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.