Is “sustainability” the new “no slave labor” movement? And what’s up with carbon offsets?

Sustainable    Eco-Friendly   

Vegan    Zero Waste    Regenerative

Circular    Carbon Neutral 

Carbon Negative    Climate Positive

(duh.) 

It’s no secret that there have been an onslaught of new marketing terms entering the mainstream in recent years. Words and phrases aimed at marketing to conscious consumers have flooded the market, some of which with better intentions than others. Many of these claims often amount to greenwashing, while others are flat out incorrect.

The purpose of this case study is not to shed light on each of these individual terms, but rather to question whether we should be using some of them at all. This case study also serves to examine the phenomenon of carbon offsets, and the role they play in helping or hindering our climate goals.

Let’s start by talking about the word sustainability. What does it actually mean? Similar to words such as happiness and health, it means different things to different people, and there is no universal metric to measure it. Because of this, there is also no standard in the marketplace for what qualifies as sustainable, and any company can market themselves in this way without ever putting in the work to figure out what that should actually mean. To a fossil fuel company, building a new pipeline to “replace” an old, decaying one is sustainable. To the people protecting the land and the water, it is the exact opposite.

Combine all this with the fact that most consumers have no idea what the word “sustainability” even means and simply want to feel good about the products that they purchase, and it becomes clear that the word “sustainable” is just a feel-good marketing term that gives people the impression that what they are buying is somehow good for humanity, animals, and the planet. This often couldn’t be further from the truth, as the most sustainable thing to do is to not buy anything new at all and live a life of austerity, but of course that is not a desirable solution. So, we’re left thinking about ways to position and market ourselves that don’t involve ambiguous terms like “sustainable.”

There is also the fact that nearly every company in America now has some sort of sustainability tab on their website explaining their commitment to the environment and doing good in the world. Even Shell has a sustainability tab  front and center on their website which explains how “respecting nature” is one of their “core values.” The word “sustainability" is utterly meaningless when used in this context.

So, everyone is calling themselves sustainable now. Sustainability is expected. But let’s take a look at a company like H&M’s stance on human rights and slave labor to drive home the point of why words are not enough. We can probably all agree that slave labor is highly unethical and unacceptable. We can also probably agree that it is obvious that companies should be committed to not using any slave labor to create their products. However, when examining H&M’s supply chain, it becomes clear that this commitment to basic human rights is not being met.

In an effort to increase transparency, H&M has disclosed a list of factories they source from. This is to ensure that factory workers are treated humanely  and compensated fairly and that there is no forced labor occurring. However, a deeper dive into the actual political economy of H&M’s factories reveals that not only is their entire transparency report basically an elaborate scam, but they are also sourcing from black market factories that never made it into their public accounting. Despite all their efforts towards transparency and worker rights, it still is not enough and is, in fact, grossly inadequate.

So, saying that a company cares about sustainability or human rights is not enough. What is the way forward, then? It is helpful to be specific. In terms of sustainability, companies should explain to consumers why they are sustainable and why they can feel good about buying their products. One way companies are doing this now is by disclosing their carbon footprints.

As with any developing ideas, it is good to define things in ways that are easily understandable given the present context. For the purpose of this case study, the following definitions will be used:

CARBON OFFSET – an action that compensates for CO2 emissions by avoiding or removing them elsewhere

CARBON REMOVAL – a subset of carbon offsets; an action that compensates for CO2 emissions by removing them elsewhere

Now, let’s examine the term “carbon neutral.” What does this actually mean? Typically speaking, it means that a company offsets as much CO2 as it emits. But this is where the term becomes misleading and even dangerous, because companies can claim that they are carbon neutral without ever implementing  any changes to their business models. By simply paying other people not to cut down trees or burn coal, for example, they can continue on with business as usual with only a small disturbance to their financial revenues. It’s like stealing candy from a baby and then paying other people not to steal candy from a baby as well.

In many cases, carbon offsets have no effect on total emissions and may even result in more emissions if the actions taken prove to be ineffective in any way. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and REDD+ offsets typically do not actually remove any CO2 from the atmosphere (source). They simply pay other people not to emit CO2. The problem is that almost anything can be considered a carbon offset, and double counting is a major problem as many offsets are claimed multiple times. With the amount of carbon offsets being created out of thin air and the lack of accountability in the space, claiming that these actions are “offsetting” anything is incredibly misleading. 

Now, let’s examine the term “carbon negative.” Similar to the term “carbon neutral,” it means that a company offsets more CO2 than it emits. The trend I have noticed with this term is that companies who are using it are far more serious about their carbon footprints. This can be seen in their commitment to changing their own business practices and  actually removing carbon from the atmosphere, not just purchasing standard offsets.

Pollima is a great example of a company that is committed to becoming carbon negative as well as carefully considering any offsets it may need to purchase to ensure that they are actually removing carbon from the atmosphere and not just avoiding adding more. By using hemp agricultural waste as our main input, we prevent plant matter from decomposing and re-releasing much of the CO2 it captured during the growing season. For every one pound of hemp, 1.73 pounds of CO2 are sequestered, meaning that after all is said and done, the entire process of manufacturing our furniture will be carbon negative.

In our rudimentary Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), we have found that when accounting for our Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions, we will be carbon negative. When accounting for our Scope 3 (indirect) emissions, we may still be carbon negative without needing to purchase additional carbon removal offsets, but that remains to be seen once we get closer to bringing our product to market and can begin to conduct a formal LCA.

There is a lot of work to be done in creating the world we want to see and overcoming the worst effects climate change. I will admit that I am not hopeful about the future in terms of sustainability and carbon offsetting given the current trend. In a world where direct human rights abuses are still rampant, why would indirect human rights abuses through neglectful corporate environmental policy be any different? It’s the same game on a broader scale. And that is why I am here to shed light on these realities and cast vision for a better path forward. We can do better. Many of us are doing better. All it takes is one person to make a difference, and collectively we will. We already are.