Vermont based company, Keurig Green Mountain, has captured the mass market with its innovative brewing system originally known as the Keurig 2.0. This system is filled with “K Cups” pods, each containing 11 grams of coffee, perfect for a quick cup of coffee in the morning or at night. It was genius; the pods were convenient, affordable and easy to use. Customers were buying them by the hundreds. Keurig, although profitable, has some not so positive qualities.
Statistics show that by 2014, enough Keurig was sold that if placed end to end; they would circle the world 10.5 times. Each Keurig after being used was being thrown into a landfill, as this product was at first non-recyclable and then only recyclable if the product was dismantled completely. The environmental impacts were horrifying.
Like we learnt in class though studying consumer behaviour, many Keurig users did not want to know about the impact their purchasing behaviour had on the environment. They would rather benefit from the convenience of the product, and simply throw their Keurig away where they would seemingly disappear from their lives. However, eventually the product became to harmful to ignore. Many customers stopped purchasing a Keurig, however innovative entrepreneurs took it one step further, sensing an opportunity.
David Footz is one of those innovative. Footz founded the company G-Pak in 2014. G-Pak is the first 100% compostable Keurig pod made up of renewable materials; even the packaging is fully sustainable. For even more details on this innovative product visit: https://www.getgpak.com/.
Although I believe that what companies like Footz’s is great for the environment, I wonder, if an opportunity to do something good is created from doing bad, is that actions actually producing improvement? Or is it simply fixing what was done in the past? For example this company was built out of harm, not unlike many social ventures. Is G-Pak considered environmentally aware, or is it just simply protecting the planet from harm?
joellim
April 8, 2016 — 6:35 am
Excellent post, Daniel! Perhaps, as long as there exists economic opportunity, we can reasonably expect sustainable solutions to be conceived to remedy flawed or wasteful products. I wonder if Keurig would have stepped in to revise their product, had David Footz not taken the initiative with G-Pak. Also, it’s interesting to me that David Footz did not encounter any lawsuit difficulties with his revision of Keurig’s product.
The main question is: did David Footz act out of genuine concern for the planet, or to capitalize on a lucrative opportunity? We may not know for sure – Footz could declare that his prompt to action was out of concern for sustainability, or not; regardless, he will profit off his enterprise. To follow, I present to you an optimistic assessment of this situation: regardless of his reasons, the world is provided a sustainable alternative to Keurig’s cups. I feel this is usually a nice way for me to conclude questions of this nature, without becoming cynical. Thanks for sharing!