All of us hear about Sustainability, and we all generally think it sounds like a good concept, but what does it really mean?
One suggestion I heard is to simply “replace what you have used.” While succinct, some other things should be considered, like “if we used a tonne of coal, that coal should be replaced”, or “all the water used in your house/neighbourhood/town/state/country/world that is used should be replaced to the place that it was used”, or what?
A time aspect should be involved, like replace to what point in time?
I would think this has been discussed at length previously, but could we focus on the consumer, as Choice does, so what does Sustainability mean overall, and then for the target consumers?
It is a vague, waffly wonderment like “natural”. To a marketdroid however it seems to mean a lot. I am not sure why, it could have something to do with selling merchandise.
If you use the meaning it was originally intended, it broadly is not to leave something in a state, after use, worse off than what one originally had.
If you use modern meaning of sustainability, its meaning is different depending on its use or application. Ask any individual what sustainability is, and you will get a range if varying responses (I used to do this in lectures I delivered). Its modern meaning(less) as a term has resulted from its overuse and use where it shouldn’t have been.
And that was one of my points, establishing a time basis to sustainability.
To make a silly example, extracting petroleum from the ground is “sustainable” as, in a few million years, the trees and other plants and animals planted or born today could likely form into petroleum. A silly thought, but petroleum today being produced is today being replaced.
So how does this apply to consumers, the target of The Choice audience? If a supplier say they are sustainable, to what extent and to what standards do Choice explore that, if requested or required?
There are already a large number of opinions and definitions available from the dictionary, Wikipedia and even large organisations.
It means different things to different people. Some see being sustainable as a virtue. Others consider sustainability as others telling them how to live their lives.
It seems rather pointless to be answering a question to which there are already many answers. The best answer as to whether today sustainability has been delivered, might be provided by our children.
It would be of more value to practise sustainability than sit around our lattes defining it. If we produce wheat sustainably from a region for a hundred years, the conditions our ancestors inherit will still successfully grow wheat. Our history on the other hand shows measurable soil degradation, water quality decline, climate suitability decline and probably lots more academic measures for the boffins. If this is not “writing on the wall”, look at farmers moving to more sustainable regions for a market trend. Look at the need to import from poorer and poorer regions to meet our supermarket value first model and consider if it really makes sense to import from vast distances food items which will be in season here again next year. Our economic system has created a monster, which is devouring our lives and societies, but who among us will say “less is more”? That’s what sustainability is about.
As this is a Choice community, where the Choice audience are the consumers, and with Choice heavily contributing to the discussion of appropriateness or value to consumers of manufacturers and suppliers and corporates and so on, some of whom espouse that they do things “sustainably”, then how does Choice rate them. What standards does Choice use for sustainability?
Tough call, as said before, but the term means different things to different people and groups and corporates. Sustainable washing machines or coffee grinders or insurance companies or banks or whatever: if they state that they are a sustainable entity, then how do Choice measure that and relay that to members.
There are many topic in the Forum about ‘Sustainability’ that we can look up. It is far from an easy question overall.
From Earthday.org
the fashion industry contributes to:
Deforestation
Desertification
Degradation of soil
Loss of biodiversity
Uses 20% of the world’s clean water each year.
Synthetic fabrics release micro-plastics when washed.
It’s responsible for 8-10% of global greenhouse emissions.
What could I ever do to make up for such a huge loss? Recycle? Wear the same clothing for longer times? Seem so little, but maybe it does make a difference.
Looking at it globally a lot of effort is being put in, but only the future will tell if it has been worthwhile.
The question of how does Choice measure claims of sustainability would that not be for Choice to answer?
The best place to ask that question is directly with the Choice leadership team. @BrendanMays
Not everyone who contributes to the ‘Choice Community’ is a paying Choice member.
As a paying member it’s far from clear whether this new topic has any prospect of a meaningful outcome. My observation of the professionally produced Choice testing, reviews, and product guides is they are objective. They substantially meet our needs. It’s up to the consumer to make the final decisions.
I agree. The topic started as Define Sustainability, shifted to Establish a time basis for sustainability, and moved to
How does Choice measure claims of sustainability.
All very interesting but difficult to answer
The topic started as a question “Could We Define Sustainability” and suggested that some type of time element could be involved in that definition. Yes, difficult to have one definition, but this is a Choice site that discusses Choice areas, so the Choice audience is not the whole world, and of course Choice makes recommendations, not firm decisions, as consumers should do.
There may be no one definition for Choice purposes, but maybe even having the criteria would be valuable. Let’s say some criteria could be “less waste” (pretty generic, but can be fleshed out) or “attempts to replace what is used” (again, not objective, but may lead towards more specific criteria) or "leans more towards using less packaging or non-recyclable or less-replaceable things (environmental focus, and may not apply to the provision of services, for instance).
Sustainability may not be a yes or no issue (objective), but an extent to which issue (subjective). Testers providing the results of coffee tasting, for instance, give themselves criteria to rate coffees, which results in pretty subjective responses but are compiled objectively and professionally.
I see where you are going but other than have some kind of scoring by a panel (as with tastings) I can’t see yet how the various scales you propose can be fleshed out into numbers.
The risk is that if it isn’t fairly objective (even if limited in scope) vendors will find all manner of complaints about the scale and succeed in rubbishing it. Take the health star ratings as an example of how the industry will twist and turn and distort any time you try to criticise their wild claims or their tendency to conceal facts that are not complimentary.
There is big money in greenwashing while actually doing little or nothing to be sustainable.
Sustainable food production, fibre production, recycling and all the other projects that take a long view always pay lesser sort term dividends than the quick and dirty methods of ignoring long term costs to society. Currently it is easy to socialise your environmental costs and keep your shareholders happy. We see some movement in areas like climate change where active shareholders force boards to act for the long term but look how long that has taken to make small inroads.
I brought up the point about defining Sustainability mainly to attempt to extract the discussion we are now having, under the banner and through Choice people, with Choice being a consumer driven organization that is looking for recommendations for their members who “consume” things, like products and services, to help them decide what to spend money on, and in this case with a view to sustainability.
So, like coffee tasters, let’s suggest a panel of people from various influences and with “expert” opinions be set up to establish a start at some criteria for sustainability “as it applies to consumers” and let them have a go at it.
Criteria can be set as subjective responses but the analyses of the responses have to be objective.
Environment and sustainability sometimes gets intertwined, as in, “what is good for the environment must contribute to being sustainable”. That seems too simple. Environmental inroads have been massive in the last 30-40 years, yes, takes time, but things are improving in places.
I thank all the contributors to this discussion, which should go on somewhere, for bringing up all the areas of concern both with the term “sustainability” and the methods by which it can be explored and maybe measured for the benefit of Choice members.
It is a big topic, I think. I just reviewed an Australian resources company’s sustainability statements (they are here to make money, consumers are here for a different reason) and their focus topics included:
Economic Sustainability
Health and Safety of People
Climate Change
Environmental Sustainability
Community and Supply Chain Sustainability
Indigenous Partnership Sustainability
People and Culture Sustainability
Choice has looked at sustainability in various ways, probably more on environmental, but also economic, as in, “don’t spend more than you make”, and in safety, as in “don’t buy this because it could be dangerous.”, but I’m not sure they have or even should capture the entirety of sustainability. I would think because Choice’s focus is on its members and their wants and needs, and maybe for things like sustainability, that the smaller picture is the thing.
So, let’s say, ratings for sustainability for buying a mattress? May be a tough call.
How about recommending a financial services group for their sustainability statements and record? Sounds like ethical investing or similar.
I had another look through that very recent Choice article on sustainability, and my take was to be more sustainable people should:
Use less plastics
Use less energy
Use less water
Don’t throw good food away, and compost what you don’t eat
Use eco-friendly chemicals
Eat less animal protein and more plant protein
All those points are wonderful, but are mainly environmental and probably don’t address the bigger sustainability aspects, as in, replacement of what you use. OK, Choice is for consumers, not corporates, so issues have to be individual or home life driven. Not easy to address sustainability for a person or home, unless…off the grid, vegie garden, rainwater, geothermal heating, etc.
As shown by the above comments, not easy, but if it was easy we wouldn’t need to talk about it at length, I guess.
