Free Guide Shows Nike, Coke Fighting Climate Change
Pepsi or Coke? Levi’s or Gap? Mac or PC?
Our consumer choices make a difference for the climate. Choosing a Big Mac over a Whopper, or picking a Dell over an Apple may help to slow climate change, suggests a new consumer guide. That’s because McDonald’s and Dell made the “good list” (though not the “great list”) of companies that are taking actions to address climate change. Burger King and Apple received failing scores and are at the bottom of their industries.
Want to know which corporations are greening up and which are just greenwashing? Climate Counts has devised a way to tell. They’ve compiled a free pocket guide listing 56 major corporations according to how serious they are about solving climate change.
If you want to stop climate change and still get those hot new jeans and sleek new laptop, you can, simply by choosing the better of two products. The free pocket guide from Climate Counts can help. Carry it with you and use it as a quick go-to list for everyday shopping decisions. Every dollar we spend is a vote for or against our environmental values and the companies that support them.
How Much of a Difference Can I Make As a Consumer?
“Anyone who thinks they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito.” –Climate Counts
Consider ozone holes. As consumers, once we decided that ozone holes were an important issue to address, we started to make shopping decisions based on this environmental value. It didn’t take long for industry to react by eliminating ozone-depleting CFC’s from their products. An issue as threatening and global as the formation ozone holes in our atmosphere is on its way to being resolved, and we have small changes in our shopping habits to thank! (That and the environmentalists who sparked the change.)
What is the Climate Counts Pocket Guide Based On?
Working in partnership with Green Order, Climate Counts assembled a test that gives companies scores ranging from 0 to 100. To get these scores, the guide uses 22 criteria to measure four important benchmarks. First, they assess how accurate a company is in reporting its climate footprint. Next, they test how much the company has done to reduce its global warming pollution. Third, does the company support legislation that aims at addressing climate change, or does it try to block this legislation? Finally, the criteria reflect how clearly and openly companies share their climate protection efforts with the public.
What Do You Mean Apple’s Bad? I Just Bought an i-Phone!!
If a company receives a poor or failing score, it simply means that they have a lot of work to do in taking responsibility for their impact on the climate. For these companies there is hope, but they need consumers to give them a little guidance.
In my case, I bought a MacBook last year, so it was a big disappointment to learn that Apple’s not doing much of anything to take responsibility for its impact on the climate. I like my Mac, but in light of this report, PC’s are looking a whole lot sleeker. I’ll write to Apple to let them know my views.
If you already made a big purchase from a company that you want to see improve, write or call and (politely) let them know that you like their product, but that you would like to see them take steps to measure and reduce their climate footprint. Remember to be kind to the service representative who assists you: they might also be able to tell you what positive environmental steps the company is taking. If they don’t know about climate footprints or ways that the company could improve its environmental responsibility, consider suggesting a few of your ideas.
You can also tailor your investments to reflect your environmental values. Investing in companies that are taking action to become environmentally sustainable is another excellent and effective way to make real change in the world.
Photo Source: Climate Counts (www.climatecounts.org)
Tags: Activism, Agriculture, Alternative Fuels, Big Business, climate, Climate Change, climate+counts, Community, Conservation, consumer, Consumer Products, consumer+activism, consumer+choice, consumer+value, Culture, Design, Eco-Entrepreneurs, Education, Environment, Fashion and Apparel, global+warming, Green Tech, Home and Garden, Local Food, Media, Renewable Power, Social Entrepreneurship, Socially Responsible Investing
August 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I just came across this news article. Here’s another exciting example of the power of everyday consumer activism:
Iceland signals an end to its commercial whaling enterprise due to lack of consumer demand. http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=220372
August 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I’m sorry, Gavin, but it sounds like you’re suggesting that people are actually doing something GOOD by supporting McDonald’s. I find that terribly disconcerting. McDonald’s will never be anything other than a company that exists to make money off of the broken and butchered backs of animals, and to suggest that we can "make a difference" by supporting them is difficult for me to swallow. The answer does not lie in McDonald’s or Pepsi or Coke. I prefer to see the bar raised a little higher than that and will continue to have faith in people’s ability to make more substantial changes in their lives that will truly affect this entire Earth and all its inhabitants - not just the ones who stand on two legs. Switching from Burger King to McDonald’s or Pepsi to Coke will not a difference make. Compassionate Cooks - Empowering People and Saving Animals One Meal at a Time - http://www.compassionatecooks.com
August 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Great post!
If the economics don’t work, recycling efforts won’t either.
As our little contribution to make this economics of recycling more appealing,http://LivePaths.com blogs about people and companies that make money selling recycled or reused items, provide green services or help us reduce our dependency on non renewable resources.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:49 am
While I admire the effort and think the idea of having such a scoring system in place is a good one, I can’t whole heartedly support this pocket guide. For one, while it does “score” some of the more popular brands out there, it leaves off household cleaning brands such as Method and Seventh Generation. While these brands aren’t as widely known, they are quickly gaining shelf space in major retailers and including them on the list might encourage shoppers to seek them out if they weren’t already aware of them.
The second thing that troubles me about this list is that it scores environmental efforts only. What about social responsibility? Do the companies allow unions? Provide a living wage? Provide decent benefits to their workers?
New Balance Shoes, which are absent from the list, has 5 factories in the US that manufacture their products, as well as factories in China. Some shoes are even labeled, stating what percentage of the materials and labor used are from the USA. Their employees are also allowed to have unions. While I don’t know how their environmental score would compare, I would say their social score would outshine Nike.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I have been considering moving to Mac and now I have another reason. Failing to talk the green talk tells me that their focus is on making a better product, not duping the masses.
Hey Errata, great point about New Balance. Maybe that’s why they are the routine target of bad press regarding their Chinese business practices. We never see such things about Nike, which are nearly 100% foreign made.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Thanks, Alotta, for your relevant, constructive feedback. I’m glad that this subject has sparked some conversation. First off, it’s worthwhile to note that although some of the corporations I mention are controversial at best to many environmentalists, there are an array of other products discussed in the Climate Connections guide, from Cannon to Stoneyfield Farms (85% owned by Dannon) that are not as controversial. The gist of the article was that we make consumer decisions every day, and many of us buy products from large corporations. This consumer guide is an attempt to direct consumer spending in a way that will benefit us all by reducing global warming air pollution.
To respond first to Colleen’s comment, the article advocates choosing the better alternative as regards the important issue of global warming. McDonald’s does more than Burger King, Wendy’s, or the Olive Garden to undo climate change. I am glad that you are very passionate about animal rights and vegetarian eating options, although the subject of the article admittedly aimed to discuss global warming and the consumer choice, and not these issues. You may also be interested in reading Animals In Translation, by Temple Grandin. She’s very concerned with animal welfare and emotions, but recognizes that non-vegetarian fast food companies exist because they are supported by hundreds of millions of consumers, so she has dedicated her life to improve the lives of cows that are the source of meat for human consumption.
Luis, interesting post to a green website.
Alotta, thank you for your constructive feedback. You clearly read the article, visited the website mentioned, and made an informed and thoughtful comment, which I appreciate greatly. You’re right to point out that the guide does not mention some wonderful companies. Climate Counts is in fact working to update and improve their guide to be more comprehensive. Also, you are right that the guide only speaks to the impact that companies are making to improve the climate. It does not address employee wages, union policies, etc. I think that the goal of the guide is simply to offer one more tool in the toolbox of shoppers.
Bobby, perhaps you would be interested to learn that companies who address their environmental footprint often benefit from increased manufacturing efficiency and employee satisfaction. Consider, for example, the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcRDUIbT4gw