I was always aware that new “inventions” were surfacing, it seems as if something revolutionary is created every single day. However, I was completely astonished by the extent of sustainability related innovations I discovered throughout this course, and I remain unable to fathom how such ideas have become ideas, let alone realities.

Did you know that cement production is responsible for roughly 5% of the world’s carbon emissions? This was not a statistic that I had given much consideration to, however it is not surprising considering the amount of cement utilized in infrastructure development worldwide. Consider the footprint of the Walter Gage Residence on campus, or Buchanan- I had never previously pointed fingers at these buildings for environmental degradation. It goes to show how much we overlook the environmental impact of the spaces we rely on for everyday living and learning.

Luckily, Solidia has developed cement and concrete technology that decreases carbon emissions by 70% and water consumption by 60-80%. This is possible because the cement is procured with CO2 rather than water. Due to the immense worldwide market for these materials, this product has the potential to make an incredible impact. Who knew something so grey could become something so great?

Another incredible product that I was exposed to this semester was Graviky Labs Air-Ink Pens. These are the first pens in the world to use air pollution as ink. More significantly, this is the first product I have heard of that converts air pollution into something of value– art. Their device attaches to exhaust outlets on vehicles in order to collect soot. What has been collected thus far, is the equivalent of cleaning 1.6 trillion litres of outdoor air.

These innovations demonstrate the significance in optimizing the entire production chain. Solidia helps eliminate carbon emissions in the production phase of the cement product lifecycle. Graviky on the other hand, capitalizes on the “disposal” of pollution, by capturing it before it enters the atmosphere and using it as a product input. Innovation is no longer about inventing something new. It has become about inventing something better to improve the existing inefficiencies within systems. Today’s innovation gives me hope for tomorrow’s wellbeing.

As it is well known, fast Fashion is under serious scrutiny for its negative environmental impacts as a result of the extreme volume of clothing produced and poor end of life planning for products. I find that most of the blame is placed on large companies and what or how they produce, but less emphasis is on how they advertise. If you conduct a Google search using the phrase “fast fashion sustainability issues” the top results include statements such as:

• Environmental pollution due to cheap synthetic fibres and chemical dyes,
• By 2030 it is predicted the industry’s water consumption will increase by 50%,
• Fast fashion under fire for human rights violations and supply chain practices, and
• Insatiable appetite for fashion.

However, products produced and the speed of production are not the only fashion-related sustainability issues, the marketing of these products have sustainability implications as well. This association is significantly lacking in the key search results, as well as majority of the dialogue surrounding this industry. That being said, a result of fashion marketing is alluded to in the final bullet point above. Advertising for clothing strongly suggests that what you wear defines who you are, and makes people feel a need to use purchases to compensate for their shortfalls. There is constant pressure to reinvent oneself, be better or more attractive and the result is often a longing to buy more.

A key player in fashion advertising and induced purchase pressure is the modelling industry. This female dominated industry is granted admiration and is associated with prestige, status and desire. Well-known models get to flaunt luxurious and trendy clothes that are generally considered symbols of status. These individuals become role models and public figures within society and contribute to fundamental norms and ideals.

Sustainability on the other hand, is one thing that modelling does not appear to have any association with- in positive or negative contexts. I find this disconcerting, as I have identified many reasons as to why modelling is unsustainable. Such reasons include:

• Encouragement of constant consumption and element of circular economy;
• Promotion of extreme individualism and need to buy products that establish differentiation;
• High association with the makeup industry- which lacks a strong foundation in environmental sustainability;
• Trend of a slim female figure, leading to increased prevalence of eating disorders and body dismorphia; and
• A lack of pressure or accountability to encourage sustainable practices.

Not only does this industry harm environmental sustainability, but it also influences the economic and social realms of sustainability. Unhealthy outcomes such as eating disorders impact individual health practices, as well as social interaction. Women judge their own bodies more harshly, as well as other’s, which does not contribute to sustainable health practices.

Due to the above reasons, I cannot help but wonder how this industry has avoided sustainable scrutiny and if there are any changes expected in the future?

After discussing Repack in class today, I could not help but look into the company a bit more to discover how this business functions and how feasible it seems. Once I have outlined the company’s current procedures and scope, I will apply aspects of the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model, to demonstrate ways that I believe the company can have a greater sustainable impact.

So far, there are 30 stores that offer the RePack option and 50,000 customers have used this service when making their respective purchases. The packaging is designed to survive at least 20 cycles and is designed specifically for clothing purchases. Another differentiating factor of this product, other than being reusable, is that it is adjustable. This feature ensures that the air can be removed from the packaging, which saves more money and nature as transportation becomes more efficient.

One weakness of this service highlighted by the website is that the return rate is only 75%. This means that out of the 50,000 purchases that have used the RePack shipping option, only 37,500 of the packages were returned. The question is not only an issue for the company’s costs, but also for the disposal after use. Considering that these packages are more durable than a standard envelop, is it possible that they could have a greater negative impact if they end up in the landfill? A claim made on the website is that “it reduces C02 by 80%” but I am curious if this is the case considering those packages that are “lost.”

Something this company does extremely well is highlight the social sustainability aspect, in terms of strengthened relationships. They have proven that customers that use Repack are far more likely to be repeat customers, bettering the bond between the customer and the company. This connection is something that is much more difficult to develop in the ecommerce setting.

Using aspects of the SCOR model, I have created a list of the current strengths and potential considerations for the development of this company (in bold):

Environmental

• Design and Plan: Designed for multiple uses/reuses
• Source: Sources recycled material for the creation of the product
• Deliver: Packaging is returnable to improve fuel efficiency
• Use and Return: Successfully creates reverse-logistics channels, but needs a plan for the 25% of packages that are not returned.

Social

Overall, the social aspect of the SCOR model is not the strong point for RePack. The majority of barriers are related to the fact that this is a relatively new company that requires expansion. Therefore, the suggestions for social betterment are listed below.

• Deliver: Currently, the company is reaching out to companies to form partnerships and spread the use of the RePack shipping solution. However, the company must look to expand its use beyond Europe, as currently only European companies are engaged.
• Use and Return: Find a way to increase the percentage of packages returned. Also, ensure that there is a plan for end-of-life, once the 20+ uses have occurred.  

Economic

• Make: RePack will definitely have to look into investing in geographic manufacturing hubs to help improve supply chain efficiency if expanding into other continents.
  They would also benefit from taking advantage of economies of scale by expanding into other locations and potentially expanding the product offerings- greater variety in package sizing. 

While there are improvements that need to be made, I have to say that this is a pretty awesome innovation. I am hoping that stores I frequently buy from start to use this system so that I am no longer left with the guilt of the waste that comes with my purchases.

After reading Aylin’s blog post about Lauren Singer, an NYU graduate who is successfully living a zero waste lifestyle, I have been thinking about how to incorporate some of her tips into my life. The one thing that she has eliminated completely from her consumer habits is plastic.
She makes it sound quite easy- but since I started paying close attention, I have realized that my life is plagued with plastic. Whenever I buy groceries there is always something I need that is only available in plastic packaging. As a vegetarian, tofu is a staple in my diet, but I have yet to come across a tofu product that isn’t sealed in plastic wrap.  While I have eliminated a huge portion of my previous plastic consumption, I realized that my reusable tupperware are almost entirely plastic.
Lauren’s solution for this problem is glass- mostly in the form of a mason jar. On her blog she claims that getting rid of plastic is a crucial part of becoming more environmentally friendly because plastic is toxic.

My curiosity however is what makes glass non-toxic or better? Is it the ingredients, the production, the longevity? I decided to look into this, and this is what I discovered:

• Glass maintains it’s longevity. If recycled properly, it can be turned into more glass over and over- unlike plastic. Plastic loses its integrity- a plastic container cannot be recycled once again into a plastic container. It has to be downcycled, into a different product such as: plastic plumber and carpet padding.
• When you are using a plastic container, packaging or anything of the sort, you know that it is entirely new. This means that all new resources go into making it.
• Because plastic is made of entirely new resources, its production has greater impact on the environment.
• Using recycled glass means that manufacturers furnaces can run at lower temperatures and for every 6 tonnes of recycled glass used, CO2 emissions drop a tonne.
• Glass does not have the estrogen-mimicking chemical bisphenol A (BPA) which is responsible for a number of negative health effects such as: breast cancer, heart disease and obesity. Aside from the health consequences, man made chemicals are much more difficult to break down, which cause them to build up indefinitely in our systems.
• A downside of glass however is that it is heavier, so transportation is significantly more expensive.

While looking into this, I also discovered that some innovation has taken place involving plants in plastic bottles. Coke now has bottles that are made up of 30% plant matter. Despite this, it does seem quite clear why glass is a more favourable option than plastic regarding sustainability.

After Amazon’s notable purchase of Whole Foods both businesses have been under scrutiny regarding sustainability. A lot of questions have circulated around Amazon’s motivation for purchasing”America’s healthiest grocery store,” and many customers are concerned the product line may not remain as “pure” as it once was.

While I myself believe that Amazon is using this acquisition as a way to “green” their image, I realized I have no idea what Amazon is currently doing in regards to sustainability. I did some research, and here is what I found:

Amazon’s environmental dedication is focused on power.

Amazon has signed the White House’s Business Act on Climate Pledge and joined Apple, Microsoft and Google in supporting the continued implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan.

Amazon’s newest buildings are heated using recycled energy.

There are initiatives in place to encourage box reuse and reduction in packaging supplies overall.

Amazon has set a goal to install solar energy systems at 50 of their fulfilment network buildings by 2020.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) exceeded it’s goal of using 40% renewable energy by 2016, and is looking to reach 50% by 2017.

I felt that the final two discoveries were a bit difficult to comprehend, as an “outsider” I have no idea how many fulfilment network buildings there are, or how big AWS is in regards to Amazon as a whole. It turns out, Amazon has 475 fulfilment buildings globally, and about 47 more are expected in the future. This means that less than 11% of the buildings are going to be solar powered by 2020.

It is much more difficult to understand the impacts of AWS using 100% renewable energy on Amazon’s overall environmental footprint. I was unable to find information regarding how much power Amazon uses as a whole, or how much AWS as a segment uses. Therefore, all I can say is that Amazon is committed to using renewable energy for a fraction of it’s operations.

Based on this information, I can say with certainty that Amazon is taking some initiative regarding the environmental, economic and social realms of sustainability, which is promising. That being said, I don’t feel that they are doing enough, especially considering how powerful and innovative Amazon is. Looking at the top ten companies owned by Amazon (found on investopia.com) Whole Foods is the only one that I easily identify as a “sustainable” company. This reassures me in my assumption that Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods was done primarily to contribute to their own environmentally friendly image.

Now I wonder, will Whole Foods make Amazon seem more “green,” or will Amazon harm Whole Foods’ prestige in the sustainability department?

Information
http://www.mwpvl.com/html/amazon_com.html
https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/gkkwdp34z5ou7ug
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102115/top-10-companies-owned-amazon.asp

Images
https://www.google.ca/search?q=whole+foods+and+amazon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir5sDwmfHWAhUM8GMKHVc0CLcQ_AUICygC&biw=1301&bih=639#imgrc=fEEHZ5njivdpMM:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=whole+foods+and+amazon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir5sDwmfHWAhUM8GMKHVc0CLcQ_AUICygC&biw=1301&bih=639#imgrc=pDe3RRm2FNUfEM:

If you have never heard of Aquaponics, do not fear. I just learned about this “revolutionary” form of farming at the end of summer. Put simply, aquaponics is the combination of hydroponics (the growing of plants without soil) and aquaculture (the raising of fish).

IMAGE: https://www.google.ca/search?q=aquaponics&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5l6C_-NzWAhVD8GMKHYrRCx0Q_AUICigB&biw=1164&bih=672#imgrc=y3Vpdztu_xxncM:

Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing more adorable than your Great Aunt Betty’s traditional style garden- but gardens have a number of downsides. They often require pesticides and artificial nutrients. They are prone to damage by animals and require a lot of water. 

While the goal of Aquaculture is largely to restore and protect populations of threatened and endangered aquatic species, there are a number of concerns with this production system as well. Fish waste pollutes the water with high levels of ammonia, requiring 10-20% of the tank’s water to be replaced daily. This is a massive amount of water. Additionally, the disposal of this water can often lead to the pollution of nearby streams, rivers and lakes. Not to mention, due to the close proximity of the fish, they are prone to disease and often require unnatural treatments.

What makes Aquaponics the more sustainable option?

• Aquaponics continually recycles the water and uses only 10% of the amount used by any other type of agriculture.
• No pesticides or fertilizes need to be added.
• The fish feed the plants, and the plants filter the water for the fish! Talk about a symbiotic relationship.

I had the opportunity to visit an Aquaponics farm in Powell River BC in August and I was quite amazed by this system. One really cool feature of Aquaponics is the scalability. While the farm I visited was quite large, this is something that can be accomplished in a traditional sized garden, or even in a conventional sized fish tank.

A theme I have noticed within sustainable business venture success is relationship building amongst previously separate systems. Symbiotic relationships are widely necessary when it comes to sustainability, which make it key for business partnerships aimed at the long run. Although Aquaponics is a fairly straightforward example, more complicated relationships need to be developed in large scale businesses as well. What “symbiotic relationships” can you think of in big business?

Photos taken at Sunshine Coast Aquaponics, Powell River BC

Sources: https://www.theaquaponicsource.com/what-is-aquaponics/

“The True Cost,” a documentary which focuses on the impact of the fashion industry, better known today as the fast fashion industry, reveals who is really paying the price for clothing. H&M is featured in this film as one of the fast fashion “giants,” and before this year I had heard nothing of H&M’s sustainable practices, despite having shopped there quite frequently.

It turns out, in 2013 H&M launched a worldwide garment collection program (1). No matter the brand, clothing can be taken to any H&M location to be sorted into three categories:

1. Re-wear: to be resold in second-hand clothing stores;
2. Reuse: turned into new products, such as cleaning products;
3. Recycle: made into textile fibres to be used as insulation and cardboard boxes.

H&M calls for “the useless, the misfits, the redundants,” and according to their website, over 40,000 tonnes of garments have been collected and given a second life. However, the pieces sorted into the re-wear category are much more problematic than they may seem.

“True Cost” mentions that only 10% of clothes that are donated end up being sold (2). What about the other 90%? A significant proportion are sent overseas so that they can be re-worn. One outcome of the redistribution to developing countries has been harm to local industries, as jobs opportunities are taken away from textile workers (4). The ultimate result: millions of dollars are spent on transporting this clothing, to have a significant portion end up in an “exotic” landfill.

So how can we better utilize the clothing that we no longer want? The website 1 Million Women has a few suggestions:

1. Do not donate trash: this saves charities unnecessary expenditures.
2. Take your clothing to a local organization: this increases the chance that someone will benefit from your donation.
3. Just don’t donate: repurpose your used clothing yourself. (3)

While H&M’s garment collection program is taking a step toward environmental sustainability, I’m interested to see if social sustainability will follow.

References:

1. https://about.hm.com/en/sustainability/get-involved/recycle-your-clothes.html
2. https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/5-crazy-facts-new-fashion-documentary-true-cost/
3. https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-donating-clothes-to-charity/
4. https://fashionista.com/2016/01/clothing-donation

After reading an assigned article on the Guardian (7) that deemed that Nike was a green giant, alongside Tesla and Whole Foods, I couldn’t help but wonder “is Nike really that green?” So I went looking, and this is what I found:

1. Nike is targeting sustainability through innovation.
   According to Nike’s website their environmental footprint is being reduced through efforts centred on  waste, energy, water and chemistry. Impressively, they were able to divert 92% of their footwear manufacturing waste in 2015 (2).
2. For Nike, the key is materials.
   Almost 60% of their shoe’s environmental impact is due to the materials used, and this is why material innovation has been their focus (3).
3. Nike launched their energy and carbon program in 2008.
   By 2025, the goal is to be using 100% renewable energy in their owned and operated facilities (2). When first reading this, I was extremely impressed! I mean, it can’t get better than that, a perfect A+! Upon rereading however, I questioned the terminology “owned and operated,” and it turns out, contract factories are not included in Nike’s 100% (4).

Overall, a significant number of positive changes have been made at Nike and are continuing to be developed in realtime. The company is focused on the footwear industry, which is logical considering they are deemed one of the most, if not the most, popular footwear brands in the world (1).

Although Nike’s focus is on materials, there appears to be a lack of consideration for materials post-purchase. I have worked three summers in the shoe department at Sport Check, and there were a number of shortcomings that I identified regarding Nike’s (and other brand’s) shoe packaging- generally speaking, the packaging is excessive. Additionally, there is not a concrete system in place for shoe’s “after lives.” 
Nike’s Grind technology has existed for 20 years and is used to recycle worn shoes into turf fields, tracks and 71% of their footwear and apparel products (6). Although this is impressive, I was unable to find out how Nike acquires these shoes for recycling. Do customers recycle them? Are they recovered from landfills? If majority of other shoe purchasers are also unaware of the answers to these questions, how much impact can this technology really have?

According to TheShoeIndustry.com, manufacturing is the greatest area of environmental concern regarding the lifecycle of shoes (5). This means that Nike is starting where it matters. In the future, I hope to see increased customer knowledge surrounding shoe disposal and more aggressive attempts at package reduction.

Sources

1. https://successstory.com/lists/10-most-popular-shoe-brands-263
2. https://about.nike.com/pages/environmental-impact
3. https://news.nike.com/news/nike-inc-and-mit-climate-colab-materials-innovation-to-combat-climate-change
4. https://news.nike.com/news/sustainable-innovation
5. http://theshoeindustry.weebly.com/environmental-impact.html
6. http://www.nikegrind.com/faq
7. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jan/02/billion-dollar-companies-sustainability-green-giants-tesla-chipotle-ikea-nike-toyota-whole-foods