In Mexico, the use of electric cars is just starting to become a reality. Only a very few percentage of the population have access to this vehicles and use them. As part of their commitment with the environment, BMW Group Mexico, CFE (Federal Electricity Commission), Schneider Electric, and Walmart Mexico, established a strategic alliance to install the first public electric vehicle charging stations in 4 Walmart stores located in Mexico’s Valley with the objective of providing commodity and accessibility to low ecological impact car owners while they visit such shopping centers.

Almost everything in this alliance makes sense to me. BMW is promoting its BMW i sub-brand focused on electric and hybrid cars with the highest technology. They’re the “fairy godmother” in this project because they strongly stand for this cause, are totally committed, have the knowledge, and are making whatever it’s needed to make people take care of the environment by using their cars.  Schneider Electric, the experts in energy management are contributing to make sure the charging stations work and are sourced from renewable sources. Not only they’re helping but they’re benefiting by positioning themselves as the knowledge leaders and pioneers of this huge change in Mexico and will be looked up to by other companies when they decide to install this stations on their own parking lots. CFE is playing the regulator role and making sure that the project meets the government requirements and matches the rest of the efforts being done for the whole country. And then there’s Walmart. Why Walmart? According to the news article, “contributing to improve Mexicans’ life quality through actions supporting sustainability” is one of Walmart Mexico’s main objectives. Even though I don’t 100% believe in the genuineness of this statement, let’s suppose it is true. But then, even though Walmart would fit this alliance because of its values and objective, I don’t see how the campaign and efforts are targeted correctly. BMW cars are highly priced because of their technology. People who buy this kind of cars don’t match the profile of people who shop at Walmart, which is considered a low quality supermarket chain in Mexico. I don’t see how this electric vehicle car owners will decide to make this huge switch in supermarket preferences just because of the gas stations, unless they have an emergency. I think It would have been better to partner with a high-end brand (for example HEB, Costco, Palacio de Hierro) because otherwise, people who can’t really afford this kind of vehicles will be aware but won’t be able to really take action and join the cause.

Rain is a free resource of which we have not made the best use of. According to a research done by Drexel University, cities such as Seattle, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago might be able to reduce 100% of their municipal water consumption thanks to the heavy amount of rain they receive each year.

How can this be?

According to the study, toilet flushing is the biggest use of water in households in the United States, accounting for nearly 1/3rd of potable water use. Today, we are using this clean, treated, municipal water to flush our toilets and there’s no reason why this should be done when rainwater could do the exact same job.

There has been plenty of people developing systems to catch rain for multiple uses but not for toilet flushing, and today, researchers are finding a way to make this water catching process systematically in urban areas in order to ease stresses on watersheds, drainage infrastructure, distribution systems and potable water treatment. They will be testing in the 4 previously mentioned main  cities to see if the project is feasible and also to forecast what effects this could have on the water supply and demand, on business environment and also if it will cause stormwater runoff in those cities. “Taking into consideration the cities’ annual rainfall patterns, residential population and roof areas, the team calculated that, with enough water storage capacity — a little more than a standard 1,000-gallon home storage tank — a three person family in a home with the city’s average roof size would have enough water to cover over 80 percent of its flushes throughout the year simply by diverting their downspouts to collect stormwater.”

I believe this is a great initiative, specially because it involves the government’s support and when this happens, the model could be more easily implemented in other countries in the world. It is great that people are finding this huge gaps where we can reuse water in a convenient but also massive way so it creates a bigger and faster positive impact. What I’m skeptical about is the fact that in order to make this huge change, every household toilet system will need to be changed and I wonder how much pipe waste this will generate and also how much material will be used to create the new systems to be implemented for this to work. Hopefully, researchers will find a way in which actual pipes don’t need to be switched, but just modified, and also production of materials needed to make this systems won’t damage the environment and are will be made of recyclable materials as well.

Finding unethical and unsustainable business’ practices may be hard sometimes because some companies are located in remote areas that are not very accessible. Today, different technologies facilitate this, and one specific tool to do it are the DRONES.

This video shows a footage of a pig’s farm, where their waste is being flashed into an open air pit, which is not only environmentally damaging, but also, that pit needs to be emptied every time it’s filled up. To achieve this, what the fabric does is that it sprays the liquid waste! This means that all this waste is drifted down with the wind that reaches the neighbours around it. The whole process is not only damaging for neighbours, but also for employees and pigs being captivated there, which will eventually provide food products that people will eat. This has caused asthma and diseases in children and has also affected people’s blood pressure. Not only waste is causing damage, but also pigs are being abused by having them clustered in very small spaces.

According to the video, Smithfield Foods is the largest pork producer in the entire world. If we have allowed such a huge company to cause all this damage, how can we ask smaller companies to incur in socially responsible practices and sustainable processes when they might not even have the capital to develop technologies that allow it? Thanks to this video, we can now demand for this industry leader to make a change that hopefully, smaller factories will copy, for their business’ sake and also for people. If it had not been for this drone video footage, concern might not have been raised to make society, other companies, or even the government, aware about this. It’s great that somebody took the decision to do research on this issue in order to provide real evidence and make us conscious that this kind of practices exist.

I guess my point here is that, thanks to technology, it’s becoming harder for companies to hide this kind of unsustainable practices and we should make use of these tools to show them we are now aware of it and we are willing to demand a change. Not even the biggest company will be able to ignore a massive claim from society and this massiveness can now be easily achieved through technology and social media.

 Measuring sustainability’s success might be a hard thing to do, specially for companies that are starting to adapt this concept to their business model and daily operations. In 2013, Sustainable Brands asked for CEO’s, VP’s, Board Members, and CFO’s to contribute with the research and definition of this metrics. But meanwhile, they stated that metrics to measure success of any sustainability innitiative are not only quantitative, but also the ones that help frame the context of how and where organisations operate and interact inside society and the earth. They stated that the following categories of impact are outlined in HIP (Human,Impact, Profit) Investor’s methodologies for rating and ranking sustainability:

1. HEALTH

Refers to the mental and physical health and quality of life of staff. It also considers employee engagement and staff satisfaction indicators. I believe this measure is important because people are part of the working ecosystem and, if working conditions are not adequate, it is harder, or even contradictory to claim having a sustainable business model.

    2. WEALTH

Refers to the growing income and wealth of employees and contractors. It can be measured by analyzing the ratio of CEO pay to all staff pay. I believe this is an important metric because it indicates balance between effort/work and reward. It makes sure that the increasing work and effort shows a proportional increase in wealth and income of the people involved. If this is not proportional, they are putting much more than what they are receiving back from that extra effort, and that is not a sustainable model because it means that what it’s being done is not working that well.

    3. EARTH

Refers to the reduction or optimisation of natural resource usage. This includes the use of water, clean air, and also carbon/greenhouse-gas intensities, land and waste metrics, and lifecycle analysis ratings. Natural resources are a key element of a sustainable strategy and I believe this is the most important metric of all, because taking care of the usage of these elements is what marks the difference in taking care of the planet while also optimising and making better (probably less costly) the businesses’ processes and operations. If natural resources where not being damaged or becoming extinct, there would not be need to create sustainable strategies. Of course I’m not saying these are the only important metrics for sustainable success, but without them, it’s harder to relate the rest of the metrics to the main objective: take care of the environment.

     4. EQUALITY:

Refers to the opportunity given to diverse staff or employees to lead and contribute to the company as well as to serve a global population across countries and income levels. I think this is relevant because it takes into account ethnicities, socio-economic status, and gender equality. As mentioned before, people are part of the ecosystem and it’s important to be inclusive in every aspect to make sure that the companies’ efforts are being reached to everyone and not just to an exclusive group. If one group of people is benefited but the rest of the society is not, then we’re not being sustainable or taking care of the environment because the earth and the ecosystem is composed of all of us and when one part of the group is not ok, then it affects the rest of the groups in so many different levels. Companies need to make sure that with their green strategies they’re not making trade-offs than, even they benefit a certain group, damage another one.

     5. TRUST

Refers to ethical and transparent behaviours meaning that every bit of information received and given is reliable so it is possible to trust the data for further analysis. If the data used is based on lies or is not completely accurate, then the strategies or conclusions based on this will not be accurate and wise; they’ll be based on fake facts and this could affect things in a negative way, and possibly make things even worse.

Of course these are very general metrics to measure sustainability success but they help to get a big picture of what it means to succeed and in this area and the factors and elements that need to be considered and that interact with each other, making them dependent on each other.

I read this petition from Sum of Us that asks people to sign up to ask Apple not to take action in their plans to change the 3.5mm headphone jack when it releases the iPhone 7 later in this year. The concern is that this change will force users to buy new headphones causing a massive creation of electronic waste due to the fact that the iPhone7 owners will no longer be able to plug in their past earphones to their new smartphone.

 According to the United Nations, up to 90% of the world’s electronic waste is illegally traded or dumped each year. This is an alerting number and Apple, by being such a huge and international company will cause an enormous negative impact by implementing this strategy. Unless the company decides to do something to counteract this, tons of electronic waste will be exponentially added to the world in a matter of 1-2 months.

I don’t know exactly how many users will actually need to buy new headphones because maybe not all iPhone 7 users use headphones as well, but the point I want to make here is that big companies such as Apple that are keystone players on an industry’s ecosystem should take care of their decisions and consider how one of their moves (maybe just aimed to be more innovative) can actually cause damage. If this new feature is released for iPhone 7, probably the competition will make the change as well so their smartphones are compatible with the newest designs of headphones that will be created for Apple’s phone. This will increase even more the electronic waste that will be created, not even to mention all the new machinery, technology and packing supplies that will be needed to make this little change.

As a keystone player, I think Apple should take a second thought about this and analyse it thoroughly to see if the benefit it will take (for itself, for the industry, and for the environment) from this innovation will be higher that the damage it will cause. It’s also good and great that customers are also aware of this and are raising their voice even though they know this is a huge player that might be hard to talk to. Communities gathered by a cause can be very strong and, if they’re right and show their concerns effectively, they are capable of changing big companies’ course, because sometimes even this big players can make mistakes and need some word of advice.

It’s time that we stop begging people to take care of the environment.

Some people don’t even care, or maybe others are too lazy to get informed about the damage we are capable of causing to the planet and us when not taking care of our actions and decisions. Asking people to recycle, to not throw trash in the ocean or in the streets is not useful anymore; everyone asks for it so much, that we don’t even pay attention anymore to those requests.

Signs and campaigns like this one:

were probably effective 8 years ago. Today, we need to stop begging and start showing how not caring directly affects each one of us.

This ad from Surfrider Foundation has a number of key elements that make a good call to action for everyone out there. Let’s analyse it.

1. It has a great catch line: mentioning the word “YOU” makes the message much more stronger due to the fact that it’s directly talking to the reader and makes them feel more involved in whatever the message has to say.
2. It’s relatable: people know sushi and how it is supposed to look. This is not sushi that we would it because we know those ingredients are not good for our digestive system or don’t even taste good. By relating something we know (sushi) to something we don’t totally get yet, or are not totally aware of, (consequences of throwing garbage to the ocean) it makes the message so much stronger and it shows directly how if we don’t do what the message is asking for, we will be affected.
3. It leaves a stronger impact: by using fear to make audiences aware, the emotion is stronger than if a positive connotation was used. Our brains tend to be more attentive to negative stimulus like fear and that helps to convince people to take action: “if you don’t take care of the ocean, this bad thing will happen to YOU”
4. Contains more detailed information: for those who want to know more and make the time to read the whole ad. It also includes the logos of the association in case they would like to contact them.

In case you’re not familiar yet with marketing strategies that can be used for sustainability topics in companies, there is actually a very useful matrix called The Green Marketing Strategy Matrix that helps understand how companies need to first consider the likely size of the green market in their industry as well as their ability to differentiate their products on “greenness” from competitors, before choosing an action plan, or marketing strategy.

The matrix shows 4 different paths to take but this post is focused on the Defensive Green strategy.

It is well known that green is becoming more and more trending and that, as consumers become more aware of it, companies are trying more and more to be recognized as green and environmental friendly. Why? Because they know green is becoming a must in order to be accepted and supported, not only by customers, but also by investors, supporting companies and even the government.

Sure everyone is trying to make an effort in becoming green and sustainable, but not everyone has the knowledge, time and capital to become 100% sustainable from one day to another.  This is why I believe that most of the companies can be categorized under the “Defensive Green” strategy of the matrix, because, even though they are trying to add to the cause, they don’t publicize their green activities much beyond their Web sites, or, instead of claiming themselves as green companies, they decide to occasionally sponsor environmentally friendly events and programs that match their essence. They know they’re not able to maintain a 100% green reputation, so they don’t shout out about their green efforts so loudly.

I looked at Cult’s list of top-50 brands deemed authentically and resolutely “green” by their own customers and found that most of the companies listed there are in fact taking a Defensive Green Strategy.

One example is Kohl’s. It is pulling efforts in trying to reduce plastic bag usage and to encourage customers to recycle them and it’s also working with its supply chain partners to leave a green mark. They don’t advertise themselves as a green retail shop, or as the most sustainable company in clothing. They simply make an effort and put it on their website in order to inform those who are interested in making a change and eventually push customers, with occasional campaigns, to contribute to this cause.

I’m happy that companies are eventually joining the green train but I would love them to be more active about it and not just do something when it’s convenient for them or when they feel like it’s profitable to contribute. I know it takes time, people, money and technology to develop bigger and better sustainable practices but I would love it if companies started to be able to use the Extreme Green or Shaded Green strategies. Of course it takes a two-way collaboration (customers-companies) to achieve this but I think it will soon be possible when more CEO’s start realizing the importance of this and decide to invest more efforts on it.

Sustainability is a well sounded word now a days and it’s important to understand what it means and question what this concept covers and until where it reaches. In this entry, I’d like to give a general introduction to what the whole concept means.

Let’s start by going with the simplest definition of the word, which basically describes itself: Sustain + Ability, meaning that something is able, or has the capability, to be sustained, upheld, or confirmed. To me, this means that something is capable of existing by itself without the help of any other external factors that support its existence over time; it means that something is independent and it only needs to keep its own system working in order to stay alive. Based on this definition, we can think any fountain as of being a sustainable thing, right?

You build the structure, design the pumping system, put some water on it, and voilà! It is independent because it doesn’t require someone refilling the water because it’s not being used again, or it doesn’t require someone to pump up the water to the upper part of the fountain again because it doesn’t have a system that does it. This fountain, as long as all the parts of its system keep working, will never stop running, meaning it is sustainable, it is able to uphold itself.

WRONG! Truth is, that there are much more aspects that need to be considered in order to claim that a fountain is sustainable.

For example, let’s think about about the water source, the materials used to create the fountain, and the energy that supplies, holds, and puts water in motion. All of these things have an environmental impact. Let’s say that the fountain’s pump requires tons of energy to keep working. This translates in CO2 emissions that damage the environment. Or let’s say that the material used to build the fountain was sourced from a factory that uses toxic procedures, or maybe they were sourced from destructing a natural area.

When talking about sustainability we need to consider other factors such as people, resources, ecosystems and the relationship between them or their components, processes, economy, nature and technology, among others.

Taking that into account, how can a fountain be sustainable then? Here’s an example:

Read more about it

Now that we know that the basic definition is not enough, I would like to share one of the most complete definitions I found about sustainability and that I think covers all aspects of the word:

Sustainability is defined as: “the physical development and institutional operating practices that meet the needs of present users without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, particularly with regard to use and waste of natural resources. Sustainable practices support ecological, human, and economic health and vitality. Sustainability presumes that resources are finite, and should be used conservatively and wisely with a view to long-term priorities and consequences of the ways in which resources are used.- UCLA Sustainability Committee

Now we know sustainability is not only about being able to “survive” or to be able to have a system that works by itself; it’s also about everything that surrounds it and that makes it work; it’s about the people that were involved in it’s creation before, during and after the production process; it’s about satisfying needs in a harmless way and it’s about taking care of our planet and everything that conforms it because we only have one and we need to conserve it.

Sources:

EPA. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Land Learn. What is Sustainability? http://www.landlearnnsw.org.au/sustainability/what-is-sustainability

Dictionary. Sustainability http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sustainability

UCLA. What is Sustainability? http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/about-us/what-is-sustainability/

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!