Monthly Archives: March 2013

COMM 486F, Sustainability Marketing, has been an exciting journey. Before taking this course, I was quite skeptical of green marketing. I was well aware of The Seven Sins of Greenwashing but was unsure how the goals of sustainability and marketing could align successfully . After analyzing case studies, interacting with guest speakers and working with local companies, my knowledge of green marketing has grown tremendously. I now have a greater appreciation for companies like Seventh Generation and Timberland after seeing what they are doing to innovate and mitigate their environmental impact.

Has it changed how you think about how you live your life as a consumer?

COMM 486F has changed how I approach shopping for everyday green products. In fact, I think I spend more time shopping for these items than I did before. I’m doing a lot more research now on the social and environmental benefits of a product before actually purchasing them. While price and efficacy are major determining factors for what I ultimately buy, I’m interested in they story behind the brand, as well as the impact I can make by purchasing the particular product. I’m looking for cues such as: third party certification, education initiatives and strategic partners. I also need to know the product I’m buying is good for both me and the environment.

Has it changed how you think about business?

I think I’m less skeptical about businesses going “green” than when I first started taking the course. Don’t get me wrong. There are still companies out there that haven’t gotten over their own Greenwashing issues (see Nestle’s Eco-Shape Bottle). However, I appreciate how some companies seem really committed to innovating or mitigating their environmental impacts. Airline companies, for example, are using carbon offsets to minimize their impact because the core of their business doesn’t allow much room for traditional reduction methods. The social venture model is increasing in popularity, and it isn’t difficult to see why consumers are rooting for companies who consider the 3P’s in their business models. While cost savings for companies are one of the biggest reasons why brands go green, I also see it as a joint effort with consumers. Consumers need to demand and inspire companies to re-design their products and to innovate for a sustainable future for everyone.

140 thousand tons of e-waste ends up in our landfills each year. E-Waste also contains toxic chemicals such as: lead, mercury and arsenic which threaten our water and air supply. The Story of Electronics attributes e-waste to planned obsolescence, lack of regulations and corporate greed. Much of this waste is illegally exported to developing countries where workers are exposed to these toxic chemicals on a daily basis. Here in Canada, only about 25% of this waste is actually recycled. There seems to be many barriers to the amount of e-waste in our landfills such as: lack of awareness, geographic accessibility to recycling depots and costs to dispose. While some provinces require manufacturers to develop/comply with product stewardship plans, these legislations are loosely monitored and are not federally applicable.

Traditionally, manufacturers found the handling of e-waste to be uneconomical. Disposal costs were essentially passed down to the government and consumers. Recently, Samsung has taken upon itself to recycle e-waste through its Samsung Recycling Direct program. In partnership with recycling company Global Electric Electronic Processing (GEEP), consumers will not have to pay a fee when they drop off their Samsung-branded electronics at the 40 depots across Canada. Other branded electronics cost a nominal fee to recycle according to their website. Some Purolator locations will also accept electronics for drop-off and they will be transported to GEEP depots.

Below is a video explaining Samsung’s Recycling Direct program:

I like that Samsung is taking the whole life-cycle into consideration and trying to remove common barriers to recycling e-waste such as cost and geographic accessibility. There’s probably an incentive for Samsung to recycle these electronics (other than the perceived altruism) perhaps in the form of reusing parts. Supporters of manufacturers taking back these electronics suggest than the increased cost in disposal will counter planned obsolescence and financially encourage manufacturers to make more recyclable and longer lasting products. It will be interesting to see how this e-waste recycling program will affect the life-cycles of Samsung products and whether other large manufacturers will join them in this area.

-JN