By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director
Courtesy of Patagonia |
Last week I attended an academic conference on
sustainable consumption at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.
I have spent the last 10 years working upstream, in the
field of sustainable production, studying
and pushing for producer-focused policies such as extended producer
responsibility.
To be honest, I have tended to view "sustainable
consumption," with its emphasis on voluntary, individual behavioral change,
as too soft a path to have a meaningful impact on the destructive forces that
threaten us. I went to the conference to get out of my comfort zone and to
learn what is happening in a related field.
What I heard at the conference were many ideas
about source reduction, which is a major challenge for those of us working to
incent and restrain corporations to be more sustainable. I felt encouraged to be among creative and smart people
grappling with this issue.
My take-away from the conference is that Product Policy
Institute's (PPI) original three-part mission of sustainable production and consumption and good governance is the
correct frame for addressing the myriad interconnected problems facing us. It's
a three legged stool.
Sustainable production
– We view a root cause of our throwaway society as the production system based
on high throughput of globally sourced cheap products, and the disconnect
between those who design and market goods and those who clean up after them. PPI has focused on implementing policies that
make producers legally responsible for the life-cycle impacts of their
products. The theory is to harness the
power of the markets, within legally mandated boundaries, to drive the
production of more durable and less toxic products. It’s an important piece, but not the whole
story.
Sustainable
consumption – The sustainable consumption frame opens the door to thinking
about growth assumptions underlying the business models of
powerful global manufacturers and retailers producing and selling ever increasing
quantities of cheap globally-sourced, low-margin goods. The book Eco-Business by Peter
Dauvergne and Jane Lister makes the case that the core corporate interest is
growth. Corporate environmental and social strategies have been increasingly
used as business strategies to protect raw material supplies and gain advantage
over competitors, all for the purpose of selling more stuff. The sustainable consumption frame asks
questions about unlimited growth. If an absolute
decrease in material and energy throughput is necessary to restore ecological
health and stability as well as human happiness, then we need to address unlimited
growth. Reduction and reuse are radical
agendas; helping producers make and sell more efficient products may be worthwhile but
it is unlikely to lead to transformative outcomes.
Good governance --
The third leg of the stool is the hard one.
But it's crucial for addressing both unsustainable production and
consumption. Governments and NGOs have so little power relative to
multi-national business giants that we resign ourselves to working with
corporations on incremental gains in a world desperate for deep
transformational change. Unlimited corporate growth based on high throughput of
globally sourced cheap products is not in the public’s or the planet’s
interest. Intervention by government and civil society is needed to achieve
outcomes in the public interest.
This is a timely gathering of these three messages, Bill, especially at this moment when we see product stewardship programs rolled out for packaging. It will take creative public policy to hold producers to a higher standard in packaging stewardship that delivers real results. It's not good enough to cast a huge curbside collection net and ship "low-margin" recyclables out of the country.
ReplyDelete