A bit of a cheeky title I know, but in we talk about Apple quite a bit in our courses here at Sauder. From COMM101, to marketing, I’ve never stopped hearing about Apple. Even now in this class, I’m still about to talk about Apple.

You may all know that Apple has recently been in the news because of their fight against the FBI to protect consumer privacy. In case you don’t know, I won’t link an article but a brief summary is that the FBI wants Apple to create a backdoor to their iOS so that the FBI can access sensitive/protected information inside a terrorist’s phone.

Instead of complying to the court order, Apple is taking the fight to court again as they want to protect consumer privacy, since a backdoor could allow the government, or cyber criminals to access sensitive private information.

Apple is back at it again with Liam. Liam is a ‘robot’, or otherwise automated process that disassembles iPhones down to their parts. The purpose of Liam is to collect parts from iPhones so that they can be re-used in future products. This isn’t even just specific parts. Liam goes as far extracting raw materials from the parts themselves such as silver and platinum to be re-used.

Why is this so important?

Not only has Apple been a champion of social activism and human rights with their battle against the FBI, they have proactively sought out to create something amazing and sustainable on their own volition. Nobody asked them for it. Nobody expected them to do it. Apple already has a proven track record. They have already proven that they are great and nobody is skeptical of their ability as a company. And yet, they have gone out of their way to do something amazing yet again. Being great and green, Apple is surely a company for others to follow. Not only is this latest innovation green, it also helps them save costs by re-using raw materials and parts. Bravo Apple.

GMOs are a huge issue in current day society. There are always debates on whether or not they are a good thing. On one hand, it allows us to produce at much higher efficiency. On the other hand, their long-term effects have not fully been studied and observed. I personally support them. Even though we covered food waste in class (and in some class activities), we do have issues with poverty and feeding the masses. To reduce our production efficiency even more would make this worse (but I’m not going to argue this in this post). Despite supporting GMOs, I believe that they should be transparent. In this recent article, Monsanto and other large corporations have been lobbying for an act called the DARK act. Now this sounds eerie enough already, and it’s also kind of fitting too. The DARK act would block state laws that require the labeling of GMOs. This is where I say turn on the lights.

We talk a lot about transparency. A lot of the ‘success stories’ we see in class are about a company coming out and being transparent with their practices before they are discovered. With this in mind, it would be a horrible idea for this ‘DARK’ act to pass. While I may support GMOs, I also support the right for the consumer to know what goes in their product. To me, this is a step backwards from where we should be going.

In the internet age, once something is discovered, the information does not disappear. Companies should not be trying to hide things. Whether or not they try to be transparent may be another issue, but hiding things only serves to tarnish their reputation. This DARK act is a direct insult to consumer rights.

Instead of passing legislation blocking labeling, the government should be trying to pass legislation that enforces labeling.

We talk a lot about Patagonia in class. We mentioned their ad about not buying their jacket, we watched videos on them, and we even did a case with a client that was related to them (Zero Waste Market; Patagonia pop-up shops). They seem to be an amazing example of a sustainable business that wants to do good. Once again, they’ve popped up in another article, this time on the New York Times for the amazing work that they do to better our world.

Patagonia is working with four other companies to create a $35 million fund to finance installations of solar panels on the roofs of residential homes. They are installing solar panels on over 1500 homes in eight different states.

The article also mentions that they did the same thing for start-up businesses to help fund more sustainable energy options. Two years ago, they created a $27 million fund to install solar panels in Hawaii as well.

The article doesn’t go into detail about whether or not they are setting these solar energy systems for free, but even if they are not, it is just another prime example of the work Patagonia does to improve our planet.

We talk a lot about initiative regarding sustainability in class. Some of it is just with regards to social responsibility in improving our planet, but another part of it is in entrepreneurship. Patagonia takes both of these to a new level. By investing in solar panels for residential homes, they introduce the idea of solar energy to families who might not have had access prior, and show that it is an effective way to save on costs (after an initial large fixed investment) that is also good for the environment. Hopefully this will proliferate to larger communities as well. However, by also investing in these for start-up companies that are focused on the environment and sustainability, Patagonia invests in the future by helping these environmental start-ups save on costs.

This takes sustainable entrepreneurship to a whole new level and this only serves to see why we mention Patagonia so much in class. They really are doing an amazing job for our planet.

We learned about the concept of a circular economy in class, or rather the idea of keeping resources in use for as long as possible. An example of this would be aluminum which is highly recycled (and I believe was mentioned to have 70% of all aluminum created still in use).

I recently read an article that takes the idea of circular economies and puts it into the perspective of healthcare. Now, I’ve always wanted to become a doctor so this is a bit of a mix of one of my dreams with one of my realities.

It’s a bit amazing to see how hospitals are helping other hospitals preserve and utilize equipment (though in the perspective of the states, the whole health insurance model is pretty ridiculous on its own). Some hospitals may be considering re-using or refurbishing equipment from other hospitals (that may not utilize the equipment as much).

Taking a closer look at the article though, there seems to be a common theme in the circular economy of these hospitals. The 6 points addressed in these articles all relate to change and the need for innovation (possibly due to financial constraints). This only goes to support that an organization must be proactive when considering green prospects in order to succeed.

There is also an issue with this that was brought up in the article though. While some things might be cheaper to acquire (regarding healthcare equipment) such as a refurbished MRI, other items may actually cost more per-unit to re-use instead of simply purchase a new one, like gowns.

Not to mention (while this is my own opinion), at a certain point is it really sanitary to be re-using equipment?

The title of this post might seem a bit comical but let me tell you, it describes this article that I read pretty handily. We mentioned a few things about food waste in class. In the activity we had last week, Gabriel and I found a case study regarding food waste and how a major supermarket chain was actively working to help fix this problem (including transparently announcing the amount of food waste they produce).

This article is related to that same topic of food waste. New technologies are being invented for the agriculture industry. “information technologies that brought us the internet and transformations in medicine are now revolutionising farming”. Satellite geo-positioning systems can detect nutrients and water in soil which  enables people better choose where and when to plant.

Thing is, robots are already very integrated in harvest practices (such as for lettuce and tomatoes) and can even track health levels for animals. Japan in particular is at the forefront with automated farms. The company “Spread” has announced that robots perform all tasks but one in their farms.

This is a very exciting future for us in terms of being able to grow more food (in a very ‘brute’ way to counter-act food waste) since these Japanese farms can grow tens of thousands of bundles of lettuce each day.

However, sustainability, and sustainability marketing in particular isn’t always just about the green. These innovations are absolutely amazing for environmental sustainability. It’s inspiring to see what humans are capable of creating in order to solve some world problems. But at the same time, while this solves an environmental sustainability issue, what about the social end? This purely automated farm will take jobs away from the agriculture market and possibly damage rural communities. One can draw a parallel from how Uber is making cabs less appealing. Will this be the end of the rural-era and life style?

When I was a kid there was always one toy you could find in any class room and in any household. Everyone loved it and everyone knew about it. There were knockoffs and attempts to ‘improve’ on the design to no avail (lookin’ at you Mega Bloks).

With that little call out, I’m sure you all can figure out that I’m talking about LEGO. This isn’t the most recent article but what it was written about is soon to become relevant. LEGO announced their ambition to create a product and packaging manufactured by sustainable materials by 2030. What’s more important though is that they have stated they will create a LEGO sustainable materials centre by the end of 2016 which will cost them ~$150million. This is a huge step for a company as big as LEGO which has their brand tied to building block toys as the original and “premiere” product.

LEGO’s previous environmental response was to not renew their contract with Shell. However, this action was a more defensive-green action as it was in response to pressure from Greenpeace. Just like the Greenpeace campaign we watched in class targeting Nestle (the KitKat – Killer ad), Greenpeace created a YouTube video involving LEGO blocks depicting the Arctic slowly being drowned out by crude oil, with a Shell LEGO brick standing at the end of the video over a world of oil.

This time around, LEGO has proactively announced their goals for 2030 and are partnering with the WWF to find a sustainable solution. Regarding the 4Cs, this change doesn’t necessarily change anything up-front for the consumers but it is a great proactive background process change that will help LEGO move forward as pioneers instead of falling behind possible competition as the sustainability wave continues to come.

I for one am glad that one of my favourite childhood toys is going to continue into the future while helping our planet continue onwards as well.

I love Chipotle. To the point where I know exactly what to say to maximize the amount of sweet, delicious food I get in my bowl. In case you want to know what I order (which is amazing by the way) to get that whopping mountain of food, leave me a private message.

What I don’t love is getting food poisoning. I’ve only ever had it a single time and I can definitely say it is not the greatest experience I’ve had in my life. To the uninformed, Chipotle has recently been battling sanitation/sourcing issues with an outbreak of E. Coli in their food. For any company in the food industry, an issue like this would be absolutely killer for very obvious reasons, but with Chipotle it’s a bit less obvious.

This outbreak threatens the very concept in which the company is based upon, their local food sourcing and ‘food with integrity’ ideals. When compared to a company like McDonalds which uses industrial food sources (which some of you may have seen in documentaries like Food Inc.), Chipotle’s food supply chain could be considered a logistical nightmare. As opposed to one giant conglomerate with huge economies of scale, in order to maintain their values, Chipotle has to source from hundreds of local farms. What ends up happening is that it becomes more difficult to regulate sanitation standards. Coupled with some organic farming practices that are a bit less sanitary (using fresh fertilizer), this poses a higher risk than industrial farming.

People speculate that this outbreak would be a major deterrent from companies trying to source local. However, if a company really had the vision of being sustainable, I do not think that it would stop them from trying. If a company was dedicated enough from the beginning to have planned to attempt the same logistical nightmare Chipotle goes though, one would think that their convictions would be strong enough that they would stand firm.

However, this is also a case of “great before green”. I personally eat Chipotle because it’s delicious. I’m not going to lie, the sustainable part of Chipotle has never had too big of an impact on me, unless it is directly responsible for how good it tastes. What has kept me a customer is the ‘great-ness’ of the food. I feel that most people feel the same, at least from the people I know. In that case, I don’t actually think this outbreak will hurt them too much. Their stock might drop but I for one will still be going. I don’t think I will be the only brave soul willing to risk E. Coli either, given the long lineups in their downtown location.

Were back again this week with another look at Nestle. Nestle has really been on fire lately. We’ve already discussed them in class (through pre-assessment readings) but this is the second time the company has popped up in my blog. What are we talking about this time? Slavery, modern slavery. It was recently found that part of Nestle’s supply chain for some of its products included slave and forced labour in Thailand. What’s the kicker to this situation? It was Nestle themselves that found and announced it.

You could consider Nestle as a Lean Green company that has recently switched to the Shaded Green strategy. As discussed last week, some of Nestle’s green innovations are rather ‘backseat’ such as the filter to extract water from the operations in making their condensed milk product. However, with this new article, I am taking the stance that Nestle is working towards a Shaded Green strategy. It’s rather confusing though because you could argue that just changing their processes to be more green would be Lean Green, but Nestle is publicly announcing their changes and huge system-wide changes to improve their green stance. This is why I would argue that they are working towards a Shaded Green strategy.

In this article, Nestle found that their operations for their Fancy Feast catfood product included the use of slave and forced labour. Normally, there would be a huge backlash regarding the use of slave labour and Nestle would need a Defensive Green stance to manage this backlash. However, in this case they are taking the initiative. Nestle has announced on their own, without any external investigation that they have been using slave labour and are working to source their resources in a more sustainable manner.

While I am still skeptical about Nestle in general as a company, I can’t ignore the efforts they are putting in to reduce their environmental and social impact. This is definitely a breath of fresh air from the stories I have heard about the baby formula scandal or the public issues with Nestle’s bottled water brand. By self-reporting their internal problems, Nestle sets an example for other companies to follow. This transparency could bring in a new era with more sustainable social business practices.

Nestle is a huge household brand. It would probably be untrue if I said even one person in this class had not been exposed to a Nestle product in their lifetime. Nesquick, Nestea, Nescafe, Kit Kat, Aero, Nestle pure life, and even international brands like Maggi. Every single day, we come across or even purchase Nestle products. Despite this, many people don’t know the horrible business practices Nestle has (or has had in the past). One of the most famous examples is detailed in this site that supports boycotting their products: http://www.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree

In short, Nestle changed their marketing strategy for their baby formula to target poor women in undeveloped countries. They claimed that their formula was healthier, when in reality, breastfeeding is as good as it gets.  The result was that their campaign directly contributed to the death of many babies in undeveloped countries because women lost the capacity to breastfeed (because they used formula instead) and they lacked access to clean resources to make the formula.

This has left a huge stain on the company’s reputation, much like how Nike’s involvement with sweatshops have left a lasting impression on their brand as well. However, in class we talked about how they were taking huge steps towards fixing their problem. I recently came across an article that was along the same lines, but for Nestle, found here: http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/sustainable_brands/nestle_tesco_unilever_ceos_among_champions_123_determine

Nestle has joined Champions 12.3, a group of major institutions and companies including Unilever which we discuss quite a bit in class working to reduce food waste.  By joining Champions 12.3, they promise to advocate for innovation to reduce food and water waste, as well as ‘lead by example on reducing water and food waste’.

This begs the question, are they doing this to improve on the poor image of their brand regarding sustainability and CSR (for people who are aware of what they have done), or are they doing it because they really do want to help the world? A lot of activists may want to believe the former because ‘business are evil’ and because Nestle has had a ‘heartless’ reputation for a long time. However, there is evidence that they are making real contributions toward water and food waste problems.

For example, as shown in this article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/nestle-turns-milk-waste-into-water-as-california-drought-rages

Nestle is creating processes to extract the water byproduct (waste) from making their condensed milk. This is an example of integrating a green process into their operations. They’re taking an already ‘great product’, their condensed milk, and adding green to that by spending millions of dollars on a filter so they can collect that water.

This doesn’t make up for all the things that make up Nestle’s poor reputation, but it is definitely a huge leap forward for them. I for one am still very skeptical as I hate their business practices, but only time will tell us if they are genuine. I still think they’re a cutthroat company though.