Monthly Archives: March 2021

When it comes to the fast fashion industry and green marketing there are two things that come to my mind. One, the incredible amount of waste in raw materials and turnover in finished goods and two, the intense marketing efforts made by the industry as a whole. It’s no secret that the industry creates waste at every step of the supply chain whether it be the use of toxic dyes in the manufacturing process, the fossil fuels burned in the shipping process, or the fact that any piece of clothing will sit in a landfill for generations in the disposal process. In recent years, major fast fashion brands have seen a reckoning in the calls to boycott their brands, instead opting for more responsible consumption. The response from these fast fashion brands? – Create a new “green” product line.

Source: Elle

Two of the world’s biggest fast fashion giants H&M and Zara launched their eco fashion lines called Conscious and Join Life, in response to the growing consumer demands for sustainability. As UBC Sauder professor Katherine White says in her research, the consumer decision process is really beginning to shift, consumers are taking notice of sustainability and businesses to need know how to adapt. Taking these initiatives at face value, they may seem quite good. The companies are actually trying to take a step forward into reducing the impact of their products. H&M claims that the products from their line are made from at least 50% sustainably sourced materials. But, at the end of the day, what the heck does that mean?? These labels all sound good, but are they actually reducing impact? What does “Conscious” mean? What does “Join Life” mean? Look at the picture below! Does green automatically mean good?? To me it just seems very abstract titles to things that may not necessarily be good for the environment.

Source: H&M

This reminds me of one the class discussions we had with labelling, there are literally so many organizations and standards out there now, its really hard, especially for an average consumer to discern any meaning and difference between the various products on the market, what do they actually mean and how impactful are they? As it relates to fast fashion, I think following Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard‘s mantra is the best way forward, ignore all the fancy labels, green or not. Just simply consume less, and you’ll be doing the world a great favour.

For the past couple of years, I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Carol Liao speak in a variety of sustainability classes, roundtables, and events here at Sauder. Every time I have had the chance, I always learn something new. Having her come into COMM484 was no different. What the key thing I learned this time was the necessity of being an advocate in all fronts of any changing making process. I found this point to be particularly meaningful because I initially thought that the wins through litigation seemed very incremental and barely moved the needle in advancing higher standards for a more sustainable world and cleaner environment.What Carol said was that, sure litigation may be incremental, but it is also necessary to advance the cause. She said that whether it be through the litigation, legislation, protesting, applying labels (like the BCorp), or forming alliances (like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition) to innovate, it is necessary to attack a problem in all fronts. As someone who wants to make the most impact in the most efficient way as possible, this seemed counter-intuitive, but definitely changed my perspective.

Speaking of the law, just three days ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the carbon tax enacted by the Trudeau government is legal. This is significant and links to Carol’s lecture where she highlighted that the Supreme Court of Canada already recognizes climate change as pure fact, and does not need to be established in court. This ruling from the Supreme Court goes further to say that the federal government has a responsibility to address this issue by creating a tax and that this an issue of national importance. This is truly unprecedented in any western country and is a huge win for the Trudeau government’s climate agenda. So there may be hope after all and some good news in 2021!

Source: Government of Canada

On a personal note, as I finally graduate from Sauder after 5 years, I’ve been considering what my next steps would be and something thats in the back of my mind is law school. What I’ve learned at Sauder has been invaluable. I have been able to study how real businesses innovate to create efficient solutions as well as meaningful and sustainable change in society. However, having also minored in Political Science, I have also seen how government is able to step in an enact widespread regulation across industries. This is where I believe the law can create something meaningful, as a combination of the two that could really catalyze innovation and sustainability. So having Carol, a distinguished professor from UBC Allard Law come in to speak at this time was really insightful and helpful! After hearing her speak, I definitely see myself applying to law school and hopefully be able to make an impact afterwards.

Source: The Atlantic

I came across this Sauder study on my feed the other day and I immediately thought about COMM484. The simple fact that produce labelled as “ugly” or “unattractive” is able to sell more intrigued me. When I first came across this concept of “imperfect” produce I thought it was such a niche idea. The fact that produce that was bruised, mis-shapen, and did not fit the picture perfect advert was not sellable in groceries automatically meant an immense amount of food wastage. According to SPUD, 30% of fruits and vegetables in North America are rejected in super markets because they are not attractive enough. I had learned about SPUD, a local Vancouver social enterprise, in my first year when working under the UBC Social Enterprise Club, so this wasn’t a new idea to me.

However, what UBC Sauder found and what surprised me was that as long as the label was applied, this produce was in fact able to sell more. Once the label was applied, any hesitancy was eliminated, despite there not being any difference in nutritional value or taste. According to UBC Sauder PhD student Siddhanth Mookerjee, the label notifies consumers of their bias which increases willingness to buy, effectively de-biasing the consumer. I thought this was extremely interesting and closely related to our class – especially our Sustainable Consumer Behaviour and Communications class. Grocers are further able to target consumer behaviour, especially those who truly value sustainability, and in some cases charge a commanding premium. The study mentions that even though “ugly” produce was sold at a 25% discount, it was actually more profitable since the acquisition cost was lower than the conventional produce. By labelling produce as “ugly,” super markets are able to effectively communicate and make a credible sustainability claim since it is evidenced right away with the physical appearance of the produce. Furthermore, I believe that this process of communicating to consumers that produce that are misshapen taste the same and have the same nutritional value is part of the education process in that grocers are able de-myth any misconceptions. I found this study to be really interesting! What are your thoughts?