The 2014 BMW i3 is an all-new, all-electric vehicle that is the first product of the new BMW I sub-brand, and a truly purpose built electric car, representing a new era for electro mobility at BMW with complete sustainability and nearly 100 percent recyclability.

I’m not a person who knows a lot about cars, but when I found out that a car could be close to 100% recyclable, I thought that was definitely pretty neat! What’s interesting about the marketing for the BMW i3 is that the official website gives away very little about it sustainable attributes, which at first makes me wonder about how sustainable the car really is. I was only able to find out more about it through external blogs, and other media contributing to the buzz.

With the project, BMW was looking to redefine how it operated and did business, designing the car with recyclability in mind. Here’s what I found out:

• All carbon fibre used in the car is sourced from a factory that runs on hydropower
• Production is water efficient as well as energy efficient, with 70% of energy coming form wind turbines
• Recycling is also reportedly done during the production process
• Fabric used in the car is made from recycled plastic water bottles
• Dye used in the fabric is made from recycled oil leaf extract
• Black surrounds are made from Kenaf plant
• All wood used is from Eucalyptus trees

What’s more, also available for purchase are charging stations and even solar panels to complete what BMW calls the “360 degree Electric Experience.”

In the end, BMW has designed the i3 to be 95% recyclable, with some parts able to be melted down for re-use or to be re-purposed. “Second life applications” are also in place, for instance, once the car has reached it’s expiry date, the battery can be used for second life applications, as is already done at the BMW’s Technology Office – it uses a 100 kilowatt lithium ion system to interact with the power grid (Source).

The biggest question of course is whether this car, which is scheduled to be released in the second quarter of 2014, will sell. And as I said before, I don’t know too much about cars, so I wouldn’t be able to say what the strongest appeal of the car is (maybe one of you can tell me!) But as one of the prominent car brands in the world today, I think the company is definitely helping to change the way that cars are not only being designed but also produced. On further research, I found that Toyota and Ford have each produced 100% recyclable cars as well, so the trend is definitely not new, but it could use more attention – and for a brand that sets its sights “on the premium sector of the international automobile market,” I’m thinking BMW probably has the clout to compel other premium sector focused car companies to develop their own sustainable and recyclable cars as well.

In general, what are your thoughts on sustainable/recyclable cars and the BMW i3?

It’s become more and more clear that we live in a world of wasteful consumption. This can be seen in the way the general consumer habitually tosses out groceries that go beyond their expiry date or casually buys additional pairs of shoes, accessories, clothing, electronics, and other gadgets when there really isn’t much of a need to do so. The reasons for society’s wasteful needs comes from many different directions, for instance, out of laziness, a desire for convenience, a need to be unique in an ever populous world, etc. But you know what I think really doesn’t help, the glorification of near opulent consumption by the media.

Just a couple of weeks ago, most of the world watched in awe as the world’s ‘golden’ and ‘sparkling’ citizens walked down the red carpet of the Oscars in Hollywood. All of the women wore designer brands and gowns worth over thousands of dollars. Forbes.com in fact made an estimate of how much it might cost to get ready for the Oscars, and it came to at least $35,000 ($35,488 to be exact). What is more, the priciest aspects of that cost came from those tiny objects you place on your ears and fingers that glimmer for about 3 hours or less in one evening (combined cost of the jewellery used – namely one ring and a pair of earrings – cost at least $16000) Essentially, getting ready for a giant party in the celebrity world can cost as much as a regular student’s tuition – and the most unfortunate point is that the media makes it all sound perfectly normal. By this trend, younger generations, including myself, automatically grow up believing that as soon as you become successful and prosperous, decorating yourself in luxury is the natural course of action. But why should this be so? What if it became the perception that success is an opportunity to engage in efficient consumption (affording any higher priced sustainable goods) and philanthropy?

As I indicated earlier, yes there are other reasons to why modern society can be considered materialistic and openly wasteful, but what might the effect be if role models, like some celebrities, took their place further and made a statement with cheap – or what the ‘Fashion Police‘ might call ugly – clothing instead? (Side note: actress Winona Ryder, once wore a $10 dress to the Oscars, preferring the “re-use” of clothing, instead of tossing it out after one event. If only this was a more common trend!) Expanding on that point – what if programs like the Fashion Police didn’t exist or instead criticized the opulence of the world’s ‘shiniest’ people?

Just a thought I wanted to share of my overall opinion of the yearly Oscar ‘phenomenon’. What are your thoughts on Oscar opulence? Are you surprised by that $35,000 number? Multiple that by at least the 30-40 mainstream celebrities that walk down that carpet each year – that’s a total of at least $1.2 million poured into that event annually, just in attire!

Last winter, I flew from one destination to another, without a conventional boarding pass for the first time. Everything I needed was on my phone. It was so simple and practical, I couldn’t understand why more people around me weren’t taking advantage of this super cool technology. Think of all the cost savings, not just in printing, but also in disposal that widespread use of this online pass could create!

More and more often, we’ve started to see the move from paper to digital, and it’s starting to mean big things for businesses embracing sustainability. First off, there are so many businesses today with offices that house more paper than they can handle, and according to The Paperless Project, within the U.S. there are close to 4 trillion documents being stored by business and government agencies – and the number keeps increasing. A U.S. Veteran Office in North Carolina, for instance, currently has so many documents on file that the floor in which the filing cabinets are  held is actually sinking.

Anyhow, not that this is a problem for every non-paperless office, but considering the costs of paper productivity – the time spent searching for files (averaged at 18 minutes), the cost of losing a file (averaged to $525), not to mention the potential fire hazard – it’s a wonder that the trend of the paperless office isn’t all that strong in the global business community (Source).

Secondly, the option of going paperless has also created an explosion of possibilities with regard to the options available going digital. For example, take the case of a school in Cambridge, UK that has started to make the move from textbooks to full on, virtual learning experiences. Through, the iTunes University app, this school has been able to educate a portion of its students (as the school isn’t entirely paperless yet) through “class customized” online textbooks that include an interactive edge. The school is creating its own “online library of lessons,” with interactive resources that include “video links and lesson notes, customized for the specific needs and speeds of their classes.” What’s more, there are “extension exercises and links” to further information and concepts. In a few years time, this school is also considering whether they’ll need to have textbooks printed at all.

As we all know – textbooks are incredibly expensive! so what would the cost savings look like on both ends, for the universities/schools that publish the books and the students who purchase them? With an example like this, why not make the switch to the paperless world.

However,  at the same time, it also makes me wonder whether there are other long-term costs to this switch worth considering – for instance, what evidence is there that the conventional method of studying in class, and using standardized textbook readings (online and still paperless) is less effective than a full-on, virtual classroom, in the long-run? If it was for one class, then I’d just compare it to a distance education course, but should the digital world really be an option for an entire curriculum, like this Cambridge school is trying to promote? And going further on that point, should limits then be set on just how far sustainable practices can take us, as a global community?

It’s no secret that along with the global warming crisis, water conservation is the next big concern that the world needs to watch out for. According to the recently released Global Risk Report, water is now one of the highest global risks (3rd after climate change and extreme weather events) faced by the international community, and for such a fundamentally significant resource to the existence of all living things on the planet – that’s a little too high for comfort.

First – let’s think about everything that we do/take for granted that isn’t helping. How many people do you know leave the tap on while they brush their teeth, or take ages in the shower just because they can, or have their sprinklers on all afternoon to keep their lawn looking ‘green’? It’s a habit most humans can’t seem to curb without some extended effort. In my opinion, as such an important resource to our everyday lives – water conservation begins first and foremost with behaviour change, and until that’s complete, a global movement in conservation will be hard to get going. And.. luckily, we know by experience, that this isn’t impossible.

Climate change, for instance, and the issues with global warming were brought up as early as the 1930s, but not until the 21st century have people begun, on a wide scale, to consider their carbon footprint. In grocery stores, it’s a rare sight to see a shopper in front of you at the cashier without a reusable bag, and out on the street, there are so many more bike-lanes taking over the main roads than ever before. 20 years ago, more bikes than cars on a road in Vancouver, for instance, would have been an unusual sight – but today, in 2014, it doesn’t sound all that strange, or impossible. Additionally, as we learn in this course, big brand companies today that don’t take the environment in to consideration when it comes to business planning are publicly chastised for not taking the proper, sustainable course of action. And, it’s now unusual to see a government administration or authority not have an ‘Environmental Action Plan’ on their agenda that doesn’t address global warming. 

But going back to water conservation, it sounds like this discussion has only been around for the last decade or so – do we have to wait another 70 years to get into the proper ‘habit’ of things? I’d like to think that we won’t need to, with so many major companies like H&M and Coca Cola, and even cities (ie. Toronto, Vancouver, Boston) taking a direct approach in ‘mitigating water risk’. But what do you think? When do you think we’ll actually start to see a global shift in the way we use our water, on the same level that we see the world take on the issue of climate change?

“Print if you must… but do it with love.” These words were  the subject of an email I received from Adobe Systems Incorporated. In it they advertised a new product known as Adobe LeanPrint, a sustainable solution to those with excessive printing needs.

How Adobe LeanPrint works is that it converts document layouts made on frequently used programs, like Microsoft Word, to a more optimal design, maximizing the amount of space on the page to reduce the number of pages in any document. The software also converts colour documents to equally presentable/pleasing black and white prints that enable users to manage their toner costs more efficiently. Adobe LeanPrint is positioned as a product intended to reduce energy consumption, save printing costs, and present businesses with a more sustainable option to their printing needs.

It boasts the ability to reduce costs by 50%, if implemented throughout the entire organization, and specifies that “[using their product] is good for you, and for the planet.”

Adobe should be praised for their innovative thinking, especially when curbing print and energy consumption is presumably a considerable issue for their business. As a creative software design company, most of their products probably require a printer to be of use to their customers. For being environmentally conscious and socially responsible of their carbon footprint, Adobe is another company that’s once again starting up the conversation on sustainability in printing/technology.

However, as they have made it clear that this product will reduce costs based on a company’s regular consumption habits, what happens when a company takes advantage of this sudden reduction of cost, like the elimination of a bottleneck in logistics, and decides to maximize on the new number of possible pages to print. Would Adobe then be helping to ‘save the planet’ or would they just be helping a company take advantage of a cost savings tool?

It’s a fair question, I think, but on further thought, here’s how I see it. I’m assuming that Adobe’s first intention in designing this product was to help companies with their printing costs – let’s create a more efficient product for our customers, so to speak. However, when it came to marketing the product, they realized the value in positioning the product as a ‘sustainable’ and an ‘environmentally-friendly’ solution – a tactic that would elevate their status as a socially responsible company and bring their products and services into the evoked set of socially conscious consumers. No matter what the case, whether this product will convince users to ‘save the planet’ or whether it should really be marketed with the words ‘save money’ instead, a massive software company taking a socially responsible stance on sustainability is a good sign.

For this post, I’ve decided to highlight a company that I believe is making a strong impact through its pure sustainable business practices.

Alter Eco is a small food company that represents the very best of a truly sustainable business, in my opinion, due to:

1) Global Outreach: The company aims for the very highest environmental and social standards, sourcing only Fair Trade commodities. Since its beginnings in 1998, the company is said to have changed the lives of thousands of struggling farmers around the world.

2) Carbon Footprint: Where the company imports its certifiably organic goods from afar – including from local farming communities in places such as Peru, Bolivia, and Thailand – it also makes the extended effort to offset its carbon emissions. For example, in Peru, the company paid cocoa farmers to plant thousands of teak trees which absorb carbon emissions, replenish soil, and offer additional income to farmers.

3) Green Packaging: Alter Eco uses bio-based, compostable packaging without any petroleum or chemicals included.

4) Green Awareness: Direct on the company’s website, Alter Eco makes visitors to its site aware of ‘greenwashing’ techniques by different companies

Below are two videos, one which describes one of Alter Eco’s products, and another which spotlights the company’s sustainable business practices:

• Alter Eco Organic Fair Trade Swiss Made Chocolate
• More on Alter Eco

A small company, however, Alter Eco sales topped just $10m in 2013, and though the company does expect a full increase of 44% in sales by the end of this year, it still has a long way to go to rival food giants like General Mills – which earned sales of nearly $18b last year. Always “pushing the envelope towards full sustainability,” as CEO Mathieu Senard has said, the company now hopes to reposition its brand to put it at the forefront of consumers minds – aiming to be associated not just for sustainability, but also quality.

Alter Eco truly embodies what companies looking to integrate sustainable practices into its business strategy are or should be striving for. And despite a minor curiosity on my part on how the words ‘compostable packaging’ apply to the thin aluminum foil wrapper of that ‘Swiss Made chocolate’ seen in the video, it’s great to see a company so transparent in its business practices, while also making an extended effort to improve or positively affect the communities it touches. If the company is also successful in adjusting its positioning to address quality as well as sustainability, then the potential to reach a larger consumer base of not just green-conscious individuals would be great step for not only the company, but also the greater global community.

Last year, Apple began its ‘Apple Recycling Program‘ that commits  to “finding the most efficient ways to reuse or recycle electronic equipment, including computers and displays from any manufacturer.”

In so many ways, this is a great program, especially looking at the rate at which computer technology has moved in the last decade. Households in nearly every major city around the world are very likely to see, if not the environmental impact, (definitely) the personal necessity of the program. Additionally, like other major corporations of the same influence, there can’t be anything too terrible about Apple beginning or re-engaging the conversation on recycling and computer waste management – issues likely to follow us for the next 20-30 years.

However, how responsible is their recycling? Because in true Apple marketing fashion – where a ‘less is more‘ idea is depended on for a successful campaign, details aren’t readily given. Just what is Apple’s process for the 3 R’s ‘Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle’? As noted in this Macworld blogpost by Adam Minter, “nothing is 100% recyclable,” and what can be recycled in an iPhone, as an example,  to be ‘reused’ in another new iPhone is really not as much as most people might think. According to Minter, from an iPhone’s touchscreen glass to it’s copper wires – some pieces are particularly difficult to be reprocessed for reuse.

So – although a program that promotes an important cause in recycling electronics – I can’t help but see the Apple Recycling Program as something similar to an ‘accentuate’ strategy. The company has produced 8 different iPhone models in less than 7 years (possibly 9 with the anticipated iPhone 6) and never implemented a ‘Recycle and Reuse’ program until 2013 (interesting how the word ‘reduce’ doesn’t follow in their message). What’s more, without further explanation on how exactly they are able to ‘reuse’ the Apple parts sustainably, how can I believe that I’m turning in my old iPhone to the right place. I might be more inclined to look into other recycling depots that would surely be able to recycle my phone’s parts, if not for another iPhone, at least for another product.

Just from my observation, this program could just be an attempt by Apple to ‘shed some green’ on its massive electronic producing engine. Nevertheless, as a giant in the computer and electronics industry, it’s still good to see Apple making some sort of sustainable response to its large production behaviour, and beyond some issues raised in this case, the company does employ a comprehensive approach to environmental responsibility.

Own a hybrid, buy an electric vehicle, lower your eco-footprint, and more importantly, save money at the gas pump – it’s a common and generally convincing argument made by most environmentally conscious consumers in today’s world.

However, with a cumulative number of 3 million hybrid vehicles sold in the United States out of 240 million currently registered car owners AND transportation accounting for just 31% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the country over all – is there really a difference being made by today’s green automotive consumers?

And by how much is each new hybrid or electric drive vehicle owner really going to be helping the environment?

These questions were put into perspective with the release of a new study conducted by North Carolina State University: “How Much Do Electric Drive Vehicles Matter to Future U.S. Emissions?”

As the study found, between now and 2050, “even if Electric Drive Vehicles (EDVs) made up 42 percent of passenger vehicles in the U.S., there would still be little or no reduction in the emissions of key air pollutants.” Higher emission producing power plants, essentially, will continue to effectively wipe out the benefits of EDVs or hybrid cars well into the next half century. However, though I found the logic to hold in the study’s findings, something that I thought might be worth questioning was this last concluding point:

“This study tells us that it makes more sense to set emissions reductions goals, rather than promote specific vehicle technologies with the idea that they’ll solve the problem on their own.”

From my own perspective, I’m inclined to think that, yes, it is very likely that if wide spread emission reduction goals were set and followed by all major industrial production facilities, a noticeable and accelerated reduction in carbon emissions would follow. However, that would only be looking at one side of the big picture. As we continue to discuss in class, ‘thinking green’ or promoting it has the potential to create shared value. By extension, promoting the use of green vehicles lends to that globally developing trend of living an environmentally conscious lifestyle, which in turn affects the actions of key decision makers that can include shareholders, managers, business executives, and policy makers.

So, even if the lasting environmental impact of increasing hybrid car purchases appears to be negligible – I would think that it’s still a cause worth promoting – or, in keeping with this blogpost’s title, worth fighting for.