Month <span class=March 2017" src="/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cropped-office-building-secondary-1.jpg">

Month March 2017

How to interpret eco labels

The SSC Team March 9, 2017 Tags: , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

 

SSC President, Jennifer Woofter, was quoted in an article in Recyclebank about how to better understand eco labels on products in order to make wiser product choices.  This is what Jennifer had to say:

“There is a lot of confusion in the marketplace about which certifications are credible and which are fluff. Shoppers who do want to choose environmentally friendly products are throwing their hands up and saying ‘How do I choose?’”

A major cause for confusion is the broad scope of the labels. Jennifer adds, "...labels are applied in roughly three ranges: by product, by company, and by facility. When we see a label on a product, we understandably assume that the label says something about the product, but that’s not always the case. For example, a pint of ice cream might have a B Corps seal, but that doesn’t mean that specific pint of ice cream is sustainable. That’s because a B Corps certification applies to the entire company, not its products. A certified B Corps company has met the threshold for responsible business as defined by B Lab, the 501(c)3 nonprofit that developed and assesses B Corps standards."

Read the entire article in Recyclebank here.

Interested in sustainability strategies in product packaging?  Read our white paper, Cut the Wrap! Packaging Waste and Strategies for Mitigation and Reduction.

 

The Clean Power Plan: A Terrible Economic Idea or a Terrific One?

The SSC Team March 2, 2017 Tags: Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

As predicted, the forecasts of the economic impact of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the EPA’s regulation that limited CO2 emission from power plants, have fallen strongly on partisan lines. The current administration has claimed that EPA regulations are causing economic harm and are planning to roll them back, while others have asserted positive economic impact that will result from the plan.

The World Resources Institute recently reviewed four of the major studies of the CPP to determine which perspective has the most merit.

WRI’s results are clarifying, and not surprisingly they conclude that the CPP likely would not have a negative economic impact through an increased cost of electricity, but the bigger issue is in that the four studies themselves came up with widely different conclusions based from the same data.

How did this happen?

Essentially, the authors of each study were not impartial. Research assumptions were made using foundational data that largely supported a conclusion that would benefit the sponsors of the study.

The lesson: Not all research is created equal.

As the next phase of this work, WRI plans to conduct its own modeling with the primary objective to provide impartial and transparent information on the impact of the CPP – and of all future regulations.

Climate change isn’t partisan. Neither is science. Neither is economics. We need more organizations like WRI, the EPA, governments, universities, and foundations to fund important, unbiased, and peer reviewed work to guide policy work moving forward.