2Sustain

Last week, I discussed how Nike and Puma have pledged to eliminate the release of all hazardous chemicals across their supply chains (and now adidas has made a similar commitment).

It’s too early to know what impact these new initiatives will have on manufacturing costs. But, if making sustainable apparel costs more and those costs are passed on to consumers, how will Nike, Puma and adidas customers react?  A new study from the University of Missouri offers some insights.

Gargi Bhaduri, a doctoral student, and Jung Ha-Brookshire, an assistant professor of textile and apparel management in the College of Human Environmental Sciences at the University of Missouri, surveyed apparel consumers to find out if they were willing to pay a premium for products made using sustainable and ethical methods.

They found that consumers would be willing to pay 15 to 20 percent more for “eco-friendly” products. However, they also found that consumers were also likely to remain skeptical about apparel companies’ claims of transparency and sustainability.

Consumer skepticism of corporate transparency stems from the suspicion that sustainability claims are falsified or exaggerated by apparel companies for use as marketing ploys. In other words, greenwashing persists as a significant, and nagging, problem. Before they buy sustainable apparel, savvy consumers feel the need for assurances such as: (more…)

For years now, sustainability advocates have urged manufacturers to use carbon footprint labels on consumer products. These labels would show the volume of greenhouse gasses emitted during a product’s lifecycle, so that consumers could make more educated choices based on the environmental impact of the products they buy.

And, as a result of these efforts, carbon footprint labels are in use in a few limited areas. For instance, the Carbon Trust has established carbon footprint labels for some products in the UK. (See earlier posts about Walkers crisps and the UK dairy sector, e.g.) But, the idea has never really caught on in the US.

Michael Vandenbergh, environmental law professor at Vanderbilt Law School and director of the Climate Change Research Network, Thomas Dietz of Michigan State University and Paul Stern of the US National Research Council would like to see that change.

In their commentary, recently published in the premier issue of the journal Nature Climate Change, the three argue that adding carbon labels to products has benefits for both consumers and manufacturers alike. Carbon footprint product labels allow consumers to choose a product based on its lower carbon footprint. That, in turn, may influence how businesses produce, package and transport products, leading to even lower carbon emissions. Plus, as I have pointed before, greening the supply chain in these ways can lead to significant financial benefits to companies, as well. (more…)

Are businesses underestimating consumer interest and awareness in green issues?

A recent study from independent research from TÜV SÜD Asia Pacific suggests that they are –at least in China, India and Singapore where the study was conducted.

The study, billed as the first to investigate, compare and contrast consumer and corporate attitudes to green products, services, policies, and certifications in Asia, revealed that: (more…)

A survey conducted a few months ago by the Boston-based company Cone adds to the growing body of evidence showing that consumers continue to buy environmentally responsible products, despite the downturn in the economy.

(more…)