Month: June 2012

I’ve been seeing an increasing amount of media attention on how gamification can help encourage sustainable behavior (for example, see recent articles in Grist, Sustainable Brands, and Mashable). This is not a new concept to me as I was first introduced to gamification when I was about eight years old. It was my mother’s attempt at getting me to make my bed by making it fun. Fast forward to present day – my bed remains disheveled, but the idea has stuck.
Back then, I failed at the drawing board. The game I created, alternating the visible side of my red and blue comforter based on the day of the week, wasn’t actually a game or fun by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe if my game would have been as entertaining as some of the games on www.thefuntheory.com (an initiative of Volkswagen), I would have made my bed this morning.
The underlying concept of The Fun Theory is that something simple and fun is the easiest way to change behavior for the better. Here is one of my favorite videos on the site, the Bottle Bank Arcade Machine that encourages recycling, and a link to game that is a personal favorite of mine, the ConnectFourBeerCrate.
Anybody have a good game for making beds? Or reducing our environmental impact?

We are excited to announce that GreenBlue’s 2011 Annual Report is now available! Since GreenBlue became one of the first sustainability organizations founded to work exclusively in collaboration with business nearly ten years ago, we’ve launched several groundbreaking programs, released numerous landmark research reports, and attracted many uniquely talented staff, Board members, partners and stakeholders. Last year brought several milestones and accomplishments for GreenBlue, and some 2011 highlights include:

• As part of our new Forest Products program, in October 2011 we launched the Forest Products Working Group to bring together leading companies that rely on paper, wood, and other forest products to share their knowledge and develop innovative solutions to support thriving forests and the forest products industry.

• In June 2011, we unveiled a new brand identity that includes a new mission statement, a new logo, and a redesigned website that was recognized in the AIGA (Re)design Awards 2011. We also introduced our new sustainability blog, In the Loop, which provides resources and perspectives from our work in forest products, packaging, chemicals, and other product types, as well as regular features to make sustainability issues accessible to a broader audience. These include documentary film reviews, features on how products are made, music mixes, and more.

• Building on the success of CleanGredients, we launched our newly expanded Chemicals program to develop additional tools and resources for industry to select safer chemicals and materials in product design and manufacturing.

• We announced the How2Recycle Label, a voluntary recycling label for packaging that is being piloted by leading brand owners in 2012, and concurrent www.how2recycle.info website.

• Our first education course on packaging (through our Essentials of Sustainable Packaging curriculum) expanded beyond North America with trainings in Latin America and additional sessions planned in Asia throughout 2012.

• We released an updated version of the Environmental Paper Assessment Tool, EPAT 2.0, to help paper buyers make better purchasing decisions.

• We released more reports than in any other year: Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Biodegradation in Landfills, which explores the generation of greenhouse gases in landfills and the natural and engineered strategies used to mitigate their effects; Closing the Loop: Design for Recovery Guidelines for Aluminum, Steel, Glass, and Paper Packaging, a suite of reports that provide technical guidance on designing packaging to be compatible with common recovery methods; Another Closing the Loop report, entitled Labeling for Package Recovery, which examines what an effective labeling system should include.

You can download the full report to read more.

Last week, USA Today reported that a rash of product recalls may be creating “fatigue” among consumers, who may be more likely now to overlook or ignore the recalls.
In 2011 alone, 2,363 consumer and food products, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices were recalled by manufacturers. IKEA, for example, took back 169,000 high chairs because the restraint buckle was unreliable. That’s 6.5 recalls per day, an increase of 14 percent from the previous year. The higher incidence is a good thing, say experts, since it results from greater oversight by regulators, better testing procedures, and the use of social media to communicate more quickly and widely.
It’s also a bad thing, of course. Faulty products create risks to health and safety, and, according to a 2009 Rutgers study mentioned by USA Today, only 60% of Americans actually respond to recalls, so the remaining 40%—possibly 125 million people—could be in jeopardy.
Furthermore, recalling products has potentially significant environmental hazards. An increasingly global market requires shipping goods across great distances, expending enormous amounts of fuel, which exacerbates global warming, and putting more pressure on transportation infrastructure. The environmental group Friends of the Earth estimates that just 10 miles of a new four-lane highway creates the equivalent lifetime emissions of nearly 47,000 Hummers. For a recalled product, the environmental impact of its transportation can double, since the good must be shipped back to the manufacturer.
In addition, the resources used to make the faulty products are wasted, since the products didn’t fulfill their intended uses. Some products, such as food, must be thrown out, and others go into storage indefinitely. In Indianapolis, Stericycle, the largest U.S. firm handing recalls, has five warehouses totaling 700,000 square feet—about 12 football fields—where it collects and stores everything from household appliances to sporting equipment to jewelry. “Recalled products come here to die,” Stericycle’s Mike Rozembajgier told USA Today. “If they come to Indianapolis they’re not getting back into the supply chain.”
The drive to make products less expensive increases the likelihood of mistakes that can harm consumers and the environment alike. Factoring in the true costs to public health and the environment, the savings of quicker, cheaper production could be nullified. The best solution is simply to make better products.