What does the idea of ‘Sustainability’ mean for CHOICE people?

I don’t mind the UN definition, and it is aspirational, and very broad, but hits the right buttons: meeting needs.

Not sure we are wasting time, a discussion like this informs us all, and maybe even informs us that we should not take more time with the discussion?

And I further suggest that this group is not the UN, we don’t have to think like nations, but we should think like people discussing “what does sustainability mean for Choice people”, and that is what I originally had in mind

2 Likes

Perhaps the heading should be changed to something like “What does the word ‘Sustainability’ mean for CHOICE people?” to keep it more framed as per @TGouldie’s reference

If @TGouldie is happy with that, they can change the heading. This topic could become very broad if the current heading was explored at depth.

3 Likes

I am certainly happy with changing the discussion title. This group should think about the topic with a bit smaller focus, that being on the consumers that Choice serve so well.

And now to engage another point: what are the sustainability areas that consumers are really concerned with?

2 Likes

Reading from Earthday. org
how great is the damage that the fashion industry does to our planet overwhelms me because fashion does not mean only irresponsible trend following of the very young, because in the end we all have to be clothed whether what we wear is ‘In’ or not and thus we all, perforce, contribute to the industry impact on the environment.
Even if we are personally careful to do all the right things that we learn from responsible organisations, and Choice has also got many good threads about sustainable fashion, I feel that it is like a drop in the ocean.
I sincerely hope that I’m too pessimistic :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

So one sustainability area is fashion. Choice could influence that.

The next one? It should be about things we use but maybe don’t replace fully. And with a consumer focus. Probably not oil, electricity, oxygen, years of life. Something in our house or neighbourhood?

Doesn’t have to be solved today, but discussion is good.

1 Like

Just a quick search suggests Choice and the community are already on to it.

2 Likes

A good comment, and well done for the search.

These posts appear to all be related to repairing things, in some cases instead of throwing them away, which is a great thing to do, if you can repair things, and I would think adds an awful lot to improving sustainability.

So, as consumers, should we deal more with companies that can be seen to be sustainable? I know, how do we measure a company on their “sustainability”, other than what they say they are?

Produce more energy than they use? Replace 80%, or whatever, bits used in making their things from the things they do? Take otherwise landfill-directed things to use in another way? And are these things considered sustainability?

My head hurts. Not an easy topic, with no definition that directs us, but good discussion.

And I still like the UN definition above. Do we call this discussion as done, or are there any more points that can be added to help us understand sustainability for Choice people?

1 Like

With all due respects, I’m not sure that I can agree with this. If there is any such thing as human nature, it must surely include a need to both cooperate and compete with others - and fashion is surely one way of doing both. So the only way we can eliminate fashion from our thoughts and behaviours is to cease to be human. And, quite frankly, I think any notion of doing this is one of those things that is most definitely unsustainable.

Now, I am aware that some people choose to opt out of particular fashions (they wear ear-rings when they are unfashionable, or vice versa), but that looks to everybody else as merely plumbing for a different fashion. Likewise, others say that they opt out of being human (Google it, if in doubt), but then they choose this or that fashion to demonstrate their sincerity. Either which way, fashion rules, with the only real debate being ‘which fashion?’.

At this point, the question arises: ‘how or why do people choose which fashion to be slave to?’. Conventional wisdom in the academic disciplines that look at such questions says that fashion choice is, one way or another, to elicit cooperation from others. Choice, by name and nature, is more in the business of ‘pushing out’ services (in the form of information), rather than ‘pulling in’ cooperation… so its ability to either create or imitate fashionable looks or ideas is distinctly limited, probably to the point of zero. (Exception: perhaps readers of this forum might be able to influence each other’s fashion enthusiasms; I doubt, however, this will stretch much further than selection of gorgeous pictures to put next to one’s names.)

All of which leads to the central question: if not fashion, where, if anywhere, does sustainability fit into discussion of Choice’s mission? And here I really have difficulties. If Choice’s mission is to deliver its research findings without fear, favour (or fashion) on consumer goods and services, then, given the enormous range of those products, and the even bigger range of needs that they are designed to meet, Choice must of necessity limit the scope of each of its research projects if it is to cover a vaguely comprehensive range of these products. In so doing, it will have to ignore certain classes of information from its scrutiny, with ‘sustainability’ in almost any sense of the word, being a prime candidate for being ignored. The reason for this is, as has been pointed out, the term implies considerations that are geographically, economically and temporarily global, and hence utterly untestable within Choice’s resources.

Unless ‘sustainability’ is given a ridiculously narrow definition, such as “I can buy the same T-shirt in a given store two days in a row”, the best Choice is probably going to able to do is to provide links to other organisations with missions appropriate to testing the sustainability of particular narrow classes of goods.

For me the term sustainable is very important. I try to consume within the UN definition.

I also think we need to expose green washing- Shell buying Powershop - fossil fuel company taking over what once was 100% green sustainable energy provider ie only sourced from solar / wind etc.

Based on previous customers of Powershop (when it was “sustainable”) Canstar has rated Powershop with most satisfied customers. Now Powershop says all power is “carbon neutral” which has been revealed to be a huge scam. And if you’re with Powershop you now have to Pay 4cents per KWh extra for green power. And could you trust Shell to genuinely purchase green energy?

Australia wide over 70% of people are concerned about climate change.

It would help consumers if there were clear guidelines on “sustainability” - starting with UN definition.

1 Like

Over the years I have, as mentioned by others before in this listing, tried to define or explain things by what they are not, and that has been a useful “exclusion” method for drilling down to the definition of the real thing you are looking at.

Another thing I have used is finding something that may already have been defined in a way and is similar (but not the same) as the thing I am trying to define, and using that to help point towards the definition I am trying to develop. In this case, could we look at “ethical”, as in ethical investments for consumers, for instance, to try to find a better way to define sustainability for consumers? Is that a way to help us along?

And could we get the guidance of a Choice staff person to help guide us? That would be good (and sustainable and ethical and all that.)

1 Like

Ethical superannuation is defined by enumeration of exclusions. That is " we don’t invest in X, Y, Z and W but invest in all other things". Consequently it means slightly different things to different investment funds. This works reasonably well because the objective is simple; it is to maximise investment returns for a given stated risk profile. It is assumed that fund managers know how to achieve this objective and so once you give them the exclusion list they can go ahead and do their work.

The problem with achieving sustainability is that the list of activities that need to be assessed for inclusion or exclusion is far greater. Also there is no focus of implementation like the choice of actions that funds managers take. The activities that would have to be considered are spread through much of our existence and all of us take part in it. There is no simple measure of maximising sustainability. It might be better to put resources into not burning fossil fuel or into improving land management practices to preserve topsoil and improve water quality, or 100 other things, which is the most sustainable?

I don’t see using the ethical investment framework helps very much.

I would define “sustainable” in the global sense as meaning what humanity does as a whole does not, over time, leave our planet in any worse state than it was before.

Clearly what we collectively are doing is not sustainable. We have massive land clearing, species loss and CO2 emissions. Even land we use for agriculture is degrading at a massive rate.

We are obsessed with “growth”. There is no definition of growth which is sustainable. Look up “exponential growth” for an explanation. Indefinite growth on a finite planet is clearly an impossibility.

For more information I recommend reading any of the popular (i.e. intended for the public) science publications, such as New Scientist, Scientific American, etc. You need to read them over time to get a fuller picture.

1 Like

Unfortunately, the one-way process of entropy would make your definition impossible.

Species loss due to human activity is unfortunate to be sure, but it is estimated that 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. Human activity had very little to do with the vast total there.

But right about continuous growth. At some point we will need to dramatically contract.

Yes, agree that ethical investments seem to be defined by “approved” firms excluding a lot of things that are considered unethical, and if a firm excludes all those things, then they are certified “ethical”. I think that is it, I really don’t know. And ethical investment does not always strive for maximum investment performance: they strive to “look like” they are pleasing the customer, so if the investment return is not to highest, at least the customer feels good that it is seen to be ethically inclined.

But we don’t need to examine things as “yes, it is sustainable” or “no, it is not sustainable” but rather “to what extent is the company/product/service sustainable?” So not a totally exclusionary exercise: a company producing consumer products could be judged by some established metrics as being 40% “sustainable” and their ratings published as such. But what are those metrics? CHOICE could work with people who know or study these things and come up with these metrics, which could change over time as “the world” changes and some things become more “unsustainable.”

If we focused on just the consumer component of sustainability (consumers don’t drill oil wells or fly A380s) then maybe we could get maybe 5 or 10 “metrics”.

I brought up the possibility of using the example of rating ethical investments not to totally mirror that idea, but maybe to use some of the methodology used in those ratings to make up some sustainability metrics and maybe rate sustainability accordingly.

1 Like

I certainly agree with the sentiment of leaving the planet better than when we found it, but suggest that there is a time component built in: do we return things as they were 10 years ago, 100 years ago, or in the case of oil, 10,000,000 years ago? The current trend of saying “by 2050 we will be (fill in the blank) neutral” is an example trying to put a time basis on it.

There is an saying that we should not worry about things we have no control over. Humans did not have control over things before humans arrived. (Boy, what a statement!)

It looks to me that you have agreed with me that idea didn’t work out.

Possibly “Sustainable consumption”?

A similar oxymoron to ‘sustainable development’.
One side of the coin

Marketers must prove ‘sustainable consumption’ is not an oxymoron
Brands need to encourage better – not more – consumption, if they are to have a place in a sustainable future for our planet and society.

I’m confident there is a climate friendly response to what ‘better’ consumption defines.

Using less is better for somethings,
Efficiency, smarter use can be better,
Alternatives can be better,

It’s not self evident where it ends.

True but that was over a period of 3 to 4 billion years when we have only been around for about the last 250,000. Over the last 10,000 we have done quite a good job in terms of species gone per hundred years.

This forum, I think, is sponsored by CHOICE for people to discuss what CHOICE is about, which are consumers. If CHOICE recommends something, and a consumer buys it and is pleased and satisfied with the purchase of that something, then CHOICE has done its job.

CHOICE has ratings, where some ratings are higher than others across a range of metrics. If a consumer thinks one metric is the most important to them (cost, convenience, cleaning, ethical, sustainable) then they may buy based mainly on that metric. Metrics have a range, not just yes and no.

Where are our views different?

I have said arriving at a useful metric for consumer sustainability is very difficult, I have not seen anything yet that looks any good. I don’t say it is impossible just not yet accomplished. If you think it has been done show me where.

Let me tell you a true story. I worked in a large organisation that had many offices supplying services. They wanted to compare offices’ performance but each was in a different place and worked under different circumstances and sensible comparison was very hard to do as the challenges each faced were different.

A very senior person said that we ought to group the offices into like groups so that they were comparable. I asked if that was possible. He couldn’t understand my problem and thought I was being an obstruction. I said what if there are no such groups that you are looking for? How can you find them then? They spent a lot of effort on the project and turned up nothing useful. He continued to think that somehow this was my fault and if I had tried hard enough it could have been done.

2 Likes