Despite the surge in sustainability interest in recent years, trips to large chain stores quickly reveal that many still value convenience over environmentalism.  Many large department and grocery stores often have green and organic products separated in small sections in their stores—demonstrating that green products still are just a consumer niche.  Additionally, there are stores that only sell sustainable and organic products, but again, this is just a specialty niche.  According to Lori Tripoli in the June issue of the magazine, Sustainability: The Journal of Record, “A large chunk of the population isn’t necessarily attracted to green products, doesn’t want to be confronted with green-product propaganda, and is uninterested in paying a premium for a product that might do more for the environment while doing a little less for the consumer.”  One of the top Fortune 500 companies, Procter & Gamble (P&G), has recognized this dilemma and responded to it by beginning to sell environmentally friendly products to the mainstream.

Upon visiting P&G’s U.S. website, one is immediately confronted with the corporation’s vision for environmental sustainability, “that includes powering out plants with 100% renewable energy, ensuring zero manufacturing or consumer waste goes to landfill, and all products are made from 100% renewable or recycled materials.”  Additionally, there is a link for “Sustainability” prominently displayed.  Here the focus of the company’s sustainability efforts is, “…improvements that matter, to make the most meaningful impact we can.”  

P&G first established a sustainability department in 1999 and was immediately confronted with the problem of defining sustainability so that it could easily be embraced by the average person.   According to UK-based Director of Global Sustainability, Peter White, who Tripoli interviewed for her article, “We needed something that was…easier to explain, so we looked around at what others were saying.  The UK government at that time defined sustainability as ‘ensuring a better quality of life, for everyone, now and for generations to come.’ We thought ‘That’s it.’”   White feels this statement is short and simple and more easily understood by the general population.

Furthermore, P&G has taken a comprehensive approach with its sustainability strategy and has set goals for its 300 brands and products sold in 150 countries and 135,000 employees.  According to White, “We need a strategy that applies across all those, and is a strategy that everybody can buy into.  That means we take a very broad approach on sustainability.”  The five goals of the strategy are sustainable products, sustainable operations, social investment programs, employee engagement and working with stakeholders.

One area on which P&G is particularly focused, according to White, is waste reduction.  All waste products from the various plants have been examined and alternative uses have been employed instead of disposal.  White states in his interview with Tripoli, “The idea of industrial ecology has been around for a long time, whereby the waste from one process becomes the raw material for the next.  But we’ve always lacked good examples.  It’s been a theory but not effectively practiced.”  P&G set up a team to investigate this; as a result of the team’s findings, waste oil from producing Pringles potato chips, for example, is sold to a company that converts it to biodiesel.  Sludge from the company’s paper-making plant in Mexico is sold to a local construction company that converts it into roofing tiles.  In China, waste from the Olay plant is sold as leather conditioners.

Thus P&G has been making a very upfront and direct effort to incorporate sustainability in its mainstream product line.  Also, the corporation has found competitive advantage in employing industrial ecology—converting its waste products into someone else’s raw materials.  P&G’s efforts are a big step for a big company, and undoubtedly many companies can learn from its example.

This past December, more than 120 Heads of State and Government traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15).  The Conference, lasting for close to two weeks, was intended to be the launching point for a comprehensive worldwide agreement on how to most effectively combat climate change.  Even with the best of intentions, however, few who attended the Conference have expressed much satisfaction with the progress made and eventual outcome of the meeting.

The proceedings were plagued with administrative and logistical difficulties and contentious moments between some of the world’s biggest carbon emitters.  For example, as estimated by one attendee, some 45,000 people attended the Conference – great turn out except that Copenhagen’s Bella Center where the event was held can only accommodate 15,000.  Aside from the obviously cramped quarters into which Heads of state, their delegates, journalists, representatives from NGOs, and others were overcrowded, even greater difficulties hindered the progress of the discussions. 

Most notably, in the months since the conclusion of the event, media outlets reporting on the outcome have discussed the often indiscreet confrontations between the United States and China, the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide.  Britain’s Telegraph reported that “…the UN Summit teetered on the brink of collapse amid a row between China and the US” noting that the disagreement between the two nations “effectively paralysed [sic] the summit.”  Time magazine reported in the midst of the Conference that “Discontent is only escalating as talks remain stalled three days before the end of the summit over an impasse between the two countries with the most influence: the U.S. and China.”  The two nations disagreed, it seems, on several points but most vehemently on the issue of measuring emissions reductions.  The United States insisted that any actions taken by the Chinese to reduce carbon emissions be “independently verified and proven.”  For their part, the Chinese took a staunch stance against such a process.  In the end, it seems that the one point that almost all in attendance can agree upon is that the disagreement stalled at the least, and derailed at the worst, the entire Conference. 

In the end, after nearly two weeks of meetings, very little came from the Conference.  According to US officials quoted in the Telegraph article cited above, “developed and developing nations [agreed] to ‘list national actions and commitments.’”  In addition to such lists, participants agree on a mitigation target of two degrees Celsius – exactly how to reach that target, however, remains unresolved and yet to be seen. 

Many Heads of State and Government are openly expressing their discontent and dissatisfaction with the less-than-impressive progress made at the Conference.  Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, for example, stated to an English-language Indian newspaper that “’We were able to make only limited progress at the Copenhagen Summit and no one was satisfied with the outcome.  And yet, there is no escaping the truth that the nations of the world have to move to a low greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient development path.’”  English-language Malta newspaper The Independent conveyed the intense disappointment of Malta’s Prime Minister, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi, soon after the Conference’s conclusion.  Dr. Gonzi noted that as an island nation, Malta is especially concerned over issues related to rising sea levels and hoped that the world would begin to understand the plight of such nations as they consider how to address the issue of climate change on a worldwide level. 

While finger-pointing and blame continues to be assigned to various nations for their perceived lack of commitment to the conference in Copenhagen, environmentalists realize that the world and environment is still the biggest loser in the failed outcome.  L. Hunter Lovins provides an eye-opening editorial in the February 2010 edition of Sustainability: The Journal of Record.  She notes that even if the Conference did not achieve its intended outcome, a legally binding commitment to effectively combat climate change, it did leave a lasting footprint.  With some 45,000 people in attendance, the emissions associated with the event will surely have an impact on the environment even if the discussions that took place during may not.  She reminds readers that, “The ugly reality…is that the Earth doesn’t care who emits carbon, when it got burned, or who pays for mitigation,” and concludes that given the political infighting on the world stage today, effectively addressing climate change will likely continue to fall into the hands of local and community groups, individuals, environmentally-conscious corporations, and NGOs.