January 13, 2012 – 11:22 am

This week, the Dutch tourism industry gathered in Utrecht (Netherlands) for its annual trade fair – which included a green-themed ‘Changes in Tourism’ event. At the last fair, two years ago, you could just about see the beginnings of a shift toward greater sustainability in tourism. Progress takes time, so we were curious to see what kinds of new initiatives had been developed for tackling climate change, protecting the environment and improving labor conditions. After an (environmentally responsible) train ride to Utrecht, we were ready to find out. So what does responsible travel look like in 2012?

Focus on climate change
The words “carbon emissions” were mentioned everywhere, like a mantra. Especially with regards to transportation. Floris Fluitsma, representative of Sawadee, brought up an interesting case study during a workshop: “73% of the emissions from the average trip are released in actually getting to and from your destination, and a further 12% come from using local transportation to get out and about.” That means a full 85%, on average, of a trip’s total CO2 emissions come from transportation. Just the day before, Sawadee had received an industry award for its green initiative to give away reusable water bottles. It was also mentioned and praised many times during the trade fair for its sustainable activities. No wonder it’s at the top of our ranking for the sector.

“Do you know where these fjords are?” asked Fluitsma. “Well, the one on the right is from New Zealand. But the one on the left is Norway. So why go to the other side of the world to see this kind of landscape, when you can get a great view after a 2-hour flight from Amsterdam?” According to Fluitsma, holiday-making is now all about buying an “experience”. “It’s become a kind of competition of the ‘I’ve been to New Zealand.’ ‘Oh yeah? Well I’ve been to Antarctica’ variety. So it’s crucial to convince travellers that visiting near-by places can also be an incredible experience.”

No change when it comes to labor conditions
There were loads of initiatives to combat CO2 emissions on display at the Expo. Also under scrutiny were the effects of tourism on local communities. Part of the program included a discussion of eco-lodges in Kenya, which have been studied in-depth by the research organization CelTor. Their conclusion: that communities can indeed benefit from having these businesses on their doorsteps, but that the size of the benefits vary from huge, to barely noticeable, depending on the lodge.

Aside from this rather academic diversion, there was very little indication of any concrete plans to improve the labor conditions of the tourism industry. It would have been great to see some evidence of efforts to set a maximum working week for staff, to institute living wages, or to prevent child prostitution and child labor – a subject that was on everyone’s lips a few years ago. Does that mean the travel organizations and their local partners have fixed all the problems? Unlikely…

@ Dutch branch organization ANVR: We are putting these issues on the agenda for 2012. In February, we will release a new question list including new criteria for ranking travel organizations.

By Anna | Posted in Responsible Consuming, Tourism, Trends | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (0)
January 6, 2012 – 4:48 pm

Going green doesn’t have to be hard work

What’s your New Year’s resolution? To join a gym? Give up smoking? Maybe you’re worried you won’t last past the end of January… Well, here are a few ‘green’ resolutions that are easy to stick to, as our volunteer Alexandra explains:

“Most of us think that ‘going green’ has to be completely life-changing: that we’ll need to give up the car, stop flying, grow our own salads. Actually, there are plenty of really easy small changes to the way we shop that can make our lifestyle instantly greener. In fact, the only hard part is changing the way we think about shopping and consuming. But we all need to make the change soon: it’s not as if we have any time to waste…”

 

Alex’s easy green resolution # 1: help stop environmental damage

“A week or so ago, I was sitting in a café on an Amsterdam canal when a guy next to me ordered RedBeans coffee. I’d never heard of RedBeans, so, being the curious girl that I am, I checked them out. It turns out that each RedBean has been sustainably grown, is Fairtrade certified, and packaged in aluminum-free wrappings. Maybe we should call them ‘green’ beans…

“And they’re not the only ones. In fact, these days, it’s just so easy to choose greener tropical commodities, from cocoa, to coffee, to sugar, to bananas and pineapple. Look for the logos of the Rainforest Alliance, Utz, Fairtrade… While they may be more famous for fighting for fair wages, they’ve all got a strong focus on environmental sustainability, too. And they don’t cost as much extra as much as you might think. These certifications are the best guarantee that the food you stick in your body was grown sustainably and bought from the farmers at a fair price. Definitely worth the extra.

“So, I now sit on the same stool in the same café… But instead, I’m helping save the rainforest while I drink my RedBeans latté. In fact, this resolution entitles me to indulge more often… Easy!”

Alex’s easy green resolution # 2: help end unfair labor conditions

“While certification programs are boosting farmers’ wages, there has been plenty of hard work improving working conditions in other areas and sectors – especially the fashion sector. At Rank a brand, we sniff out brands’ policies on labour conditions – and look for reports on how they perform. For example, we check whether brands pay living wages. So all you and I need to do is check the Rank a brand scores of a few of our favorite brands, and simply shun the worst performers.

“Take Zara and Mango, as an example. They sell pretty similar clothes, for pretty similar prices, so why not make their labor conditions the ultimate factor in deciding where to shop? Having seen the scores – Zara scores 9 points, and Mango only 2 – I’ve made the not so difficult choice to shop at Zara. While I sacrifice nothing in price or style, the gain of the person on the opposite side of the world is tremendous. They actually get enough money to put food on their tables!”

Alex’s easy green resolution # 3: stop climate change

“This is possibly the hardest to do without making big sacrifices. So I’ve had a look for some easier ways to cut my share of our carbon emissions. The answer, buy local.

“No, not at farmers markets, which are always only ever on the third Sunday of the month, but only when it coincides with the full moon… Just go to the same old supermarkets, but check on to see where your potatoes or peppers were grown. The closer to home, the greener they are.

“In fact, whenever you’re in the supermarket, there are a few simple ‘rules’ that help you make the greener choice. If you’re choosing between two products, look for the one that:
•    Has a Fairtrade, MSC, Utz (etc) certification logo
•    Was grown closer to home
•    Is less processed
•    Has less packaging

For those of you looking for some more hardcore green tips, check out these blogs:

Worldwatch.org

Treehugger.org

The panda made me do it (WWF)

Sustainable Living Magazine

Let us know how you get on with these easy green resolutions – and tell us if you have any suggestions of your own!

Have a good & green 2012!

 

3 Easy Green Resolutions for 2012

Going green doesn’t have to be hard work

What’s your New Year’s resolution? To join a gym? Give up smoking? Maybe you’re worried you won’t last past the end of January… Well, here are a few ‘green’ resolutions that are easy to stick to, as our volunteer Alexandra explains:

“Most of us think that ‘going green’ has to be completely life-changing: that we’ll need to give up the car, stop flying, grow our own salads. Actually, there are plenty of really easy small changes to the way we shop that can make our lifestyle instantly greener. IN fact, the only hard part is changing the way we think about shopping and consuming. But we all need to make the change soon: it’s not as if we have any time to waste…”

Alex’s easy green resolution # 1: help stop environmental damage

“A week or so ago, I was sitting in a café on an Amsterdam canal when a guy next to me ordered RedBeans coffee. I’d never heard of RedBeans, so, being the curious girl that I am, I checked them out. It turns out that each RedBean has been sustainably grown, is Fairtrade certified, and packaged in aluminum-free wrappings. Maybe we should call them ‘green’ beans…

“And they’re not the only ones. In fact, these days, it’s just so easy to choose greener tropical commodities, from cocoa, to coffee, to sugar, to bananas and pineapple. Look for the logos of the Rainforest Alliance, Utz, Fairtrade, Max Havelaar… While they may be more famous for fighting for fair wages, they’ve all got a strong focus on environmental sustainability, too. And they don’t cost as much extra as much as you might think. These certifications are the best guarantee that the food you stick in your body was grown sustainably and bought from the farmers at a fair price. Definitely worth the extra.

“So, I now sit on the same stool in the same café… But instead, I’m helping save the rainforest while I drink my RedBeans latté. In fact, this resolution entitles me to indulge more often… Easy!”

Alex’s easy green resolution # 2: help end unfair labor conditions

“While certification programs are boosting farmers’ wages, there has been plenty of hard work improving working conditions in other areas and sectors – especially the fashion sector. At Rankabrand, we sniff out brands’ policies on labour conditions – and look for reports on how they perform. For example, we check whether brands pay living wages. So all you and I need to do is check the rankabrand scores of a few of our favorite brands, and simply shun the worst performers.

“Take Zara and Mango, as an example. They sell pretty similar clothes, for pretty similar prices, so why not make their labor conditions the ultimate factor in deciding where to shop? Having seen the scores – Zara scores 9 points, and Mango only 2 – I’ve made the not so difficult choice to shop at Zara. While I sacrifice nothing in price or style, the gain of the person on the opposite side of the world is tremendous. They actually get enough money to put food on their tables!”

Alex’s easy green resolution # 3: stop climate change

“This is possibly the hardest to do without making big sacrifices. So I’ve had a look for some easier ways to cut my share of our carbon emissions. The answer, buy local.

“No, not at farmers markets, which are always only ever on the third Sunday of the month, but only when it coincides with the full moon… Just go to the same old supermarkets, but check on to see where your potatoes or peppers were grown. The closer to home, the greener they are.

“In fact, whenever you’re in the supermarket, there are a few simple ‘rules’ that help you make the greener choice. If you’re choosing between two products, look for the one that:

  • Has a Fairtrade, MSC, Utz (etc) certification logo
  • Was grown closer to home
  • Is less processed
  • Has less packaging

For those of you looking for some more hardcore green tips, check out these blogs:

(look for Dutch ones!)

Let us know how you get on with these easy green resolutions – and tell us if you have any suggestions of your own!

Have a good & green 2012!

By Anna | Posted in Responsible Consuming | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)
January 4, 2012 – 3:45 pm

What happened?
In August 2011, popular fashion brand Zara was all over the news. It was being accused by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour of human rights violations. The complaints were caused by the poor working conditions in a sewing studio in Brazil, in which workers had to work for 14 hours a day in an unhealthy and unsafe working environment. This sewing studio was a subcontractor of Zara’s suppliers. According to the newspapers, the labour was forced, which made it a matter of slavery. It is one of the few known cases in which a company is being held responsible for the acts of its suppliers.

Two weeks after these shocking press releases, Inditex, brand owner of Zara, published an article that included new measures for its entire supply chain in Brazil. Partially based on these tightened policy, Inditex could reach an agreement with the Brazilian accusers in december 2011. The Brazilians agreed to accept compensation of 1.8 million dollars, instead of their original claim of 10,7 million dollars. The settlement was a result of the desire to avoid long judicial procedures.

Despite this, Zara scores relatively high?
In Rank a Brand’s ranking system, every brand is rated on its climate policy, environmental policy and labour conditions. All fashion brands are ‘asked’ 16 questions, 4 of which are focused on climate change, 4 on environmental policy and 8 on labour conditions. In short, this means that 50% of the questions relate to labour conditions.

Zara has a total score of 9/16, which is relatively high. This is mainly because they score 7/8 score on the labour conditions section.

Strange, you may think. If Rank a Brand sets all these criteria in the area of labour conditions, how is it possible for Zara to score relatively highly? What kind of ranking system is that?

First of all, our rankings are only based on information that is either on the brand’s website, or on the website of its owner (in this case, Inditex) – so our rankings are also de facto ratings on transparency. That’s why we don’t send out surveys or request additional information – all information on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be available for all consumers. Only then they can make conscious choices.

But that doesn’t mean we just take the information on the websites at face value. That would only endorse and encourage greenwashing, a.k.a. telling fairy tale stores in order to create a better image to consumers and investors. Our 16 questions are critical, and closely targeted and look at current policies, concrete future goals and verified results.

How to avoid false information
An important aspect entails the verification of this information. Fortunately, on a global scale, many organizations strive for better working conditions. Several large initiatives are focused on implementing a code of conduct and controlling the adherence to this code of conduct. It would be impossible for Rank a Brand to rectify all this information ourselves, since this would include thousands of visits to factories and sewing studios. Therefore, we gratefully make use of the information provided by initiatives that are known to be trustworthy.

One of the accepted initiatives is called the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) which is based on the code of conduct of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Inditex is a member of the ETI. At ETI, independent NGOs have a decisive voice within the initiative and are co-responsible for the integrity and credibility of ETI. As a result, we trust Inditex to adhere to the ETI code of conduct and we trust the verification of this code of conduct. Moreover, the NGOs create a solid base for solving the noted problems. Therefore, Zara has been rewarded this score.

This case also shows us that no verification system or certificate is flawless, or anywhere near perfect. We have blogged on similar issues before.  A hygienic and safe workplace, a maximum working week of 48 hrs with a maximum 12 hrs voluntary paid overtime, living wages and workers’ rights to form and join labour unions are still far from normal at the other side of the production process. Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives, (e.g. Ethical Trading Initiative) are extremely important in order to make a positive change. In addition, a conscious consumer, and initiatives that help the consumer, all play a role in creating a better future.

By Kelly | Posted in fashion, Greenwashing, Human rights, Responsible Consuming, Transparancy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)
January 4, 2012 – 2:20 pm

At the start of 2011, it was clear that our time had come: sustainability was dubbed a “mega trend” by those in the know. We’ve been delighted to see so many great ideas and initiatives coming from the brand-side this year – which leads us to conclude that many brands have set real, ‘sustainable’ ambitions to become more sustainable! So if 2011 was the year of big ambitions,  hopefully 2012 will be the year of concrete results.

Green ambitions
One of the most extraordinary stories came from Puma. In addition to publishing their regular financial data for the year, they published a statement of environmental profit and loss. The brand has basically invited the entire world to become its watchdog. Next year, we’ll be looking for proof that Puma is working to achieve its stated ambition of becoming the “most desired and sustainable brand.”

Puma are not the only ones to have set themselves this goal. H&M, an average performer in our ranking, wants to become a sustainbility frontrunner – despite fierce criticism of its policies. Kuyichi, which sets the standard in many ways in the denim & jeans sector, has also got some highly ambitious goals. But it came under fire this year for failing to show much progress.

Sustainability is not only setting the trend in the fashion industry. Facebook is making green promises, and has started working with Greenpeace on making investments in renewable energy. Coca Cola’s PlantBottle™ was another green initiative that attracted attention. But it also made our greenwashing alarm ring softly.

2011 in numbers
Let’s move on to the numbers. In December, we reported a 45% increase in transparency in the fashion sector, and Dutch supermarkets scored 40% better than in 2010. Furthermore, we added 105 brands to our database and four new sectors: Beer, Coffee&Tea, Tropical Fruit and Chocolate. But we removed political parties from our rankings, because we decided to focus on consumer goods.

Sustainable acts in 2012
Transparency is closely linked to sustainability, so we’re delighted to see the increases in transparency in various sectors. Now, we need to see some concrete improvements in sustainability itself. There have been many initiatives announced in the last year – in 2012, we’ll watching closely for updates. Plus, we’ll be exploring new sectors. Here’s a peek at our agenda:

  • We’ll be reporting on the dynamic fashion industryat the end of the year in our annual Fashion Report.
  • The Greenpeace-Facebook cooperation confirms the importance of digital sustainability, so we’ll be updating our website rankings.
  • Coca Cola’s Plantbottle got us thinking about the issue of sustainability amongst sodas. In 2012 we will publish a soda ranking.
  • Furthermore, we will be researching chips (crisps if you’re British) brands, the fastfood sector and the dairy sector.
  • In early 2012, we will publish the ‘Naked Truth’ , an online ‘know-your-brand’ game.
  • There is one particularly exciitng update that we’re keeping under wraps – all I can say is ‘watch the website’!
By Verie | Posted in Best Practices in Reporting, Trends | Tagged | Comments (0)
December 8, 2011 – 3:44 pm

The online transparancy about CSR in the fashion industry has significantly increased in 2011 – as revealed in the Rank a Brand report ‘Feel Good Fashion’, which we published today.

Our research shows that fashion brands’ Rank a Brand scores have increased by 45% in 2011, compared to 2010. In particular, fashion brands are better at explaining their policies on labour conditions – one in two brands now publish this information online. And measures to reduce carbon emissions are described on one in four corporate websites.

Each year Rank a Brand publishes a detailed trend report on the fashion sector. In the new report, “Feel Good Fashion”, we have reviewed the rankings of over 400 fashion brands. We have looked specifically for the brands’ policies on environment, climate and labour conditions. More information can be found in our press release – or you can order the full report. For more details, follow this link or send an email to contact@rankabrand.com

 

By Verie | Posted in Corporate Responsibility, fashion, Responsible Products and Brands, Transparancy | Tagged , | Comments (0)
December 8, 2011 – 3:43 pm

Fashion brands are reporting more often, and in more detail, on their policies on the environment, climate change and labour conditions. For its new report “Feel Good Fashion”, Rank a Brand reviewed the scores of the 400 fashion brands in its database, and noted that they had increased by 45%, on average, between 2010 and 2011. In particular, the brands are better at reporting on their policies on labour conditions – this information is now provided by one in two fashion companies. Measures to reduce carbon emissions are described on one in four corporate websites.

We saw higher scores in almost all segments of the fashion industry. Remarkably, designer brands such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Alexander McQueen are starting to explain their policies for people and planet better than in 2011.  Designer brands have traditionally scored much lower than the sector average. Another significant trend is that eight out of ten Scandanavian brands now have an online corporate social responsibility statement – above the sector average.

Rank a Brand founder Niels Oskam states: “Because the CSR policies and performances in the fashion sector are improving, brands are increasingly willing to be transparant. On their websites, they do this by publishing yearly CSR reports, or through the Made-By scorecards. We assess this information so that consumers can choose the most responsible brands.”

Niels is delighted with the increase in transparancy, but also warns that much remains to be done. “You often see high growth rates in new markets, when the possibilities are endless. In CSR, much more growth is still possible – up to the point where all brands show that their clothing is made under humane conditions and without damaging the environment or climate. We still have a long way to go before we reach that point.”

Click here to see more details about the report ‘Feel Good Fashion”.


 

By Verie | Posted in Corporate Responsibility, fashion, Market Research, Responsible Products and Brands, Transparancy | Tagged , | Comments (1)
December 7, 2011 – 3:10 pm

If the rumours are true, and Google really is trying to take over the universe, then there is at least one reason to be cheerful: it looks as if the search engine giant is planning a solar-powered future. Since 2007, Google has been running a project called RE<C, which the aim of making renewable energy cheaper than coal.

RE<C is all about accelerating innovation in renewable energy, with the RE<C engineering team focusing its efforts on Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies. CSP plants use fields of mirrors or lenses to redirect the sun’s rays onto a heat-absorbing target, which then converts the heat into energy. One of the best known CSP plants is the Solúcar solar plant, located just outside Seville, Spain – and by all accounts, these towers are a pretty impressive sight.

Google’s findings:

As part of its research, Google designed a lighter-weight, lower-cost prototype reflecting mirror, tested an alternative heat-exchange system, and developed a range of software and hardware tools that would either improve the efficiency or lower the cost of the system as a whole. Google itself sums up its findings as:

  • Use smarter controls: smarter software controls can generate better performance at a lower cost.
  • Use air turbines – not steam turbines: Most CSP plants use the heat to vaporize water in order to drive a steam turbine. But this kind of system uses jets of water to cool the steam so that it turns back into water. But worldwide, the sunniest regions tend to have the least water. Google’s RE<C team found that using a turbine powered by super-heated air – instead of water – significantly reduces water use and may reduce operating costs as well.
  • Optimize the whole system, not individual components: By focusing on the cost and quality of the system as a whole, Google tried to make cutbacks on some components, while compensating elsewhere to maintain performance.

Google has also invested in the IVANPAH CSP plant, out in the American desert

Google hands over the baton

Sadly, Google is only publishing its results because it is stopping the RE<C project. As to why, the company doesn’t really go into details. It simply states: “At this point, other institutions are better positioned than Google to take this research to the next level.”

Best-in-class CSR reporting?

Maybe Google stopped RE<C because it didn’t lead to anything they could patent. Maybe it didn’t deliver the kinds of breakthroughs they were hoping for. Maybe we should just take them at their word – Google isn’t a research institute, after all. One thing that does seem like a breakthrough is the fact that they have actually announced the end of a CSR project – and published detailed reports on what the project achieved.

Silence = greenwashing

In our research here at RankaBrand, we see plenty of CSR projects that are launched with great fanfare – but are then never heard of again. Same goes for the targets brands set themselves for cutting carbon emissions or for improving supply chains. When the deadlines for meeting those targets start rolling around, we often get radio silence on whether they were met. Sometimes, all evidence of that target being set in the first place has been quietly removed…

Come on guys – we want to know what your CSR efforts actually achieve. Otherwise, it’s just greenwashing!

Make them talk!

These are a few of the brands that have published a target, or announced a new CSR project, only to remove all traces of these initiatives at a later date. Why not get in touch to ask them what kind of progress they’re making – and why they aren’t publishing regular updates.

  • Keen: removed their Code of Conduct from the website
  • Gsus: removed the information on their Fair Wear Foundation (FWF) membership from their website, eventhough the FWF claims the brand is a member (again)
  • Nokia: earlier this year Nokia reported that all new products met the Energy Star criteria, but this info has now disappeared from their website.

Follow the links to the brand and click on ‘email brand’

By Anna | Posted in Best Practices in Reporting, Corporate Responsibility | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (0)
November 21, 2011 – 9:37 am

When a handbag is so beautiful that the designer can charge a thousand euros for it, I’m not going to blame anyone for buying it. But I can’t help wondering where that thousand euros goes. The leather can’t cost that much – even though it IS such wonderful quality. And the extra buckles and zips can only account for, let’s say, 20 euros max. So what does the rest go on? Oh well. At least the person who made it must have received a decent amount. Right?

Who knows.

Here at Rank a Brand, we’ve spotted a rather dastardly pattern. The more expensive and exclusive a fashion brand is, the less likely it is to tell us ANYTHING about how, where and by whom its products were made. Vivienne Westwood, Armani, Miu Miu, Oscar de la Renta, Vera Wang, Prada, Jimmy Choo, Karl Lagerfeld: not one of them gains a single point in our rankings.

How are designer clothes made? Turns out we just don't know

Let’s be clear about what they’re not saying: in our research, we dig around for information about carbon emissions, about how each brand sources its raw materials, about the chemicals it uses, about the labor conditions at its suppliers’ factories. But they tell us nothing, nada, zip. Sustainability information should be easily accessible for consumers to make responsible choices. Without this information, how are we to know what shady practices we are voting for?

A disappointing lack of leadership
Should we be surprised? Possibly not. But we think there are grounds to expect designer brands to be taking the lead – not lagging behind. For a start, they are almost all huge multi-million-euro companies. They can surely afford to live up to the very best standards in supply-chain transparency (never mind the fact that they can surely also afford to meet the very best production standards and labor conditions). Secondly, they sell their clothes and bags and shoes for so much more than they cost to produce that it’s pretty difficult to stomach even the suspicion that they were produced by underpaid, overworked minions in China, Burma or India. Thirdly, the designers who run these companies are revered as artists. Maybe I’m being idealistic, but aren’t artists supposed to be idealists? Surely Vivienne Westwood and Oscar de la Renta stand for more than just beauty? If the answer is yes, then let’s see the proof.

By Anna | Posted in Corporate Responsibility, Transparancy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (2)
November 8, 2011 – 8:44 pm

We are working on new, better criteria for the website brands and will give you an update before 2012. In the meantime, while doing research on Microsoft (Bing, Hotmail, MSN), we stumbled upon this one:

Screenshot: website Microsoft, 8-11-2011 (shortened).

By Niels | Posted in Websites | Tagged | Comments (0)
November 4, 2011 – 3:19 pm

Have you seen Coca Cola’s PlantBottle? It’s “up to 30% made from plants” and is being hailed as a sustainable packaging revolution, winning awards from both industry and independent players. While bio-based plastics represent a genuine alternative to materials based on fossil-fuels, they’re by no means problem-free: like all crop-based products, they raise questions relating to land use, food competition and pay and working conditions. We’ve had a closer look at what Coca Cola says about its PlantBottles to try and get an idea of just how green and fair they really are.

What are we dealing with?

The PlantBottle is made from polyeurethane that is up to 30% based on first generation bioethanol derived from Brazilian sugarcane.

Does that mean it’s biodegradable?

Nope. Although one of its ingredients is biodegradable, the finished plastic is just regular PET plastic. Which means the PlantBottles will hang around for just as long as regular coke bottles – unless they’re recycled, of course. Just like all PET plastic, the PlantBottle can be reused through community or municipal recycling schemes.

So what’s the big advantage?

Well, the PlantBottle has a smaller carbon footprint than regular PET bottles. In general, bio-based plastics require less energy to produce than oil-based plastics. And although they release carbon when destroyed, this has less of an effect on global warming because that carbon dioxide was already floating around in the atmosphere while the plant was actually growing. To put it another way, the carbon released when you destroy a PlantBottle will be offset by the next crop of plants grown to make a new one.

Coca Cola says that it’s PlantBottle has saved the equivalent of 30,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide since it was launched. However, it would be great to see an actual carbon footprint for the PlantBottle, or detailed results of the Life Cycle Analysis.

So why is it only 30% plant-based?

All PET is 30% ethanol (actually, mono-ethylene glycol). And we can now make ethanol out of a whole range of plants – the ethanol for the PlantBottle comes from Brazillian sugarcane. The other 70% is a chemical called “purified terepthalic acid”, which, so far, we can’t get from biological sources. And that’s why a PET bottle can never be more than 30% “made from plants”.

But doesn’t growing sugarcane for the PlantBottle affect the food chain?

Coca Cola says that it consulted with NGOs and other experts to identify the most sustainable raw material for its PlantBottle – and that Brazilian sugarcane was the only one to meet all of its criteria. However, Coca Cola provides a marked lack of detail about how it minimizes the impact of its PlantBottle on Brazilian agriculture itself. It only provides general statements that avoid the nitty gritty of the food security question, e.g.,“While sugarcane production has increased in Brazil, there has been no drop in food production.”

As farmland is given over to growing industrial crops, analysts warn that less food is being produced, pushing up global prices and hitting poorest countries hardest. Coca Cola’s vagueness implies that its sourcing policy does not include specific measures to avoid contributing to another global food crisis.

So how does the PlantBottle affect local farmers in Brazil?
The charity Grain warns that poor farmers are being pushed off their land to make way for profitable biofuel plantations. Again, when it comes to addressing these issues, Coca Cola only provides the most general statements: “most sugarcane expansion [in Brazil] is on degraded pastures that do not increase competition for new land or displace other crops.”

This strengthens our suspicion that Coca Cola does not have a detailed sourcing policy that explicitly forbids these practices.

Is the PlantBottle Fairtrade?
Coca Cola provides no specific policies on labor conditions. There is certainly no Fairtrade or Utz certification on any of its PlantBottles. And it doesn’t even provide any general statements about how farmers or laborers are treated on the average Brazilian sugarcane plantation…

So in balance, is it good or bad?
Is a lower carbon footprint enough to earn the PlantBottle the thumbs up? You can’t turn a blind eye to a reduction of 30 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. And at least the company does acknowledge that it occupies a powerful position in the supply chain, which it can use to force improvements in ecological, environmental and fair farming practices. Perhaps the only party in the chain with more power is us. The PlantBottle is good, but not great. To make sure Coca Cola ups its game with the PlantBottle, it’s probably not a good idea to start raving about it.

Selfish in sustainability?

Coca Cola has filed a patent that will give them exclusive rights to make beverage bottles out of plant-based PET. Does that seem to fit with the selfless spirit of the search for sustainability? Tell us what you think?

The PlantBottle is based on first generation biofuels. Put simply, this means it uses the edible parts of the sugarcane crop. Coca Cola does say that it is “working to advance the development of cellulosic solutions that capture sugar from plant wastes and residuals.” This would count as second generation biofuel, and could theoretically have zero impact on the food chain. To what extent this will be possible is as yet unclear.

By Anna | Posted in Sodas, Transparancy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (0)