Given the semester has come to an end, I’ve been thinking about all the interesting conversations, mini-debates, and client challenges we have gone through during our class discussions. We turned some of the “In the News” topics (which I imagine were only meant to last a few minutes of our class time) into half an hour topics of discussion; inviting varying opinions from different backgrounds of education or even culture to challenge the opposing views.

We talked about the definition of sustainability (though I’m not sure we ever truly decided on one), about how marketing can be used as a force for good instead of simply a mechanism of inducing people to buy what they don’t need (or even want), about how to communicate value, and countless other topics that helped shape our understanding of sustainability marketing.

I was introduced to 3 inspiring and innovative companies. AYO Smart Homes, which educated me on the living conditions of some First Nation communities, as well as the efficiencies of a smart home and where they might be introduced to a larger market. Coast Protein, which displayed the difficulties of changing pre-existing opinions or behaviours to unfamiliar ideas, as well as how value can be created in a product. And finally, Terramera, which further exemplified the importance of using marketing to change pre-existing notions, the impact of normalizing a product, and especially the disgusting behaviour of bed bugs (ew).

We’ve covered a lot, but I think my biggest takeaways came from our engaging and fun in-class discussions. I loved hearing from everyone in the class about their understanding of a word or topic, or their opinion on a news story, or their thoughts on a controversial company. This class was filled with people from various backgrounds, whether you were on exchange, an international student or born and raised here in Vancouver, or whether you were in marketing, finance, sciences, or arts – we all got the opportunity to learn from each other.

So what ‘Value’ did this class serve? Perhaps it falls more under the category of ‘Intangibles’. A greater understanding of world views towards sustainability in business, in marketing, and in life. Here we have a class full of students that yearn to apply their knowledge of sustainability to their very own workplace, who aim to teach their friends about the differences between ‘the leaders’ and ‘the laggards’, and who have learned to not take no for an answer (but maybe we won’t tell everyone who we learned that from).

I always find myself walking out of that class hopeful for business and for the planet, and while I am sad that I no longer get to walk out of this class twice a week, I am confident that we are some of those leaders we learned about.

I recently read an article about the interest people have started to gain in terms of sustainable properties and homes according to their realtors. Immediately it had me thinking of AYO Smart Homes and how their technology and processes could have a place in the larger real estate market where a demand for sustainability is growing. In fact, according to a survey conducted by NAR’s (National Association of Realtors) new sustainability program, 40% of respondents indicated smart/connected homes were a somewhat or very important feature. They also indicated an interest in home solar panels and found respondents saw solar panels to “increase the perceived property value.”

This made me think back to our project with AYO Smart Homes, particularly back to the discussion we had about introducing these homes to a more mainstream market, rather than strictly community living. While the idea was considered, there was a deep concern for what kind of market demand there was for smart homes, or sustainable living.

What this article revealed to me is that there are more people interested in sustainable living than perhaps we had previously imagined. With a growing trend towards sustainable living in terms of recycling, using public transport, eating locally, and overall reducing your own impact on the planet, I suppose it shouldn’t really come as a surprise that people want their home to reflect their values and lifestyle.

Perhaps AYO Smart Homes doesn’t even have to lose their community living ideals, as the respondents to the survey were interested in neighbourhood features such as parks and outdoor recreation. Maybe AYO or a similar company will be able to capitalize on this growing demand to create sustainable communities that are all encompassing. These communities would have smart homes, outdoor recreation areas, bike lanes, public transport, community gardens, clean energy and an efficient waste management system to help people to live a (nearly) fully sustainable lifestyle….or at least that’s the dream.

Tesla Chief Executive Office Elon Musk speaks at his company’s factory in Fremont, California, in this June 22, 2012.

This week in the news, a short paragraph in the Financial Mail caught my eye. It was about Tesla founder Elon Musk and his continuing success with Tesla. I’d like to think that there are many of us out there rooting for him and for his business; one of the more inspiring and hopeful companies in the sustainability world. For those of us that are, this is a good week for us, for Tesla investors, and hopefully for the planet as well. This week Tesla shares rose “7% to US$49bn, overtaking iconic old-era Ford ($46bn) in market value.”

I see this as a literal and symbolic step forward, showing us all that electric cars have a place in this market, that they aren’t about to disappear, and that they are worth investing in and supporting. It makes me think back to the Milton Friedman quote we have studied in so many classes: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” It represents this idea that is still so prevalent in the business world, which is that business is solely about profit; that any other goals or social missions will only get in the way.

Tesla has disproved this idea simply by going about their business, being innovative and sustainably focused. By passing an iconic brand like Ford in their market value they’ve proved that being sustainable and responsible in business can be a means to increase profits and investment, rather than decrease them. Maybe this will drive other brands, not only car brands, to see sustainability as an important aspect of business. Like the article stated, it’s been a “good week for Elon Musk”, a good week for sustainable business, and a good week for the planet.

Many of us have probably seen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” which was released in 2006, providing great insight into the growing issue of climate change and global warming. This film was a first glance for many at the detrimental effects of global warming and certainly popularized the environmental movement.

Now, over ten years later, we are being given the opportunity to see what kind of progress has been made, as well as the huge issues we still need to overcome. In July of 2017, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” will be released. Former Vice President Al Gore will be tackling current energy issues, as well as the tumultuous political situation in the United States since Trump’s presidency began. It was a very timely release of the trailer given Trumps recent “executive order rolling back Obama’s climate change policies”, which has caused panic among many environmental groups and citizens in the United States and all over the world. This executive order mainly targets “Obama’s clean power plan that required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants – a critical element in helping the United States meet its commitments to a global climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015” (CBC). While some American corporations have supported Trumps order with the idea that many jobs will be created, many have recognized that this is “an assault on American values” and even more so, a serious concern to the countries around that world that have committed to clean energy (CBC).

I think this film is coming at a much needed time, when those who weren’t previously educated on climate change through the first film will have the opportunity to gain a better understanding of how close we are getting to sustainable energy sources, as well as what is standing in the way of getting there completely. “An Inconvenient Sequel” tries to focus on the positive progress that has been made toward cleaner energy and the Paris goals, but it also recognizes that, so far, it has not been enough. The timing is no accident and it will be interesting to see the reaction amongst American and around the world to this upcoming film.

This week we spoke about costs. Not the price tag we see on a piece of clothing, or the time it took us to find a specific shirt, or the rent for the store we bought it in, but the actual “true cost” that includes all of these pieces and so much more. The cost of lives that are abused, underpaid, exploited, unheard and disregarded. I know how easy it is to forget that my shirt was likely made by someone who is not even being paid minimum wage, in a building that doesn’t meet safety standards, without any of the ‘basic’ working conditions just so that I can buy it for a mere $20. In the documentary “The True Cost” they explain how prominent figures in the fashion industry are able to rationalize the idea of producing clothes for such a disgustingly “low cost”. Basically saying that the people in these countries, like Bangladesh, need these jobs and are therefore willing to work in poor conditions, for minimal pay; they fully disregard the fact that these workers are given no alternatives or say in the matter. It’s honestly frightening to see these well-educated, top-level executives rationalize the horrific treatment of other human beings.

Sadly, at the end of the documentary, I felt like there was little I could do as a consumer to help the situation; I can limit how often I buy clothing and I can ensure the clothes are ethically sourced and produced, but the astounding levels of revenue that the fast fashion industry reels in makes it a fairly difficult industry to stop with only the common consumer. Instead, I found that government intervention is imperative in stopping or at least slowing down this detrimental industry. Governments need to be imposing stricter regulations in both the developed nations that are purchasing the clothing, and the developing nations that are producing them. Regulations that insist on better working conditions, better pay, and better benefits, and a more vigilant inspection of these regulations being abided by. Just another example of how governments can be a leading and influential factor in improving sustainability in business, both environmentally and socially.

(Related: Currently Emma Watson is sharing her sustainable fashion solutions on @the_press_tour as she travels to promote her upcoming film  Beauty and the Beast.)

(Photos: http://www.takepart.com/photos/true-cost-memes/ )

Just this past month Munich held the Sustainable Innovation for Sport 2017 forum. During the conference, the Paris 2024 Olympic Bid Committee “shared its ambitious strategy for the most sustainable Games.” They hope that with this ambitious strategy they will be able to out bid Los Angeles for the 2024 Olympic summer games; this announcement will be made in early September. Their sustainable strategy involves: transportation initiatives, an app to help encourage sustainability that allows users to collect points, a bracelet ticket to eliminate the need for paper tickets, social and environmental initiatives enforced for all hotels wishing to be certified by Paris 2024, self service bus stations that run on solar power, all Olympic clothing being fair-trade, food that is locally sourced, and a waste recycling system (Paris 2024 Bid Partners). Paris hopes to host the games and “be the first Games aligned with The Paris Climate Agreement.” It’s exciting to see sustainability becoming a deciding factor in world-renowned sporting events like the Olympics. While the Olympic Games are often thought to be beneficial to the economy of the host nation, “most cities have ended up falling massively in debt after hosting the games”, usually because of the facilities required to host the Olympics (Investopedia). The Games can also be very harmful to the environment when the city is not equipped to deal with the overwhelming amount of people and movement within the city. Paris actually already has 95% of the facilities they would need to host the games, and have one of the most efficient transportation networks; a network they are still aiming to improve for the Games. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect these plans have on the bidding process. It seems like this could be a beneficial step for the Olympic games because while the games are exciting and memorable for the athletes and spectators, they can have extremely negative effects on the environment within and around the host city. It would be nice to see these plans rewarded, putting an emphasis on sustainability in the bidding process.

Article: http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/leadership/sustainable_brands/paris_2024_taps_technology_most_sustainable_olympic_gam

Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/092416/what-economic-impact-hosting-olympics.asp

Paris Bid Partners: http://parcoursdurable.paris2024.org/en

Sustainable Innovation in Sport: http://www.sustainableinnovationinsport.org/

Last class we spoke about the World Economic Forum that takes place in Davos, Switzerland, during which Corporate Knights released their annual “Global 100” list of “the world’s most sustainable companies.” Among the 14 measures they consider when making this list, one aspect is diversity in the workplace. Many people, including myself, often define sustainability strictly by the environmental aspects of this word, i.e. has the company significantly reduced their annual greenhouse gas emissions? or have they implemented take back policies to reduce the waste in the post-use portion of the consumption process? We immediately jump to environmental sustainability and forget to include other important aspects such as diversity, employee turnover, or even injury rate. Sustainability, through it’s many definitions, is without doubt the concept of “the endurance of systems and processes. (Wikipedia)” While we often consider this system to be the environmental well being of the planet, systems can be found in every workplace or industry, and those systems rely on a variety of measures. This is how Cisco found itself at number three on the Global 100 list. Not because of their waste reduction (though they likely did that too), but primarily as a result of the fact that “38% of their senior executives are women” compared to an average of 21%. The Global 100 list is one of the few of these types of lists to put so much weight on aspects such as diversity and pension payments. Overall, the Global 100 measurement system sticks true to the word ‘sustainability’ with its extensive variety of definitions and factors. Perhaps there are drawbacks to widening this definition, but as was mentioned in class we should be applauding the incremental efforts, regardless of what sector of sustainability they fall under.