Wallet Mouth

More BPA resources

Two BPA-themed e-newsletters just landed in my in-box. The Center for a New American Dream’s dispatch mentions a helpful site, the Bisphenol A Portal, which compiles news reports about the endocrine-disrupting chemical. Particularly helpful is the site’s Smart Plastics Guide (pdf), which breaks down what all those numbers on plastic containers mean and gives tips on how to avoid BPA.

The most recent e-newsletter from the Environmental Working Group’s points to the BPA cheatsheet on its Enviroblog. Interestingly, the central graphic used on that page is a water bottle made by Nalgene, which recently announced that it will phase out production of BPA-containing bottles.

More footprints

A couple months ago, I blogged about Patagonia’s Footprint Chronicles site, which lets consumers see the path taken by five of the company’s products, from origin to distribution center. A new story on Fast Company’s website delves into how the project has “put the company’s design and manufacturing process under the microscope.”

It’s an interesting piece, but I found it odd that the opening description—of Patagonia environmental analysis director Jill Dumain “investigating,” camera in hand, one of the company’s T-shirt suppliers—was never followed up on to reveal what the investigation was for. Had the Footprint Chronicles found a supplier with dirt on its shoes?

Nope, Dumain just told me. The supplier, Nature USA, is a good company. Patagonia is “looking at the impact of a variety of our garments, and the T-shirts made by Nature USA are on the list for next fall. It was just their turn.”

Oh well, no juicy skullduggery to report. But it’s good to know they’re on the lookout.

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.

Can’t see the nutrition for the nutrients

Did you hear Michael Pollan flogging, er, discussing his new must-read, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, on NPR last week?

Mr. Wallet Mouth, well trained to attend to such things, has been worked up all week about how Pollan’s comments on the rise of “nutrition” at the expense of simply “eating healthily,” relate to the project of consumer education and product labeling—one of Wallet Mouth’s core topics.

As Pollan pointed out, it was (and remains) easier to quantify the amount of beta carotene in a healthy person’s diet than the quantity of carrots. But this opened the door for manufacturers to begin crowing about the “healthy” additives in their high-profit processed food products.

During my pregnancy I’ve been reminded more than once about how many of the nutrients added to products are not actually usable by the body. In this case, as is Pollan’s point, an effort to empower consumers has obviously had a somewhat serious unintended side effect.

Mr. Wallet Mouth has been speculating whether there are less-well-documented analogs to this lurking behind other labeling and disclosure efforts. I’ve mentioned suspect (i.e. toothless or fabricated) certifications here before, as well as the perfidious technicality of “zero grams of trans fat.” And of course, the notoriously weak teeth of “USDA Organic” is a sore spot for many...

None of this suggests we shouldn’t continue to advocate for truth in labeling—only that we should notice, and take action, when that becomes “truth” in advertising.

Amuse-bouche: potty talk

I found this Salon article interesting in its own right, but it also reminded me of the importance of having widely available public information about corporations. That’s because, in the story, the writer says, “Leading manufacturers, like Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark, increasingly use up to 100 percent recycled fiber from the United States.” Only in the fifth page of the comments did a reader correct the writer: As I have mentioned in this blog, Kimberly-Clark is actually under fire for clear-cutting virgin forests to make its Kleenex and paper towels. If info on such corporate misdeeds were more freely available, perhaps the writer would have taken a different tone.

Not only is your wallet a mouth...

So is your job. How you earn your money is arguably just as important as how you spend it.

I’ve had this thought before, but Desirae’s comment on my Actics post reminded me of it. So did a blurb in the new issue of Sierra magazine about the Graduation Pledge Alliance, which enables college seniors to publicly promise to take into account the social and environmental impacts of any job they consider. Of course, not everyone has that luxury, but it’s nice to know that a significant portion of tomorrow’s workers and leaders are thinking along those lines.

What resources exist to help people find employers that align with not only their skills and interests but also their values—and hopefully treat workers well? That’s a tall order.  SustainableBusiness.com offers a number of links. Another place to look is the corporate-social-responsibility press. As I pointed out to Desirae, Business Ethics magazine publishes the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list, and Ethisphere puts out the World’s Most Ethical Companies list every year.

But there’s a caveat. Such rosters only consider large, publicly traded corporations (because it’s easier to get data on them). And in the world of big business, “best” or “most ethical” doesn’t always mean great or truly ethical. For example, Royal Dutch/Shell, a company that lives in infamy after the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa, can be found on Ethisphere’s list. Kimberly-Clark, a recent addition to my own boycott list because of its reckless disregard of virgin forests, is on Business Ethics’ inventory.

Interestingly, a Harvard Business School paper published earlier this year titled “Do Corporate Social Responsibility Ratings Predict Corporate Social Performance?” determines that the answer is, essentially, Not as much as you’d like.

OK, I’m going to leave this Big Topic at that for now.

Amuse-bouche: My fantasy label

How long before something like this comes to pass? Link.

EthicalQuote drops in price

This just in: Covalence, which I’ve blogged about before, is cutting the price for single-user subscriptions to its corporate reputation tool, EthicalQuote. The public version of the tool is still free, but the data in it is perpetually one year old. Subscribers, on the other hand, get up-to-date info on the behavior of a couple hundred multinationals in the form of a graph that lets you easily pull up details on specific inputs. Instead of $3,800 a year, it’s now $1,000 (or 732 euros). That’s still pretty steep for your average conscious consumer, but it’s a substantial reduction. Should I do it?

56... and counting

Thanks to Ethan at Hooze for turning me on to this one: A new nonprofit called Climate Counts aims to fight global warming by helping consumers find out how seriously different companies take climate change, so that people can boycott or buycott them as they wish.

“When consumers take action and raise their voices on issues that matter to them, businesses pay attention,” the site states. “Working together, consumers and companies can raise awareness, change behavior, and move markets to promote environmentally and economically sound solutions to the climate crisis.”

Climate Change, which is funded by Stonyfield Farm, Inc.,  uses 22 criteria covering four general categories to provide its company ratings: the extent to which a company has (1) measured its climate footprint, (2) reduced its impact on global warming, (3) supported progressive climate legislation, and (4) publicly disclosed its climate-related actions in a clear and comprehensive way.

To get the ratings, consumers can either search the website or send a text message to Climate Counts—the latter being a pretty cool option for when you’re actually out shopping.

The only downside is that so far there are ratings for only 56 companies across eight sectors. Then again, Climate Counts is still new, and collecting and processing this type of information is nontrivial. I’m excited to see how the effort develops.

Can sustainability be standardized?

The folks at Sustainable Business Achievement Ratings (S-BAR) think so. They’re working on a web-based tool for consumers and companies “that offers instant feedback, fast-track learning, evaluation and market-segment comparisons” regarding corporate environmental and social performance.

As S-BAR’s site points out, a wide variety of voluntary environmental and social standards exist covering various product, facilities, and company attributes, but they don’t add up to a coherent whole.

As a result, it’s difficult for consumers to know just how “good” any given company is—and for businesses to know what exactly they should do to be considered “good.”

S-BAR says it has developed a conceptual framework (using five categories—governance and management, workplace, community, marketplace, and environment) as well as software specifications for its tool. Currently it’s in research-and-analysis mode to refine those standards. And it’s looking for funding so that it can start beta-testing and preparing to roll out the system.

Sustainability standards are certainly an intriguing idea, but I have to wonder how well they will “take,” given that so many different ideas exist on what sustainability means. I immediately think of the debates surrounding the USDA organic standards. But my interest is certainly piqued.