Puma recently introduced a new method to calculate the social and environmental impact a firm have. Puma has added a dollar value to its greenhouse gas emission and water consumption, and compares the value to the dollar value of the shoe it produces. Using this formula, Puma places itself in the red, where it extracts more from the environment than what it would provide for the customer.
` This formula isn’t without its problems. It is impracticable to place a dollar on every single externality Puma can cause on the environment. For example, how do we as a society measure the loss of species or the destruction of beautiful scenery?
In my opinion, Puma should not have labeled itself “in the red” on how it conducts its business in relationship to its social and environmental impact. The average customer of Puma is not educated enough to analyze the faults of the formula, and would most likely believe the statement without processing and reflecting on the information. This would likely associate Puma with being environmentally harmful, which would often provoke bitter responses from some customers.
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blog/business_ethics/57891–puma-s-environmental-profit-and-loss