Wallet Mouth

Where to buy ethical office supplies?

Today’s OfficeMax action was great fun, a spirited but peaceful protest with a healthy turnout of about 35 activists. I got to don a pair of fuzzy antlers and talk to several customers who appreciated learning that much of the paper sold by the office-supply giant harms indigenous people and old-growth boreal forests in Canada.

But after writing yesterday’s post plugging the protest, I realized that I had a problem: I’m running out of paper and envelopes for my home office, and I don’t know where to replenish them.

I used to go to Office Depot, because you could get a free ream of recycled paper (though it turns out it was only 30 percent recycled) in exchange for turning in a used printer cartridge for recycling. That served me well for a long time, but the deal is no longer offered; now you just get a discount.

What to do?

According to this “report card” published by Forest Ethics and Dogwood Alliance last year, the best option is Staples. It earned a B (beating Office Depot’s C+ and OfficeMax’s D) for offering paper products with an average of 30 percent post-consumer recycled content and for committing to have the majority of its paper products be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) by 2010.

Again, though, only 30 percent recycled content? Surely we can do better than that.

Also, I’d rather avoid big-box stores. But independent office-supply shops are few and far between. San Francisco has one that I know of—family-owned Patrick & Company—but the hours are limited, and the best it offers on the recycled-paper front is... you guessed it, 30 percent.

One of my fellow protesters mentioned New Leaf Paper, an environmentally friendly brand that can be found at Office Depot and FedEx/Kinko’s.

And after poking around online for a while, I found what looks to be a great resource: online retailer the Green Office (which happens to be located in San Francisco). It sells several kinds of 100 percent post-consumer recycled content paper, plus all sorts of other business products (including toner, fax machines, and janitorial and break-room supplies). The company even offers sustainability consulting services.

Especially cool is its system of logos that give shoppers quick visual cues about different sustainability aspects for each product. For example, a cheerful icon featuring a yellow badge tells me that this Strathmore stationery has three third-party certifications behind it: the FSC, Green Seal, and the EPA’s procurement guidelines (the latter isn’t actually a certification system, but I get where Green Office is coming from). 

Problem solved!

Tomorrow: Remind OfficeMax to stop clear-cutting on indigenous people’s land

For the past year or so, OfficeMax and Canadian office-supply store Grand & Toy have faced criticism by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and other activists for selling paper products derived from controversial clear-cut logging in Grassy Narrows, a boreal forest community of First Nation indigenous people in Ontario.

According to RAN, a year ago OfficeMax pledged to help resolve the situation, but there have been few signs of progress, and meanwhile the clear-cutting continues—despite the First Nation’s repeated calls for a moratorium.

So, RAN has organized a day of action tomorrow at some 30 locations of OfficeMax (and Grand & Toy, for Canadian readers) to encourage the retailers to honor their commitment to a community that has already faced more than its fair share of troubles.

The San Francisco action takes place tomorrow, Jan. 30, at noon at the 1750 Harrison St. location of OfficeMax (cross street Duboce, not far from the 16th Street BART stop). I’m going to try to be there, and I encourage others to join me.

Grocery bag saves the world!

I never thought that I would be in possession of the key to saving the earth, but look!

Can you read that last line? “This is a recyclable bag that will reduce greenhouse gases and save our planet” (emphasis mine). I don’t even know where the salvation-bringing sack came from, but I’d better take care of it so that it can work its planet-saving juju before we run out of time...

Speaking of greenwashing, if you encounter an advertisement that makes unfounded environmental claims, put it on the hot seat by posting it to EnviroMedia’s new Greenwashing Index. You can also spotlight and commend ads that don’t succumb to hyperbole. The site lists five criteria for rating how useful or misleading ad copy is, and registered users can chime in with their own ratings for ads that other people have posted. It’s also worth checking out the News and Commentary links.

Take-out blues

The other night I ordered food from one of our favorite local Thai restaurants. When I called to place the order, I first asked what kind of containers they used: paper or plastic? (Styrofoam foodware was banned in San Francisco last year.)

I had resolved to myself that I wouldn’t place the order if plastic was used (I know that cardboard to-go containers aren’t perfect, but at least we can compost them). “Paper,” the order-taker answered. Great! 

I was pretty disappointed, then, when the food arrived in a #5 plastic tub, two #6 plastic clamshell containers, and only one cardboard box (for the rice).

Now, the #5 tub is at least recyclable (though plastics recycling has problems of its own), but the #6 polystyrene clamshells are not. They’re also best avoided for health reasons. According to National Geographic’s Green Guide, styrene can leach from such containers into food. “Styrene, considered a possible human carcinogen by [the International Agency for Research on Cancer], may also disrupt hormones or affect reproduction,” it states.

And that’s not even getting into the issue of the environmental ills associated with its production and disposal.

In researching this further, I learned that my beloved Thai restaurant’s use of the #6 clamshells could actually be illegal. San Francisco’s law banning Styrofoam food containers also requires vendors to use compostable or recyclable to-go containers “unless there is no suitable product that is within 15% of the cost of non-compostable or non-recyclable alternatives.”

So, as soon as I finish this post, I’m going to write a letter to the restaurant detailing all my concerns. I’ll include a copy of San Francisco’s list of compostable foodware distributors and encourage them to make the switch from plastic to paper. Until they do, I’ll either dine in or get my veggie Panang curry elsewhere.

Amuse-bouche: Cleaning products cleaning up their act

The big boys are getting into the green act.

The opposite of greenwashing

Speaking of transparency, outdoor-sportswear maker Patagonia has pulled back the curtain on the environmental effects and manufacturing processes behind some of its clothes with a cool new web feature.

The Footprint Chronicles tells the life story of five Patagonia products, showing the path each travels from design through fabric acquisition and processing, and finally to the distribution center. Each stage of the process has a thumbnail photo that you can click on for additional reading or videos on specific factories, sourcing philosophy, etc. And each product’s page details the total distance it traveled, its CO2 emissions, the total amount of waste it generated, and its energy consumption.

It’s a pretty neat tool—it reminds me of Timberland’s Nutrition Facts–esque labels from a couple years ago, only with more detail. (Hmm, I wonder if Patagonia will ever put this info on its labels in some form?)

But I must confess that my first reaction to the data behind the curtain was tinged with disappointment. The Wool 2 Crew sweater, for example, travels a total of 16,280 miles (thanks in part to its wool’s origins in an eco-friendly New Zealand ranch), generating 100 times its weight in carbon dioxide emissions. As the webpage itself states, “This is not sustainable.” And the Synchilla vest, which is (happily) made from all recycled materials and is itself recyclable through Patagonia’s Common Threads program, still generates 44 times its weight in emissions, despite the fact that its mileage figure of 5,150 is significantly less than the crew’s.

First reaction aside, though, I applaud Patagonia for launching the Footprint Chronicles and being willing to give us the straight dope. That in itself speaks volumes about the company’s ethos—clearly, it’s genuinely interested in engaging with consumers on these issues rather than making vague claims of responsibility and then hoping no one asks for elucidation (like some companies). Personally, I’m more likely to buy a jacket whose environmental footprint I can know something about than one that’s shrouded in mystery.

Furthermore, it’s good for consumers to be educated about what a globalized economy looks like. Certain products may be better than others in certain regards, and certain companies may have a higher commitment to lessening their impact on the earth than others, but the fact is that most products zip around the globe, merrily generating waste, warming the atmosphere, and expending energy before they land on store shelves. The more people realize this, the more attention will be paid to making smart choices given the current realities.

One thing I was excited to see, in several of the Footprint Chronicles product pages, was reference to a third-party auditing firm. To get more details, I talked to Nicole Bassett, Patagonia’s social responsibility manager. Turns out Patagonia works with a number of different auditors, not just Global Standards (which is misidentified as Global Solutions on the website). “We want to work with local auditing firms as much as possible because of their knowledge of local law and language,” she said.

So are all of Patagonia’s factories being constantly audited? Not exactly. Bassett herself schedules the audits “when we want to know about a factory’s social compliance.” (I meant to ask how often that happens and what the triggers are, but didn’t). An audit is scheduled for each new facility that the company starts using, Bassett said, and she also checks on factories that have been in Patagonia’s supply chain for years.

While I had her on the phone, I asked why the Footprint Chronicles had such scarce information on the natural-latex components for the Honeydew shoes. The reason is that the shoes are actually made by a company called Wolverine. “We just don’t really have the expertise in shoes,” Bassett explained. “So we license our brand name to Wolverine,” and Patagonia simply hasn’t been able to get all the numbers from Wolverine yet. Bassett said she expects the information to be available on the next version of the Footprint Chronicles, which should come out in April, and should also include four more Patagonia products.

Shoemaker takes responsible step

Hooray for transparency! Adidas has made its list of global supplier factories public. (And I just learned that Nike did the same thing way back in 2005.) The move has been lauded by the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation, Oxfam Australia, and other civil society groups—many of which lobbied the companies extensively over the years on this issue, so they deserve congratulations too.

I’m not saying you should run out and buy a pair of sneakers to celebrate—after all, labor abuses are still rampant in sportswear manufacturing, as various Oxfam reports and analyses relate (check out these links to learn more). But it’s a far cry from the days when these companies refused to reveal their factory locations because of competitiveness concerns. (Of course, that’s still the case with many businesses, including über-greeny online store Gaiam.)

Any move toward greater corporate transparency concerning supply chains deserves kudos, in my book.

Amuse-bouche: Greener Gadgets Conference

Last week’s Consumer Electronics Conference in Las Vegas trumpeted itself as being green, but Consumer Reports and Treehugger were skeptical.

Much more intriguing-sounding to me is the upcoming Greener Gadgets Conference, which takes place in New York on Feb. 1 (just one day). I won’t be able to go, but if you act fast, you can take advantage of a ticket discount offered on Inhabitat.

Happiness vs. products

A story in today’s New York Times—about mounting evidence that U.S. consumers across all income levels are cutting back on spending and how that plays into the specter of recession—got me thinking about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of measuring progress with dollars and cents.

As I read about big chain stores like Nordstrom and Target experiencing a drop in business, and about high-end leather-goods purveyor Coach having to resort to offering coupons, I couldn’t help but think to myself, Well, isn’t this good in many ways? After all, it’s better for the environment when fewer resources are consumed.

The problem, of course, is that when businesses are squeezed, they tend to lay off workers. And people are part of the environment too. But as the authors of Cradle to Cradle (which I’m currently reading) put it, “GDP as a measure of progress emerged during an era when natural resources still seemed unlimited and ‘quality of life’ meant high economic standards of living. But if prosperity is judged only by increased economic activity, then car accidents, hospital visits, illnesses... and oil spills are all signs of prosperity.”

In recent years a new metric for progress has emerged: gross national happiness. There was just a conference held on the subject in Thailand a couple months ago. I keep seeing books and media coverage of the emerging field. And the Brookings Institution predicts that policymakers and governments may use GNH “to track a country’s happiness in the same way we now monitor economic conditions.”

Now, wouldn’t that be happiness-causing?

Amuse-bouche: consumers getting hip to sustainability

As if in response to my New Year’s rumination about a tipping point in consumer attitudes on values and spending, SustainableBusiness.com just published a piece about a recent study indicating that conscious consumerism is catching on.