If you look at studies exploring consumer attitudes, you find that consumers indeed seem to be more conscious about sustainability and are more willing to incorporate it into their decision-making process. Yet, when it comes to actual behavior, (almost) all of these good intentions disappear somehow, and sustainability or corporate responsibility doesn’t seem to make much of a difference for most consumers. Hence my question is: Why is it that whenever we find ourselves at the store or the supermarket we forget all the good intentions we had back home?
Author: Raz Godelnik
A couple of weeks ago, H&M released its 2013 sustainability report. We took a look inside to find out whether the company is serious about making fashion sustainable.
“If a positive can be found, it’s that Rana Plaza has been a turning point – the 21st Century equivalent of New York’s 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire which killed 146 but led to a unionized, safe garment industry,” Dolly Jones wrote on Vogue earlier this month.
A recent report from Americans for Tax Fairness estimates that Walmart workers relying on public assistance programs due to low wages cost American taxpayers $6.2 billion a year. Another interesting figure presented in the report was that Walmart has captured 18 percent of the SNAP (food stamps program) market. It got me thinking that if a substantial number of Walmart’s employees in the U.S. (1.3 million in total) receive food stamps, then the company actually profits twice from paying low-wages.
Technology is definitely key in CfA’s work helping government become more engaging, user-friendly and effective, but I believe that there’s also a secret sauce that makes it work – empathy.
Presented earlier this month, Aros, which is described as a “truly brilliant air conditioner,” is the result of an ongoing collaboration between General Electric and Quirky. What makes Aros interesting is not just the fact that it is the first “brilliant” AC and how it advances the vision of Internet of Things, but also what it means in terms of the relationships between the new collaborative, open economy and the more traditional one.
Upgrading smartphones every two years has become the norm, but this is far from sustainable. Are mobile manufacturers (and consumers) ready to accept a new model?
A new Gallup survey looking at the degree Americans worry about different issues found that only 24 percent of Americans worry a great deal about climate change. Fifty-one percent of them worry about it very little or not at all.
A growing number of policymakers and law enforcements officers believe that a “kill switch,” which would make smartphones useless when stolen, is the best solution to the “epidemic of violent smartphone thefts.” But U.S. wireless carriers don’t seem to think it’s such a great idea.
FoodPornIndex.com is a new website showing hashtags and mentions of 24 different food items on social media, where half are vegetables and fruits and half are mostly junk foods. Visitors can see the number of mentions for each item, as well as a tally for each group. As of last weekend, the unhealthy foods counted for 72.2 percent of the mentions online while the healthy foods counted for only 27.8 percent. Will this website be able to change this balance of power?
On Jan. 1, 2013, Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, became the first European capital to extend free public transport to all of its 430,000 residents. One of the main drivers was mobility for all, but does it really work? Is making public transportation free actually increasing mobility? While it might take some time to evaluate the economic impact of this change, a new study of three researchers from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology provides an initial outlook into the changes in ridership following the introduction of free rides.
Subway recently announced that it will remove Azodicarbonamide, a chemical used in yoga mats, shoe rubber and synthetic leather, from its bread. While the shift came after a blogger’s petition for the removal of the chemical went viral, the sandwich chain chose to ignore the petition in its statement.
Why has PepsiCo gone through the trouble of changing the names of so many of its products, omitting what seems to be a key part in the marketing strategy of these products? According to Candace Mueller-Medina, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo’s Quaker brand, this is quite simple. “We constantly update our marketing and packaging,” she said. Apparently though, the answer is a bit more complicated.
The framework, which was presented last week at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the U.N. was quite simple: All we need to do to offset the worst impacts of climate change is to add $1 trillion in clean energy investment per year through 2050. Is it doable?
Nest does a lot of things – but the fact that it makes simple, beautiful, thoughtful and desirable products that help people make their lifestyles more sustainable didn’t factor into the acquisition or the purchase price. Is that a problem for sustainability enthusiasts?