbon footprint 80% below its
average 2004-2005 operational baseline by 2050.

Regarding their policies on renewable, I particularly like their position on wind power and energy corridor placement.

Worth the read IMO.