As with anything that has a big impact on our lives myths tend to run rampant. This is not different when it comes to sustainability. Here are 5 persistent myths and an attempt to debunk them.
MYTH #1 Customers don't care about sustainability
When talking to business owners I hear this one a lot. With myths that involve a large group of people it comes in handy to look at some statistics. IBM published a report in 2020 studying consumer behaviour. It found that
Nearly 6 in 10 consumers are willing to change their purchasing habits to help reduce negative impact to the environment.
Of those who say that sustainability is important to them over 7 in 10 are willing to pay a premium for brands that are environmentally responsible.
Customers are becoming better informed and more aware of the environmental impact of consumer products. This is driving their purchasing habits and brand loyalty. Delivering on sustainability as a business will therefore not only help reduce environmental impact, it will also have a positive impact on the bottom line.
MYTH#2 Life Cycle Assessment is too complex
It is hard to deny that the calculation of the life cycle impacts of a product is often an intricate process. It requires a very specific skill and an enormous amount of data. Not to mention the fact that it is time-consuming and expensive.
However, under certain conditions it is possible to do a so-called 'fast-track' LCA. This method allows for a quick screening of the life cycle impact of a product. This is especially useful for a quick estimate of priority areas by looking at the the share (%) of inputs such as transport, raw materials and electricity use of the product carbon emissions.
Knowing where the impact comes from will help creating a strategy to reduce the carbon footprint of a product for a manufacturer. For example, in the case of raw materials this could be achieved by substituting with recycled materials or reused parts. Fast track LCA depends on publicly available emission factors and can be executed using nothing more than an excel table. This makes it far less complicated to figure out where the largest impact is coming from how to prioritise innovation.
MYTH #3 Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting is 'greenwash’
Sometimes it is.
A lot of effort has gone into publishing shiny CSR reports without translating corporate values into real action. There are, however, a lot of practical first steps that are worth taking to address social and environmental responsibility. To name a few
Measuring environmental performance in order to design sustainable products and services, including public procurement in the process.
Ensuring continuous improvement of impact reduction in a way that is quantified and which is communicated to stakeholders.
Carrying out due diligence with respect to human rights protection across the supply chain.
In communicating CSR activities a common language is enormously helpful. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has created a list of standards to support CSR reporting. Good CSR reporting shows how environmental and social impacts are addressed in a way that is transparent, accountable and responsible. It is therefore up to the individual businesses whether their CSR report is 'greenwash’ or not.
MYTH#4 A sustainability vision is good in itself
A vision of its own is like a New Year's resolution, if not put into action nothing happens.
According to an MIT Sloan study, 90% of executives see sustainability as important, but only 60% of companies have a sustainability strategy and only 25% have a clear business case for their sustainability efforts (according to a BCG/MIT report.
A vision leads to improved business performance if it is translated into measurable targets, addresses priority material issues and if it is implemented across the entire organisation. This is especially true for a topic such as sustainability, with its wide scope and complexity. Frameworks (such as ISO 14001, UN SDG) and tools (Life Cycle Assessment, GRI indicators) can help with prioritisation and implementation. These are effective methods to put a sustainability vision into action, most importantly if stakeholders are involved.
Let's leave the New Year's resolution style to reducing calories, not carbon emissions.
MYTH #5 circularity is always sustainable
Circularity may actually result in an increase in environmental impact, even if you had the best intentions. It is like planning to save money during Black Friday. It should reduce the money you would normally spend. Yet you end up with more stuff than you can comfortably imagine.
For example, buying a plastic or steel tin of coffee beans may seem a better environmental choice than an unrecyclable composite bag. However, looking at the energy use per 340 gr of product: plastic 5 MJ, steel 4 MJ, composite 1 MJ (source: WRI report) this may not be the best option.
Recycling of the plastic or steel requires resources. Looking at Lansink's ladder we could repurpose the tin (keep buttons in it?) and reuse it. For a commodity with a short life cycle (=a lot of tins!) this may not be the best option. I would prefer a bag that is recyclable, provided that the impact of recycling (e.g. energy use, transport) are less than the resources required for extraction and disposal.
The only way to ensure that circularity is sustainable is to analyse all the environmental (and social) impacts across a products' life cycle. Otherwise it may actually lead to resource depletion.