Browse
Engage
Research
He once showed a bag of potato chips to a bartender at the airport while traveling. The bag included a label: 72 grams of carbon, it read. What did the bartender think it meant?
"'I know carbon is not good for me,'" she told Madsen. "'I shouldn't have too much in my body.'"
Madsen, a senior consultant at environmental consulting firm ERM, took part in a panel discussion Monday exploring the ups and downs of carbon labeling at the Corporate Climate Response conference in Chicago. It's an evolving practice with pitfalls and the expense of accurately measuring product carbon footprints across supply chains that can span continents.
If companies can clear that hurdle, they then face the challenge of conveying the carbon label's significance to a general public that doesn't understanding its meaning.
"The challenge today is that within the carbon emissions accounting space, there's no relative measure to say what's good or bad," said Sujeesh Krishnan, a panelist and U.S. Business Development Manager of the Carbon Trust.
The United Kingdom-based NGO is working with Tesco on its carbon labeling program. Based on its research, the Carbon Trust found that consumers expect three things: third-party verification, real reductions, and a carbon value indicative of the "seriousness" of the initiative.
Krishnan compared consumer reaction to carbon labels to the public's initial response to nutritional labels: calorie counts meant nothing.
"Collectively, there's an educational challenge and process we need to go through as organizations to help consumers understand what this means," Krishnan said.
The label has the potential to open a dialogue between a company and its customers. For instance, Timberland's shoe labels include environmental information, giving consumers a glimpse into the company's materials purchasing decisions, said Betsy Blaisdell, Timberland's manager of environmental stewardship.
"I think people respect the fact that we jumped out there with something and appreciate the fact that we've been transparent and accountable ... I think it's helped elevate the brand a bit but I'm sure it's not influencing purchasing decisions," Blaisdell said.
In the U.S., climate change seems to be low on the public's radar, said Nancy Hirshberg, vice president of natural resources for Stonyfield Farms.
"Really, what they are contacting us about is not climate change," Hirshberg said. "It's recycling because to them, if you're a good environmental steward, you recycle."
She called for accurate standards companies could use without going broke trying to determine product footprints.
"What is it fundamentally," she asked, "that consumers need to know?"
It Won't Be Long Until it's a Mandate
And then, restrictions on how much carbon your food can contain. Nevermind we are a carbon based planet; there's no escaping it - enough already.
Don't stop fighting!
So, true as it may be that consumers are wary, (and justifiably so), about what the practical applications of a better understanding of carbon footprint are, the companies that have transparent sustainability practices at their core should continue to fight the good and necessary fight. I think the comparison to how people viewed nutritional facts to begin is a sound one. We need to re-double our efforts to inform and educate but we also need to address consumption habits and consumer attitudes in taking measurable and significant steps toward truly addressing environmental responsibility. Just because a lot of folks don't get it now, does not mean they don't ultimately need to get it.
Just a thought..
Anthony Timperman
www.GreenCleanProject.com