As sustainability marketers, we have to make value a priority of our marketing communications. It is absolutely crucial to the success of a product or initiative to be able to let consumers see the benefits that it provides. One common household fixture has lately been on my mind: toilets. Namely, low flush toilets.

Low flush toilets have been around for some time now, since the 1990’s. As we all know, low flush toilets are promoted for their reduction in water consumption when flushing, saving consumers money on their water bill and making them feel good for helping the environment by lowering their levels of water usage. These toilets were once met with much criticism for their inefficiencies, requiring a second or third flush to get the job done.

Naturally, the value consumers saw were the cost savings from decreased water utility bills. In Vancouver, water is a utility attached to property taxes. I’ve never heard of anyone receiving a bill for water, unlike for electricity and gas. In a city where water is abundant, are we then able to expect the same attitude towards water conservation? We see ample rainfall throughout the year. Water shortage isn’t exactly a concern readily on our minds. Vancouverites may not see the same cost value in saving water per flush, so we need to communicate instead the value in preserving the precious fresh water supply we have been blessed with.

Water conservation still remains a concern today, with climate changes causing droughts in areas where argiculture is now under threat. That issue hasn’t exactly hit close to home, yet. However, I was shocked to find that although commonly found low flush toilets use significantly less water than full-flush toilets, they still require several litres of water to make a single flush. One label on a low flush toilet during a recent visit to a newly renovated public restroom read that this toilet “only” used 4 litres per flush. 4 litres is still a lot of water!

“Effective October 3, 2011, the British Columbia Building Code regulation was amended to require the installation of 4.8 litre or less high-efficiency toilets and urinals in all new residential buildings and renovation projects involving toilet replacements in British Columbia.”

BC has made it the law for all new residential buildings to use water-efficient toilets, but there should be stricter regulations to use even less water per flush. It should also be made into a requirement for old, water-guzzling toilets in older residences to be retrofitted. In addition, this law only applies for residential buildings. Industrial, institutional, and commerical buildings are not yet required under law due to drainline issues, so currently their flush cycles use up to 6 litres of water. With all the emphasis on gas-guzzling vehicles, we should look into improving something we use more often daily. Have you ever wondered how many liters of water are used in toilets on campus? At restaurants? In your house? What other daily products do you think have been over shadowed?

Source(s):

http://www.rdosmaps.bc.ca/min_bylaws/building_inspect/forms/low_flow_brochure_withlogo.pdf

http://housing.gov.bc.ca/building/green/het/index.htm

Today in class we discussed companies partnering on sustainability initiatives. The collaboration I brought to discussion was Coca-Cola, P&G, Ford, Heinz, and Nike’s strategic alliance aimed at accelerating the development and use of 100% plant-based PET materials and fibers in consumer products and focusing on petroleum-free alternatives. They call themselves the Plant PET Technology Collaborative (PTC). In case you’re not familiar with what PET is, here’s a definition from Sustainable Brands:

“PET, also known as polyethylene terephthalate, is a durable, lightweight plastic that is used in a variety of products and materials including plastic bottles, apparel, footwear and automotive fabric and carpet.”

So far, we’ve come across partially plant-based PET bottles, “PlantBottle”, on store shelves thanks to Coca-Cola’s pioneering efforts. However, while 100% plant-based PET is actually possible with current technologies, it isn’t yet commercially viable, meaning it’s too costly to produce on a large-scale basis.

Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle packaging has 30% of its plastic derived from sugarcane and molasses, which reduces up to 25% of carbon emissions compared to conventional PET plastic (which uses a significant amount of fossil fuels, water, and energy). Heinz has already licensed the technology for use in some of its ketchup bottles. Nike plans on leveraging the technology to create plant-based fibers for use in althetic apparel. I predict P&G would begin applying the technology first to the many containers of their CPG products that heavily use plastic.

These companies are not in competing sectors, which of course, is what allowed them to team up for improving this technology for the benefit of the environment, but more importantly, for their individual competitive advantages. No matter how the alliance came about, we’re happy to see companies working together to improve business practices for the benefit of the environment and Earth’s future.

“According to a release, PTC members aim to drive the development of common methodologies and standards for the use of plant-based plastic including life cycle analyses and universal terminology.”

This quote is a perfect example demonstrating the advantages of sustainability partnerships. By collaborating resources to develop technology and set common standards and terminology, the global marketplace will not only receive a better result faster, but also benefit from a clear consensus of what plant-based PET really is, how it benefits the environment, and why consumers should choose it. I can’t wait for the day that plant-based PET products completely replace conventional PET products on our store shelves.

Source(s):

http://www.ecouterre.com/nike-coca-cola-pg-team-up-to-boost-100-plant-based-pet-plastic/

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/collaboration/coke-ford-heinz-nike-pg-collaborate-plant-based-pet

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20140204/NEWS/140209984/a-commercially-viable-100-percent-plant-based-pet-bottle-may-be-near

It’s not news that voting begins next week for increasing transit funding in the Metro Vancouver area in the form of a new consumer tax. The question on these mail-in ballots ask votes: “Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayors’ Council transportation and transit plan?”

It’s a controversial topic, with heavy cases supporting both the “yes” side and the “no” side. Apparently, as a student, I should be voting yes, but to be honest, I don’t have much of an opinion on this matter from that standpoint, because I don’t have the confidence in Translink as a company to make good use of that funding. However, I do support transit in general as a mode of transportation.

Public transit, as we all know, benefits the environment. It improves our surrounding air quality by lowering air pollution and reducing road congestion. Quality, accessible transit attracts users, meaning fewer cars on the road, leading to cleaner air. Here’s some statistics quoted from the Divison of Waste and Hazardous Substances of the State of Delaware:

• Buses emit only 20% as much carbon monoxide per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto.
• Buses emit only 10% as many hydrocarbons per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto (hydrocarbons are VOCs – an ozone precursor).
• Buses emit only 75% as many nitrogen oxides (another ozone precursor) per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto.
• Trains emit only 25% as many nitrogen oxides per passenger mile as a single-occupant auto, and nearly 100% less hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides.

VOCs stands for volatile organic compounds, which, of course, are harmful to our environment. Another blog article I found had even more optimistic projections for the emissions reductions transit alleviates in comparison to cars.

As you can see, transit is far superior for the environment than a car. Transit reduces overall energy usage and conserves energy, that is, if sufficient ridership exists for transit to truly be fuel-efficient. (A bus transporting 1 rider doesn’t make any sense.) The number of passengers on a bus impacts the effectiveness of transit. So the more users of transit, the more positive the effect, and the better proof of why public transit is necessary in any community.

Public transit also reduces the need for roads and freeways, allowing for more green space (or reducing the need to destroy existing green space to accommodate for city development). And of course, transit is less costly! For the general public, that means they have more dollars in their wallets. These funds could go towards opting to purchase more environmentally friendly products, which, at the moment, tend to cost more than traditional products. That money can also go towards supporting green initiatives or charities.

The case for improving transit has been made over and over (not just in Vancouver) and I honestly hope that although Canada isn’t a population dense country, we can see the need towards better transit in order to protect our environment for a better future. We should always take transit whenever possible! (Now we just need a more reliable transit system to convince Vancouverites of that.)

Source(s):

http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/transitwindsor/rider-programs/green-initiatives/pages/environmental-benefits-of-transit.aspx

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/dwhs/info/Pages/OzonePublicTrans.aspx

http://acogblog.org/2013/11/14/why-transit-matters-environment/

http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/facts_environment_09.pdf

An article we read for class on the 7 Sins of Greenwashing piqued my interest on the variety of companies I could find committing those sins. Naturally, great marketing efforts effectively persuade consumers to overlook the faults of their product and message.

The ability to recognize against these greenwashing sins gives us the opportunity to reject purchasing these products as smarter consumers. Two sins I feel are the most important to see through.

Sin of Vagueness: My immediate first thought to this sin was all of the companies touting “natural” or “wholesome” food products. I realize that consumers often more apply this to the quality of an ingredient than the sustainability aspect of food sourcing, but that term is used so extensive in green marketing jargon that consumers don’t essentially see a difference. As someone who has been heavily involved in shopping for her household CPGs for the past 5 to 6 years, (I’m the one who keeps track of sales and restocking in my family. I coupon too, yeah, call me old) the claims of all-natural or wholesome products I’ve seen way too many of. (i.e. “Made with natural ingredients” or “Made with naturally-sourced ingredients”.) Consumers don’t really know what that means. There’s no true definition for the word “natural”. Consumers believe that they are making a positive purchase when the truth is just shrouded by a generic word with no basis for claims. How about “biodegradable”? While there are specific guidelines for what constitutes as biodegradeable, it doesn’t help when there are no collection programs for biodegrading products. Not everyone is aware that biodegradeable products cannot just be thrown in the compost. There are regulations for what is accepted by every municipal waste disposal program. If the product doesn’t belong, it still ends up in the landfill. So then what was the point of your green purchase?

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: We are easily directed into focusing on the green aspects discussed on labels that we neglect those that aren’t spoken of. Here’s an ironic example: bottled water. No matter how bottled water brands try to convince consumers of how sustainable they are being with “ethically-sourced” water and “sustainable” plastic water bottles, the truth is, a lot of resources, especially water, go into producing these plastic bottles. The irony is that tons and tons of water go into producing plastic bottles meant for bottling water. Consider all the water that has gone into production of a product meant to contain itself. I feel there needs to be a PSA on bottled water. Personally, I feel strongly against this product category. If we eliminated bottled water, couldn’t there be an increased supply of water for other industries, or for, hmm, drinking?

This CBC article provides some very good examples of greenwashed household products, you should definitely get familiar with some of the common claims in the marketplace! And while you’re at it, also check out this list of top 25 greenwashed products in America.

Source(s):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/10-worst-household-products-for-greenwashing-1.1200620

http://sinsofgreenwashing.com/findings/the-seven-sins/

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-top-25-greenwashed-products-in-america/