ColumnAs incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, compact fluorescent light bulbs are stepping in to take their place. But are CFLs really the most environmentally-friendly alternative?

Thomas Edison may have been on to something when he invented and popularized the modern incandescent light bulb in 1878. But 135 years later, the world is in desperate need of an environmentally-friendly upgrade. Enter, the compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL.

CFLs have been on the market since the 1980s, but they didn’t enter the mainstream until President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which initiated the gradual phase-out of incandescent light bulbs on the U.S. market. The 100-watt bulb was discontinued in 2011, followed by the 75-watt bulb earlier this year. The 60- and 40-watt bulbs are slated to disappear in January 2014.

The law does not ban the use or purchase of incandescent bulbs, but it does require that new bulbs be 25 percent more energy efficient. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that consumers replace their old bulbs with ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. But is that really the most environmentally-friendly alternative? This week’s Behind The Label investigates.

The Good

The higher cost of CFLs used to be prohibitive, but prices have fallen dramatically over the past few years. A recent online search found a four-pack of EcoSmart 9-Watt (60W) CFL Light Bulbs for $5.85 at Home Depot.

According to the EPA, an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL light bulb saves about $6 a year and $40 over its lifetime in electricity costs. Plus, a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and heat than a traditional incandescent, which can save on home cooling costs. The icing on the cake? A CFL lasts at least six times longer than an incandescent bulb, which means less balancing on rickety stepstools to replace burnt-out bulbs.

And those are just the individual implications of switching to ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. The EPA estimates that “if every American home replaced just one light bulb with a light bulb that’s earned the ENERGY STAR, we would save enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year, save about $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent 9 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year, equivalent to those from about 800,000 cars.”

In addition, CFLs are free from tungsten, a mineral contained in the filament of most incandescent light bulbs. Tungsten is a known conflict mineral and its mining has funded violent armed rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Bad

With its long list of energy- and cost-cutting characteristics, switching to CFL light bulbs should be a no-brainer. But there is a drawback: the presence of mercury, a toxic element that is particularly dangerous for small children and fetuses. Mercury can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption, and it can have serious effects on the nervous system. Continued exposure can lead to physical and psychological disorders, and even death.

The EPA says that the amount of mercury in a CFL is only about four milligrams – not enough to prevent them from being on the market, but enough for the EPA to recommend a cautionary multi-step clean-up process in the event of a breakage. When CFLs shatter in or near the home, the mercury within them can contaminate the air and soil. And when CFLs are improperly disposed of, there are broader implications.

“The problem with the bulbs is that they’ll break before they get to the landfill,” John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, told NPR. “They’ll break in containers, or they’ll break in a dumpster or they’ll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens.”

Wendy Reed, manager of the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program, admits that not enough has been done to make it easier for people to recycle CFL light bulbs. “I share your frustration that there isn’t a national infrastructure for the proper recycling of this product,” she told NPR.

Retail stores like Ace Hardware, Home Depot, IKEA, Lowe’s, and TrueValue are starting to launch CFL recycling programs, and some regions have municipal drop-off points. But the process of collecting, protecting, and transporting old CFLs to recycling centers can be burdensome, which means that more often than not, old bulbs end up in the garbage. Until now, such disposal hasn’t led to significant toxic waste issues. But as CFLs continue to proliferate, the U.S. will need a stronger strategy.

So what now?

Educate yourself on proper clean-up procedures.

The EPA recommends a multi-step approach to cleaning up a broken CFL. First, clear the room of people and pets. Turn off your central heating or air conditioning system and air out the room by opening a door or window. Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard, then use tape to pick up the remaining fragments. Place everything in a sealed container and immediately place in an outdoor trash container. Continue to air out the room and leave off the heating or air conditioning system for several hours.

Research CFL recycling programs.

Use Earth911 to search for CFL collection schedules and drop-off locations near you. Retailers like Ace Hardware, Home Depot, IKEA, Lowe’s, and TrueValue offer in-store recycling programs, and other retailers are expected to follow suit as CFLs become more popular.

Install CFLs in hard-to-reach places.

Using CFLs in ceiling fixtures and other hard-to-reach places can greatly lower the risk of an accidental breakage. Be sure to lay a towel on the ground when installing the bulb, in case it falls.

Consider LEDs.

LED light bulbs tend to be more expensive than CFLs, but they offer more energy and cost savings over the long run. A 6-watt (40W) LED light bulb can cost as low as $10 and last up to 23 years, saving $94 over the bulb’s life. Plus, they don’t contain the added risk of mercury.

Images: Anton Fomkin, Kyle May

The post Behind The Label: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnHow has Uniqlo managed to avoid the dreaded “fast fashion” label?

If you don’t shop at Uniqlo, you will soon. The Japanese retailer has already captivated urban centers like New York and San Francisco with ambitious plans to expand to 1,000 U.S. stores in the next decade.

Uniqlo’s specialty is cheap but quality basics, presented in a rainbow of the season’s trendiest colors. But despite the chain’s quick-moving inventory and bargain basement prices, Uniqlo has somehow managed to escape the fast fashion stigma slapped on competitors like H&M, Forever 21, Zara, and Old Navy. This week’s Behind The Label looks at why.

The Uniqlo we know today got its start when Japanese entrepreneur Tadashi Yanai evolved his family suit business into a chain of contemporary activewear stores in 1984. The first store was called Unique Clothing Warehouse, a lengthy moniker that was later shortened to Uniqlo. The chain initially sold brands like Nike and Adidas, but as it expanded, it shifted to more store-brand apparel.

Today, there are more than 835 Uniqlo stores around the world, with seven in the U.S. Over the past decade, parent corporation Fast Retailing has also added brands like Theory, J Brand, Helmut Lang, Princess Tam.Tam, and Comptoir des Cotonniers to its portfolio of companies.

The Good

Uniqlo’s first American retail presence was in New York’s SoHo neighborhood, where it quickly gained a cult following of devotees drawn by the promise of quality items at low prices. Indeed, Uniqlo’s mission is grounded in the promise of a fashion democracy; its tagline reads “Made For All.” But how is Uniqlo able to offer quality to “all” at such low prices?

First, there’s the power of buying in bulk. But Uniqlo doesn’t just work with anyone. Where some fast fashion companies work with up to 300 manufacturers, Uniqlo works with approximately 70, according to its latest corporate social responsibility report. According to Takao Kuwahara, chief executive of Uniqlo U.K., the company takes a hands-on approach in order to ensure quality. “We make a lot of our products in China but, because of our approach to manufacturing, we can maintain very good quality control,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “When we find a factory we want to work with, we commit to buying all of their product for the next five years—but only if they meet our standards. Then we send in our own team of trained craftsmen to teach the factory how we like things done. The team stays until they get it right.”

Then, there’s Uniqlo’s minimalist approach to design and construction. Design director Naoki Takizawa is an alumnus of Issey Miyake, Japan’s most famous minimalist fashion designer. Much like fellow Japanese brand Muji, Uniqlo aims to eliminate the inessential. “The only things that stay are the things you need: It has to protect you from the rain, and heat has to escape,” Takizawa told Fast Company.

And finally, there’s a minimalist approach to inventory. “We have much fewer styles, especially when you compare us with companies like H&M or Topshop or Zara,” Shin Odake, CEO of Uniqlo U.S.A., told New York Magazine. “That’s the secret of why we can get better quality. We try to consolidate the fabric buys as much as possible. H&M sales are bigger, but we have bigger orders. We take huge quantities, and we have negotiation power.”

The Bad

Uniqlo’s minimalist approach to sourcing, design, and inventory may partly explain how the brand is able to offer $5 tees and $19 jeans. But labor is a significant part of the equation too.

Uniqlo has long produced the majority of its clothing in China, but in recent years it has expanded into cheaper manufacturing bases like Vietnam and Bangladesh. According to the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, Bangladesh offers the cheapest garment labor in the world, at 21 cents an hour. Vietnam’s wages aren’t much higher: 52 cents an hour in cities and 36 cents an hour in rural areas.

Cheaper labor comes at a price, as the recent garment factory collapse and fires in Bangladesh have reminded us. The incidents have prompted major retailers like Walmart, Gap, and H&M to initiate conversations on how to improve Bangladeshi working conditions. Fast Retailing, the world’s fourth largest clothing retailer, isn’t reported to be a participant in these discussions. The company is not a member of the Fair Labor Association, which promotes responsible labor standards, nor does it participate in industry-wide environmental working groups like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.

Uniqlo’s apathy toward its workers is further evident in this year’s CSR report. The chapter on garment manufacturing focuses more on quality control than quality of life. The strongest statement on fair labor is that Fast Retailing “always produces clothing under socially acceptable working conditions” – hardly a revolutionary commitment.

Uniqlo has also been singled out for having an unhealthy corporate culture. It is currently suing the publisher of a scathing book called the “The Glory and Disgrace of Uniqlo,” which accused the retailer of “extremely harsh, slave-like labor conditions at overseas factories.” And earlier this year, Japanese business magazine Toyo Keizal ran a feature article on Uniqlo with the headline: “Hihei suru shokuba” (“the worn-out workplace”). According to an English summary of the article by the Japan Times, Uniqlo perpetuates the worst stereotypes of Japanese rank-and-file corporate culture. Workers have little decision-making capacity and are expected to follow the company manual to the letter, with harsh punishments for minor infractions. They are regularly expected to contribute “service zangyo,” or voluntary overtime with no pay, even though the practice is forbidden and employees can be demoted or fired if found out. As a result of these and other restrictions, a staggering 53 percent of employees leave the company within three years.

The Questionable

My strategy since become a conscious consumer has been to build a wardrobe around high-quality staples: great-fitting jeans, comfortable tees, versatile black dresses. For this, Uniqlo is heaven-sent. Its styles aren’t driven as much by trend as they are by timelessness. In fact, its new LifeWear collection, released last month, promotes a minimalist wardrobe of 11 basic “projects” that together comprise a full wardrobe.

“We don’t have seasonal fashion themes like other companies. We are much more product focused. Year by year, we are constantly testing, improving and updating,” Yuki Katsuta, Uniqlo’s senior vice president of global research and design, told Business of Fashion last month.

This shopping philosophy resonates with many conscious consumers, which may be why Uniqlo has escaped the dreaded fast fashion label. It’s easy for ethical shoppers to justify a Uniqlo purchase by arguing for its quality, much like slow fashion proponents do.

But Uniqlo’s supply chain is still littered with the social and environmental issues representative of other fast fashion retailers. At the end of the day, Uniqlo still uses cheap labor to make cheaply constructed garments. But because of the brand’s focus on quality, versatility, and minimalist wardrobes, you hopefully won’t be tricked into buying more of them than you need.

Images: Instant Vantage, Sean Davis

The post Behind the Label: Investigating The Social Responsibility Claims Of Uniqlo appeared first on EcoSalon.

Not all sunscreens are created equal.

Every summer for the past decade, the media has issued staunch advisories reminding consumers to wear sunscreen. But this year, their tone has changed. Studies are showing that not only are many sunscreens filled with potentially harmful chemicals, but also that sunscreen wearers can actually be more susceptible to dangerous skin cancer strains like melanoma. Too much time in the sun can increase the risk of damage, but too little can lead to vitamin D deficiencies. What gives? This week’s Behind The Label attempts to explain the current debate around sunscreen, just in time for Skin Cancer Awareness Month.

The Good

According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, more than two million people are diagnosed with skin cancer each year, a scary statistic that doctors and dermatologists say can be prevented through regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreen.

Broad-spectrum sunscreens are formulated to block two kinds of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun: UVA rays, which are associated with premature aging and skin damage, and UVB rays, which are linked with sunburns. The SPF level of a sunscreen specifies its level of protection against UVB: an SPF of 15 filters out about 93 percent of incoming UVB rays, while an SPF of 50 keeps out approximately 98 percent. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, most SPF 15 sunscreens do a sufficient job of protecting against UVB rays, but the added protection provided by sunscreens over SPF 50 is negligible.

It’s UVA rays that are trickier to understand and protect against. UVA rays penetrate the skin more deeply than UVB rays, damaging skin cells in the basal layer of the epidermis where most skin cancers occur. Sunscreens marked “broad spectrum”, “multi spectrum” or “UVA/UVB protection” usually contain UVA-blocking ingredients like stabilized avobenzone, ecamsule, oxybenzone, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide.

And now, those sunscreens will be easier to decipher thanks to a set of new regulations passed by the Food and Drug Administration last December. The new regulations introduce restrictions on using the terms “broad spectrum,” “waterproof,” and “sweatproof,” and it requires that any sunscreen under SPF 15 be labeled with a warning that reads. “Skin Cancer/Skin Aging Alert: Spending time in the sun increases your risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. This product has been shown only to help prevent sunburn, not skin cancer or early skin aging.” 

The Bad

Despite better labeling standards, the Environmental Working Group’s 2013 Guide to Safer Sunscreens, released earlier this year, cautions consumers against taking manufacturer claims at face value. The annual review found “only minimal improvements” in products on the shelves and concludes that “many sunscreens available on the U.S. market do not filter sun-damaging rays safely and effectively.”

The guide reports that melanoma rates have tripled over the past 35 years, despite the fact that Americans seem to be more aware of the sun’s dangers. The EWG believes that one reason for this paradox may be misleading sunscreen marketing – “hype that causes people to believe, wrongly, that their products are blocking harmful rays.”

While the FDA’s new regulations may help to mitigate the hype, the EWG points out that the FDA’s criteria are weak compared to European Union standards. “Half of the U.S. sunscreens that meet the FDA rules would not make it to store shelves in Europe,” states the report.

Then, there’s the recent obsession with high SPFs, which can lead consumers to believe that they can stay in the sun longer than usual. But while a high SPF sunscreen can effectively block against UVB rays, they do nothing for skin-damaging, cancer-causing UVA rays. The European Union already levies a cap on SPF claims at 50+, and the FDA is considering a proposal to do the same.

And finally, there is the preponderance of potentially harmful chemicals present in conventional sunscreens. A form of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate (or retinol) is present in 20 percent of sport sunscreens and has been linked to the acceleration of skin tumors and lesions when exposed to the sun, according to the EWG. Oxybenzone, found in 80 percent of chemical sunscreens, is a suspected hormone disruptor.

The Skin Cancer Foundation maintains that both retinyl palmitate and oxybenzone are safe and effective when used as directed, and that claims otherwise are based on “questionable science that is not properly reviewed by experts in the field of photo medicine.”

So What Now?

Look for broad-spectrum mineral sunscreens.

One thing that the Environmental Working Group and Skin Cancer Foundation can agree on is the continued need to include sunscreen as part of a comprehensive sun safety plan. But not all sunscreens are created equal. U.S. consumers have the choice between chemical sunscreens, which penetrate the skin and may contain hormone disruptors, and mineral sunscreens, which often contain micronized particles of zinc or titanium, which are suspected to be toxic if absorbed. While each option has its chemical downside, the EWG recommends broad-spectrum mineral sunscreens as the safest option, since they don’t appear to penetrate the skin, are stable in sunlight, and offer superior UVA protection. Check out EcoSalon’s list of Eco-Beauty Approved Sun Care Products for our recommendations, or the EWG’s 2013 Guide to Safer Sunscreens report for a full list of the 180 products that met its criteria this year.

Stock up on European formulations.

Unlike the United States, the European Union requires that all sunscreens offer UVA protection that is at least a third as potent as its SPF – meaning that if a sunscreen is SPF 30, its UVA protection must be at least 10. Europe allows manufacturers to use seven chemicals specifically designed to filter UVA rays; the U.S., in comparison, has only approved three. According to the EWG, three chemicals – Tinosorb S, Tinsorb M, and Mexoryl SX – are effective in blocking against UVA rays, but their use in America has been held up by delayed FDA approvals.

Apply enough.

Make sure that you’re applying at least one ounce (two tablespoons) of sunscreen to your entire body, a half hour before going into the sun. Reapply every two hours, or after swimming or sweating.

Dress appropriately.

That means dark clothing, a broad rimmed hat, and UV-blocking sunglasses. Some performance activewear lines also include sun protection, such as prAna.

Avoid sunlight during peak hours.

Seek shade between the sun’s peak hours, generally between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Sun exposure during this time can be particularly harmful.

Get a free skin cancer screening.

The Skin Cancer Foundation sponsors the annual Road to Healthy Skin Tour each May at Rite Aid Pharmacy locations across America. For this year’s dates, visit skincancer.org.

Images: Robert S. Donovan, nemuneko.jc 

The post Behind The Label: The Safe Sunscreen Debate appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnThe Amazon Kindle versus paper books: who wins when it comes to sustainability?

In just a matter of years, e-readers like the Amazon Kindle have fundamentally changed the publishing industry, replacing traditional paper books with digital downloads that can be accessed in a matter of minutes.

For many, the Kindle-versus-“real”-book debate boils down to a sense of nostalgia. For years, I refused to even entertain the idea of purchasing an e-reader, preferring instead the look, feel, and experience of reading a paper book.

But there are environmental implications to each option too. Some claim that e-readers are preferable to books, since they don’t require the plentiful amounts of paper and high costs of transport. However, the environmental cost of mining, energy use, and e-waste in the lifecycle of a Kindle shouldn’t be discounted. Add to that equation Amazon’s notorious secrecy surrounding its manufacturing practices, which makes it difficult to make any real comparisons between the two.

The first-generation Kindle debuted in November 2007 and instantly sold out, remaining out of stock for five months. Currently, the product line includes the classic Kindle ($69), Kindle Paperwhite ($119), Kindle Fire ($159), Kindle Fire HD ($199), and the 8.9” Kindle Fire HD ($269). Though the Kindle is often promoted as the world’s best-selling e-reader, Amazon hasn’t released much in the way of true sales data, preferring vague press release statements like “more than double” or “4x over last year.” TechCrunch’s MG Siegler feels comfortable saying that “sales are somewhere between zero and infinity.”

The Good

Although Amazon doesn’t release much information about the Kindle, analysts and think tanks have stepped in to give their best guesses. The most recent comprehensive study of the Kindle was produced by the Cleantech Group in 2008.

The study estimates that the Kindle generates roughly 168 kg of CO2 over a four-year lifecycle, but that carbon emissions are fully offset after the Kindle’s first year of use, assuming that the reader consumes 22.5 books annually. Using historical carbon emission data and e-reader sales projections, Cleantech estimated that e-readers purchased from 2009 to 2012 would prevent 9.9 billion kg of CO2 from being emitted over the four-year period.

Cleantech compares the emissions of a Kindle to the emissions of traditional books, which were estimated to generate up to 1,074 kg of CO2 over the same four-period. But the environmental impact of a book isn’t limited to carbon emissions. According to the report, the U.S. book and newspaper industries consumed 125 million trees and 153 billion gallons of wastewater in 2008. Waste is prevalent at the end of a book’s life too; approximately 36 percent of hardcover and 25 percent of softcover books are returned to publishers after not selling at bookstores, and they are ultimately recycled, incinerated, or sent to landfills.

The Bad

While the data in the Cleantech report is intriguing, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that they are based on guesses rather than fact. Amazon is notoriously secretive about its business practices, particularly about the production and environmental impact of the Kindle. It has repeatedly declined requests for information from think tanks like Cleantech, publications like the New York Times, and even its own investors.

“When it comes to its own footprint, Amazon is consistently more secretive than the CIA,” said Raz Godelnik in Triple Pundit.

Although Amazon doesn’t provide public information about its manufacturers, one thing we do know is that Foxconn, the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer lambasted for horrible working conditions after an Apple expose last year, is one of Amazon’s main production partners. According to various reports, Foxconn is behind the second-generation Kindle Fire, the new Kindle smart phone, and other e-readers in the collection.

But where Apple was subject to consumer backlash and took immediate steps to improve working conditions along its supply chain, Amazon escaped relatively unscathed. It is not part of any working groups, nor does it provide data to organizations seeking to bring about positive change in the industry, like the Cleantech Group or the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Even a call from shareholders for greater transparency was rejected. During the company’s annual meeting in 2011, Calvert Asset Management, whose investors then held about $62 million worth of Amazon shares, called for a report describing the impact of climate change on Amazon’s business, as well as the impact of its business on climate change. “We own this company and want it to do well, so we wouldn’t want any poor performance to come from the release of a document,” Rebecca Henson, Calvert’s sustainability analyst, told the Seattle Times. “We just think it’s something that would be beneficial and could save money in the long run.”

Amazon’s board urged shareholders to vote against the measure, saying that the report would not be “an efficient use of time and resources.” The measure was ultimately rejected.

The Questionable

It’s difficult to fathom that a multi-billion dollar company like Amazon can’t find the resources to conduct an assessment of its environmental impact, particularly when you look at the efforts of its peers.

After the Foxconn expose, Apple tripled its social responsibility unit, publicly released the names of its suppliers, and joined both the Fair Labor Association and the Sustainable Trade Initiative, according to the New York Times. Other tablet competitors, like Sony and Samsung, have long published extensive social responsibility reports. Amazon, on the other hand, won’t even produce a report for its own investors.

As an environmentalist and avid reader, I want to embrace the Kindle. Surprisingly, I enjoy the feel and ease of my Paperwhite (which, full disclosure, I received from an Amazon-sponsored event). I think it’s perfect for travel and handy on the subway.

But I can’t recommend the Kindle enthusiastically until Amazon follows its peers in promoting transparency and social responsibility in its operations. Hopefully the recent firestorm around electronics transparency will convince Amazon that it’s a worthy use of time and resources.

Images: Amazon, The Cleantech Group

The post Behind The Label: The Sustainability Of The Amazon Kindle appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnBen & Jerry’s has long been a poster child for socially responsible business, with its hippie branding, activist leanings, and emphasis on incorporating “happiness” at every step of the ice cream supply chain.

The company’s story begins in 1978 with an abandoned Burlington, Vermont, gas station and a $5 correspondence course on ice cream making. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield wanted to create a company that would churn out the ice cream flavors they always dreamed off, filled with cookies, candy, fruits, nuts, and other fixings. They sourced their dairy from local farmers and christened their signature blends with quirky names like “Chunky Monkey” and “Phishfood.” Within a few years, Ben & Jerry’s had expanded to locations throughout Vermont, and in 1984, it became a publicly owned company.

But then the fairy tale turns cautionary. Ben & Jerry’s continued to grow through the 1980s and 1990s, but according to Fast Company, “the Ben & Jerry’s alternative management style lacked the fiscal and managerial discipline market analysts and investors demanded.” When British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever stepped up to acquire the company for $326 million in 2001, the board was forced to accept out of obligation to its shareholders.

“We very carefully negotiated an acquisition agreement that was supposed to maintain the values of Ben & Jerry’s,” Greenfield told The New York Times in 2010. “What we are learning is, if you are owned by a corporate that, despite whatever words they might say, does not share those values, it’s incredibly difficult to maintain those values.”

But just how much have Ben & Jerry’s values strayed in the 12 years since its Unilever acquisition? This week’s Behind The Label dives into the good, bad, and questionable.

The Good

Since its inception, Ben & Jerry’s has been a sustainability pioneer, from sourcing ethically produced ingredients to designing recyclable packaging. In the 1990s, it was one of the first companies to wage a public battle against rBGH, the Monsanto-developed growth hormone often injected into cows to increase milk production.

Despite acquisition, the company’s commitment to social responsibility doesn’t seem to have wavered in the past 12 years; in fact, it appears to have strengthened.

The company has long sourced its ingredients from fair trade sources – bananas for Chunky Monkey come from the El Guabo cooperative in Ecuador, for instance, while the brownies in Half-Baked are cooked up by Greyston Bakery, a Bronx-based social enterprise providing jobs and skills training for people who face barriers to employment. And in 2010, Ben & Jerry’s made an even more ambitious commitment when it pledged to source all possible ingredients from certified Fair Trade suppliers by the end of 2013. On its website, you can mouse over each flavor to see which ingredients are fair trade and which are still in the process of being certified.

And then there was the recent announcement that Ben & Jerry’s would be converting to entirely non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients by the end of 2013 and adjusting its packaging to reflect responsible GMO labeling standards by 2014. Ben & Jerry’s has publicly announced its support of the GMO Right-to-Know Labeling Movement, and its founders regularly speak out in support of GMO labeling efforts in Washington, Vermont, and Connecticut.

The Bad

But while Ben & Jerry’s has been a vocal advocate of GMO labeling, its parent company has sided with the opposition. Official documents reveal that Unilever spent $467,100 on efforts against Proposition 37, the California labeling act that was defeated last November.

This finding led the Organic Consumers Association to call for a Ben & Jerry’s boycott, until the company pledged to donate the same amount to pro-labeling campaigns in Washington and Vermont.

It’s bad enough that Ben & Jerry’s offers NO organic ice cream flavors. And that the company hasn’t yet eliminated genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from all of its products. But propping up its “progressive” image by telling consumers the company supports GMO labeling, while refusing to help the campaign out with what it really needs: cold hard cash? C’mon guys, you can do better.

And despite sourcing non-GMO, fair trade, and rBGH-free ingredients when possible, the sum of Ben & Jerry’s parts is still not entirely natural. In 2010, the Center for the Science in the Public Interest publicly requested that Ben & Jerry’s remove “all natural” language from its labeling, since many of its products contained alkalized cocoa, high fructose corn syrup, and partially hydrogenated soybean oil. While Ben & Jerry’s maintains that it used the natural labeling in accordance with FDA standards, it complied with the request to prevent consumer confusion.

The Questionable

While Ben & Jerry’s has been able to operate with relative independence since its acquisition 12 years ago, comments from its founders reveal internal conflicts.

In a 2010 interview with The Guardian, Cohen famously described the relationship as a “forced marriage”:

Unilever quite likes to hold up Ben & Jerry’s as kind of the poster child of socially responsible business and does use that to try to give an example of ‘here is how socially concerned Unilever is, you know, we have the Ben & Jerry’s brand’. And you know Ben and Jerry’s does happen to be very high profile but when Unilever holds up Ben & Jerry’s as ‘our example of how socially responsible we are’, you know, we should understand that Unilever is what? – a $40bn-$50bn business and we’re a little piece of that.

So it is greenwash? the reporter asked.

“Yeah, yeah,” Ben responded.

On the other hand, Unilever has emerged in recent years as model for corporate social responsibility, most notably with its much-hailed Sustainable Living Plan. The plan lays out some pretty ambitious goals, from sourcing all of its agricultural raw materials sustainably by 2020 to halving greenhouse gas impact by the same year. The plan’s annual progress report, released Monday, revealed significant progress toward those goals.

Many speculate that it was partly due to the Ben & Jerry’s partnership that Unilever executives decided to take on such an ambitious project. And according to B Corp’s full impact assessment, Ben & Jerry’s has achieved impressive marks when it comes to governance, workers, community, and environment – enough to earn it B Corp status last year.

Ben and Jerry may grumble, but it appears that their company is not only in capable hands, but that it is also playing a significant role in the socially responsible makeover of one of the world’s largest conglomerates. The Ben & Jerry’s-Unilever marriage may have been forced, but it seems to be working.

Images: Ben & Jerry’s, theimpulsivebuy

The post Behind The Label: Ben & Jerry’s appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnIs H&M as conscious as it claims to be?

The notion of H&M as a sustainable fashion brand might strike you as an oxymoron. How can the Swedish retailer, best known for pioneering wasteful, disposable, trend-driven fast fashion, possibly claim to be socially responsible?

It might take time, but that is H&M’s aim, if the company’s latest Conscious Actions Report is any indication. The 93-page document outlines in detail H&M’s goals, actions, and progress toward becoming a more sustainable fashion brand. Along with the report, H&M recently released its full supplier list for the first time, a significant move toward greater transparency for the multi-billion dollar corporation. And then there’s H&M’s new Conscious Exclusive Collection, the latest in a line of fashionable capsule collections featuring eco-preferable fabrics, like organic cotton and recycled polyester.

According to CEO Karl-Johan Persson, H&M doesn’t just want to improve its own sustainability – it wants to create long-lasting systemic change in the fashion industry. “Our size gives us the opportunity to promote such change well beyond our own operations,” Persson says in the report. “Together with our millions of customers we can bring massive change – from improving the livelihood of a cotton farmer to how our customers care for the clothes they buy.”

But how does H&M’s words stack up against its actions? Last year, we launched Behind The Label with a look at H&M’s conscious efforts. This week, we return to see how far the company has come.

The Good

Some fashion brands launch capsule eco-collections, promote them to death, then call it a day. But for H&M, its Conscious Collections are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to social responsibility efforts.

At the latest collection’s launch in New York City last week, I caught up with Caterina Midby, director of fashion and sustainability communications, to discuss how H&M incorporates sustainability into the design process. Turns out, the first step is having high expectations.

“We never start the design process by seeing what’s available,” said Midby. “We would rather design the garment, decide on how it looks, then go out and look… some of these fabrics have never been available on the market. It’s been up to us to request them and for our suppliers to develop them.”

Indeed, H&M’s size has allowed it to demand from suppliers what other brands can’t. But in that power lies great responsibility, which the company appears to be taking seriously. In its Conscious Actions Report, H&M identifies seven major areas of commitment:

1. Provide fashion for conscious consumers
2. Choose and reward responsible partners
3. Be ethical
4. Be climate smart
5. Reduce, reuse, recycle
6. Use natural resources responsibly
7. Strengthen communities

Alone, the commitments sound pretty innocuous. However, the Conscious Actions listed beneath each commitment reveal a strong understanding of the challenges facing the global apparel industry, as well as the extenuating factors that make those challenges difficult to overcome. For instance, under “Choose and reward responsible partners,” commitment number one is for H&M to be a good partner to suppliers, “by providing fair lead times, fair pricing, on-time payments and clear communication.” Too often, brands blame their suppliers when labor abuses occur. Here, H&M asserts that it, too, bears the responsibility to be a good partner.

Some other highlights from the report:

• For the second year in a row, H&M was the largest purchaser of organic cotton in the world – an amount totaling only 7.8 percent of its total cotton use, which is indicative of the power a brand has at H&M’s scale. The company’s goal is to convert entirely to more sustainably sourced cotton by 2020.
• In 2012, H&M became the first global retailer to start a system to collect and recycle old clothing. Customers now have the opportunity to drop old clothes, from any brand, in collection bins at H&M stores. H&M will then reuse and recycle those clothes in an effort to close the textile loop.
• Also this year, H&M launched a new three-year partnership with the World Water Fund to create new standards for water stewardship in the fashion industry, starting from the design of a garment all the way to advocating for public policy changes.

The Bad

It wasn’t too long ago that clothing was something that people valued. Garments cost a bit more, but they lasted for decades. If you ripped your shirt, you would mend it. You left the mall with one or two purchases, and you would wear them to pieces.

But today, you can find H&M shirts for $3 and jeans for $15. If you rip your shirt, you throw it away and buy a new one. You leave the mall with 15 purchases, and some you don’t even get around to wearing.

Through sophisticated marketing and merchandising, fast fashion brands like H&M have fundamentally changed the way that consumers approach shopping, leading many to consume more than they actually need and dispose of everything else. H&M’s rock-bottom pricing model has also had a profound effect on the rest of the fashion world, forcing other brands to lower their prices in order to compete. What this usually means is lower quality fabrics and production methods across the board, as well as lower wages for garment workers.

But when questioned about the (un)sustainability of its business model, H&M’s sustainability executives seem to shrug off the company’s responsibility. At an H&M- and Vogue-sponsored panel on conscious fashion last week, head of sustainability Helena Helmersson dodged the fast fashion question by saying, “For us it’s about reducing impact. Still we’re going to expand, so how do we reduce the impact and our footprint?”

Caterina Midby, who also sat on the panel, placed the onus for responsible consumption on the consumer: “It’s not how like it used to be when I started in the business, when trends change from one season to another,” she said. “Now it’s all about personal style. You don’t really need to renew your wardrobe every six to seven months. It’s really up to the consumer.”

The Questionable

H&M prides itself on democratizing fashion, on “bringing it to the masses,” if you will. It’s a lovely thought – who doesn’t love democracy? – but too often it leads to overconsumption. According to Elizabeth Cline, author of “Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Fast Fashion,” the average American purchases 68 garments and seven pairs of shoes each year. Compare that to 1929, when the average woman had just nine outfits total.

I place part of the blame on H&M for getting us to this point. Whether H&M wants to admit it or not, it’s due to its sophisticated marketing and merchandising engine that consumers now feel the need to buy more of what they don’t need.

That said, I am encouraged by H&M’s stated commitment to sustainability. One has only to visit HM.com or walk into one of its retail stores to see the marketing power that the company has put behind its Conscious campaign. The flora and fauna swathing spokeswoman Vanessa Paradis may be a bit overkill, but the message is pretty clear: H&M is going green, and it’s taking you with it.

If H&M was able to change the way we view the fashion calendar in the course of just a few decades, I hope that now, it will use its power to make us view fashion more responsibly. A brand of its scale has the ability not only to have a positive effect through its own behavior, but also to influence its peers and its customers. I hope it is conscious of that fact.

Images: H&M

The post Behind The Label: Revisiting H&M Conscious appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnWith a name like Organix, you might assume that the brand in question is organic… right?

You would be wrong.

The popular drug and big box store line of hair, bath and body products may share six of seven letters with the word “organic,” but its products surprisingly don’t contain any qualifying ingredients.

Owned by Florida-based Vogue International, Organix offers more than 70 personal care products featuring trendy, exotic-sounding ingredients like “pomegranate green tea,” “awapuhi ginger,” “acai berry avocado,” and “Moroccan argan oil.” At prices that easily compete with non-natural competitors, and distribution across major drugstores and superstores nationwide, Organix is viewed as a budget-friendly option for shoppers that desire conscience-friendly products, but don’t have the funds for more expensive all-natural brands.

But how much of the brand’s green marketing is real, and how much is just greenwashing? This week’s Behind The Label takes a look at the good, bad, and questionable.

The Good

On its FAQ page, Organix claims that all of its products are free from sulfates and parabens, those vilified groups of compounds that are said to be toxic and carcinogenic. Sulfate compounds like sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate are generally added to products like shampoo and body wash as a foaming and degreasing agent, while parabens like ethyparaben, butylparaben, methylparaben, and propylparaben are commonly present as a preservative to prevent the growth of microbes in cosmetic products. Both groups of compounds are suspect: some sulfates are said to release 1,4-dioxane, a known carcinogen, while parabens have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and skin irritation. While U.S. regulatory bodies maintain that the small amounts of sulfates and parabens in mass-market personal care products are unlikely to cause significant harm, products that are free from these ingredients are seen as safer for consumers.

Organix also says that it stands against animal testing, and that it carefully monitors all ingredients used in its products. PETA  included Organix on its most recent list of companies that do not test on animals.

Plus, Organix products are said to be sold in environmentally preferable packaging, with recycled materials and eco-friendly inks, though there was little online data to support that claim.

The Bad

Organix’s tagline is: “Beauty, pure and simple.” But how pure and simple are we talking about?

According to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep cosmetics database, the brand’s Renewing Moroccan Argan Oil Shampoo lists the following ingredients:

Deionized Water, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium C 14 16 Olefin Sulfonate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, Dimethicone Copolyol (Silica), Cocamide DEA, Glycol Distearate, Argania Spinosa (Argan) Kernel Oil (Argan), Cacao (Theobroma Cacao) Extract (Cocoa Butter), Parfum, Cocos Nucifera Oil (Coconut), Persea Gratissima Oil (Avocado), Aloe Vera (Aloe Barbadensis) Extract (Aloe Leaf), Panthenol, Polyquaternium 11, DMDM Hydantoin, Cetyl Alcohol, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, PEG 23M, Red 40, Yellow 5

Yikes. After water, the top three ingredients – Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium C 14 16 Olefin Sulfonate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine – are synthetic surfactants used for their cleansing and foaming properties. Note that “Argania Spinosa (Argan) Kernel Oil” is ninth on the list, a sure sign that it is not a prominent ingredient in the formula.

Organix’s Renewing Moroccan Argan Oil Conditioner has a similarly long list of ingredients. Though free from sulfates and parabens, the item does contain methylisothiazolinone – a controversial preservative that is commonly used in place of parabens but is suspected of causing immunotoxicity and skin toxicity. The United States, Japan, and many European countries have concluded that methylisothiazolinone is safe at maximum concentrations of 0.01 percent, but Canada has banned its use in cosmetics.

The Questionable

Organic shampoo, at your local drugstore, for about the same price as Pantene Pro-V and Garnier Fructis? If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

The funny thing about Organix is that the company never actually claims to include organic ingredients. There aren’t any stamps from the USDA on its packaging, nor are there organic claims on its ingredient list. There’s just that name, which so obviously implies organic even if the rest of the branding doesn’t.

It’s this kind of misleading labeling that has created a sense of distrust and confusion in the natural and organic personal care space. In June 2011, the Center for Environmental Health decided to take action, waging a lawsuit against 26 companies that use the label “organic” on products that list few or no organic ingredients. Organix’ Hydrating Teatree Mint Conditioner was listed among the offenders, along with products from Kiss My Face, Jason, Aubrey Organics, and Nature’s Baby. Eleven of the companies ultimately agreed to comply with clearer labeling restrictions; Vogue International/Organix was not one of them.

For consumers seeking a product that is free from sulfates, parabens, and animal testing, Organix is a decent budget option. But those seeking truly chemical-free products should educate themselves on ingredients and never take “natural” or “organic” claims at face value. Until a strict regulation scheme is in place regarding the use of misleading language on product packaging, the onus lies on us, the consumers, to be ardent questioners and readers of labels.

Images: Organix, Jessica Marati

The post Behind The Label: Organix’s Misleading Labeling appeared first on EcoSalon.

Column Chocolate is a guilty pleasure in more ways than one.

For most people, chocolate evokes positive associations: indulgence, childhood, Valentine’s Day. But in Western Africa, the connotations are far less positive. There, an estimated 1.8 million child laborers work tirelessly to produce the cocoa that goes into our Easter bunny chocolates.

The ills of the cocoa industry first entered the public eye in the early 2000s, after a BBC documentary called “Slavery: A Global Investigation” highlighted the child labor and slavery abuses occurring on West African cocoa farms. According to the International Labor Rights Forum, child workers in the cocoa industry typically “labor for long, punishing hours, using dangerous tools and facing frequent exposure to dangerous pesticides as they travel great distances in the grueling heat.” In addition, those working as slaves “suffer frequent beatings and other cruel treatment.”

The Good

The BBC documentary sparked a loud, though short-lived, public outcry. Soon after it was released, U.S. House Representative Eliot Engel and Senator Tom Harkin sponsored the Harkin-Engel Protocol, a public-private agreement to eliminate the “worst forms of child labor” (as defined by the International Labour Organization) in the growth and processing of cocoa in the Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, where nearly 75 percent of the world’s cocoa supply is grown. Signed in September 2001, the agreement, better known as the Cocoa Protocol, outlined six actions, each with specific deadlines.

• Public statement of the need for and terms of an action plan.
• Formation of multi-sectoral advisory groups. (By December 1, 2001)  
• Signed joint statement on child labor to be witnessed at the ILO. (By December 1, 2001)
• Memorandum of cooperation. (By May 1, 2002)
• Establish a joint foundation. (By July 1, 2002)
• Building toward credible standards. (By July 1, 2005)

The agreement was signed by multiple stakeholders, from the heads of the Chocolate Manufacturers Association and World Cocoa Foundation, to the coordinator of the Child Labor Coalition, to the presidents of the world’s top eight chocolate manufacturers at the time. It was a significant commitment to ending child labor in the cocoa industry, from the people in positions to effect that change.

The Bad

The Cocoa Protocol was first lauded as a success, but its long-term results have been less than impressive. By the first protocol deadline in 2005, the industry had still failed to implement an industry-wide certification program. An amendment gave the stakeholders three more years, but by 2008, the objectives were still not met. In 2010, the parties signed yet another document – commonly referred to as the 2010 Joint Declaration – that reaffirmed their commitment and added the goal of reducing the worst forms of child labor by 70 percent by 2020.

It’s evident that the Cocoa Protocol still has a long way to go. A 2011 report from the Tulane University Payson Center revealed that about 1.8 million children continue to work in cocoa agriculture in the Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana alone. In the Côte d’Ivoire, about five percent work for pay, and in Ghana, about 10 percent do. In the 12 years since the Cocoa Protocol was signed, only about five percent of child laborers have been exposed to its related initiatives.

In early 2012, the issue was again brought to the public eye thanks to a CNN Freedom Project documentary called Chocolate’s Child Slaves. While exploring cocoa farms in the Côte d’Ivoire,  filmmakers found that not only were child labor and slavery still very prevalent, but many of the employers they encountered hadn’t even been informed of the need to change their practices.

So What Now?

Educate yourself further.

This column just scratches the surface of the abuses and ills of the cocoa industry. To learn more, I recommend watching Mika Mistrati and U. Roberto Romano’s 2010 documentary, “The Dark Side of Chocolate,” and checking out the “Chocolate’s Child Slaves” content from the CNN Freedom Project.

Sign the petition.

Oxfam recently launched a “Women and Chocolate” petition as part of its larger “Behind the Brands” campaign, which seeks to change the way big brands do business. The petition calls on the top three chocolate manufacturers — Nestle, Mars, and Mondelez International (formerly Kraft) — to reduce gender inequality in their industry. While a separate issue from child labor, it’s still an important one.

Indulge responsibly.

Relax — no one is asking you to boycott chocolate now that you know its darker side. But you might want to consider switching your loyalties to Fair Trade brands that work directly with certified slave-free cocoa producers. And beware of Fair Trade brands that are actually owned by troublesome corporations, like Green & Blacks, owned by Mondelez, or Dagoba, owned by Hershey. My personal Fair Trade favorites are Equal Exchange, Kopali Organics, and Divine Chocolate.

Images: Kirti Poddar, Peter DiCampo/Oxfam America, Clive Dara

The post Behind The Label: The Unsweet Dark Side of the Chocolate Industry appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnNike has proven that it can “just do it” when it comes to incorporating sustainability into its supply chain… or has it?

Not so long ago, the Nike brand was synonymous with sweatshops and child labor.

But over the past decade, it has successfully reinvented itself into a poster child for innovation and sustainability in the apparel industry. Under its Nike Better World campaign, it has launched game-changing initiatives like doubling its use of recycled polyester in apparel; starting the Reuse-A-Shoe program, which has turned 28 million old shoes into things like sport courts, tracks, and playgrounds; and creating the Nike Materials Index, which seeks to clarify the environmental impact of internal design decisions. And ostensibly, it has cleaned up its labor issues.

For many, it’s a rags-to-riches story – proof that it is possible for one of the largest shoe companies in the world to embrace social responsibility and still turn a hefty profit. If they can “just do it,” why can’t the rest?

The story, however, is slightly more complicated. This week’s return of Behind The Label looks at the good – nay, great – elements of Nike’s about-face, along with the not-so-good aspects.

The Good

Nike’s corporate social responsibility efforts have been lauded throughout the industry. However, the company makes clear that it’s less altruism that drives forward their sustainability efforts – it’s the need to prepare for a “fundamentally different operating environment,” one in which “competition for scarce natural resources affects the cost and availability of the inputs needed to make our products” and “rising energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions lead to increasing pressure on traditional models of product manufacturing and transportation.”

Its sustainability pillars are four-fold:

• Creating a portfolio of sustainable materials
• Prototyping and scaling sustainable sourcing and manufacturing models
• Igniting and driving market transformation
• Creating digital services revenue

Now, it’s easy for companies as large as Nike to talk the talk when it comes to sustainability goals. But Nike is also walking the walk, particularly when it comes to the technology of sustainability.

Its latest innovation is called Flyknit – a new shoe created through a mechanized knitting process that minimizes weight (for a better “barefoot” running experience AND lower shipping costs) as well as waste (66 percent less than the brand’s popular Air Pegasus+ 28).

The computer-controlled weaving technology is a “game-changer,” Nike president Charlie Denson told Bloomberg News last March. The technology eliminates the need to cut and assemble multiple parts of the shoe, which is the most labor-intensive part of the process and a large reason Nike has long outsourced cheaper labor in Asia. Denson says that the technology cuts costs so much “that eventually we could make these shoes anywhere in the world.” Including, potentially, on-site at your local Nike store.

The Bad

Indeed, Nike has come a long way from its position at the center of the sweatshop movement of the 1990s, when it was revealed that the company was using child labor in its overseas factories. The news sparked student movements on college campuses across the country, which lobbied their administrations to divest themselves from campus and sports apparel that were made under sweatshop-like conditions.

Since then, Nike has made an effort to work with advocacy groups and unions to address their concerns. But apparently, the company hasn’t worked hard enough. For instance, in 2011, garment workers at the Sukabami plant near Jakarta, Indonesia, claimed that they were mentally and physically abused at factories making Converse, a brand that is owned by Nike. The workers reported that supervisors “slapped them in the face, kicked them and called them dogs and pigs,” according to a report from the Associated Press. Workers at the factory made around 50 cents an hour – “enough for food and bunkhouse-type lodging, but little else.”

According to the AP, Nike is aware of such abuses in its factories, but it is unable – or unwilling – to stop them. An internal report released in 2011 showed that about two-thirds of the 168 factories contracted by Nike to make Converse products fail to meet Nike’s standards, with twelve in the most serious category, 97 in a category for no progress, and six that hadn’t been audited.

The Questionable

When Nike released the Flyknit shoe, it also launched the Nike Flyknit Collective – a large-scale marketing campaign centered around a platform for creative innovators who were embracing the fundamental principles of the shoe’s design. As part of the campaign, Nike hosted large scale art installations in six major cities, producing video and media content to share on the web.

Nike is famous for lavish advertising, endorsement deals, and marketing stints like this one. The Flyknit campaign easily cost millions. And recently, Nike made headlines for closing one of the most lucrative athletic sponsorships in history — $200 million over 10 years to 23-year-old golf star Rory McIlroy.

When faced with such sums, it’s difficult to explain why Nike can’t pay its factory workers more than 50 cents an hour, or why it claims that it can’t scrounge up the resources to more vigorously monitor its overseas factories.

The advances taken by Nike have been tremendous. And it’s possible that Nike’s latest advance, a shoe knit mechanically, is its greatest yet.

But have Nike’s shiny sustainability efforts distracted us from the fact that substandard conditions continue to perpetuate its overseas factories? The campus protests may have stopped in the 1990s, but it appears the problems continue to exist more than 20 years later. Nike has proven that it has the resources to overcome sustainability barriers previously thought insurmountable. Let’s hope its next efforts are directed toward creating a better world for its workers.

Images: Nike Better World, Nike Sustainability Strategy, Nike Flyknit Collective

The post Behind The Label: Nike Better World appeared first on EcoSalon.

Cell phones are changing the world, in both good ways and bad.

Last week’s highly-anticipated release of the iPhone 5 signaled to the world that despite a global recession, the cell phone industry shows no signs of slowing down. It is estimated that 85 percent of the world’s population currently has access to a mobile phone, and a new report by Ericsson predicts that by 2017, that same percentage will have access to 3G mobile Internet.

This level of global connectivity and access to information is unprecedented in human history, and social entrepreneurs are quick to jump on mobile technology as a solution to problems like poverty, inequality, and disease. At the same time, the cell phone industry has come under fire for its use of potentially harmful materials, questionable labor practices, and manipulative marketing schemes that encourage disposability, planned obsolescence, and unnecessary consumption. This week’s Behind the Label weighs the benefits of mobile technology against the downsides of the cell phone industry.

In 1983, Motorola released the first mobile telephone, futuristically dubbed the DynaTAC 8000X. The $3995 phone was almost comical in its heft (2 pounds) and design (remember cordless phones?). However, the release of the phone forecasted a future in which people could be connected, even when they were on the go.

Through the 1990s and early 2000s, phones became smaller, slimmer, and more affordable. Companies like Nokia, Motorola, and Kyocera led the charge with models that blended form and function (who could forget Nokia’s funky removable faceplates?). At the same time, companies like Palm, Handspring, and Blackberry began developing mobile devices that doubled as personal digital assistants.

This evolution and proliferation of cell phones set the stage for Apple‘s release of the first-generation iPhone smartphone in early 2007. The phone’s sleekness, simplicity, and functionality made it an instant game-changer, one that continues to spark rumors and draw record sales with every new release.

The Good

The spread of mobile technology, particularly in the developing world, makes the cell phone a useful tool for tackling global issues. In a recent article, Mashable highlighted five ways that mobile is the future of sustainable development:

• Disease response, with the example of how using phones to report malaria outbreaks has cut response time from four weeks to three minutes in Africa.
• Education through gamification, with the example of how the new Half the Sky mobile games teach women valuable health and business skills.
• Monitoring government accountability, with the example of how SMS messages can be used to track government absenteeism and improve services in Karnataka, India.
• Preserving the rainforest, with the example of an Android app that is helping members of an Amazon jungle tribe measure their land’s carbon stock and sell carbon offsets.
• Disaster response, with the example of a Red Cross app that helps teach emergency preparedness.

These are just a few ways that mobile has had an impact in the developing world. But even in the developed world, cell phones have yielded benefits. Remember when you couldn’t call a friend to say you were running late, or look up that song lyric that was driving you crazy? Problem solved, thanks to smartphones.

Mobile apps assist millions of users with services like email, maps, and weather forecasts, and some have revolutionized entire industries. If you want to purchase music, you no longer need to buy a plastic-encased CD with a paper leaflet – you can download individual tracks, or better yet, stream them. Avid readers don’t need to contribute to deforestation by purchasing physical copies of books, newspapers, and magazines – they can access the information online through free or subscription-based services. Then, of course, there are the dozens of mobile apps we’ve highlighted here on EcoSalon, which can help you live a more conscious lifestyle by reducing your carbon footprint, getting in touch with nature, eating better, and becoming a more socially responsible shopper.

The Bad

In recent years, dozens of environmental and ethical issues related to cell phone production, marketing, use, and disposal have come to light.

It starts with the production of the phone. According to a UL White Paper on the Life Cycle of Materials in Mobile Phones, most cell phones consist of approximately 40% metal and 40% plastic, with the rest of the gadget comprising glass, ceramic, and miscellaneous material. A significant environmental consideration is the energy required to extract the metals used in cell phones, particularly copper, gold, silver, and palladium. In addition, materials like gold, tin, tantalum, and tungsten are often mined in conflict areas, earning them the title of “conflict minerals” by organizations like Raise Hope for Congo, which attempts to educate consumers about the relationship between consumer electronics and violence in Eastern Congo.

That’s not to mention the labor issues that were revealed in an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” earlier this year. The piece, which was excerpted from Mike Daisey’s one-man show, “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” sought to expose the unethical working conditions at Foxconn Technology, the massive Chinese manufacturer that supplies companies like Apple, Motorola, and Nokia. Though the piece was later retracted due to faulty evidence, Foxconn’s reputation was dealt a hefty blow, particularly after reports of mass suicides and worker riots, and the publication of an undercover expose from The Shanghai Evening Post on working conditions leading up to the iPhone 5 release.

Then, there are the ethical issues involved in using a cell phone. Most smartphones rely on accessing data stored in “the cloud,” a digital infrastructure that allows companies to deliver services over the Internet. Though the term sounds nebulous, this infrastructure, in reality, is powered by massive data centers that, “by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner,” according to a recent special investigation from The New York Times. The article went on to explain that these digital warehouses use about 30 billion watts of electricity, but only about 6 to 12 percent of that electricity is used for actual operations. According to the analysis, “the rest was essentially used to keep servers idling and ready in case of a surge in activity that could slow or crash their operations.”

And finally, there’s the disposal of your cell phone once it’s reached the end of its useful life. Cell phones are classified as a form of toxic waste, thanks to high levels of lead, copper, nickel, antimony, and zinc present in most phone bodies and batteries. Once these gadgets reach the landfill, they leach dangerous amounts of toxins, which then infiltrate the land and nearby water sources. Most of America’s toxic “e-waste” is exported, often to landfills near poor communities in the developing world. A recent CBS News 60 Minutes report tracked one carton of “e-waste” from Colorado to the western Chinese town of Guiyu, where reporters found unbreathable air, undrinkable water, and the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world.

Layered on top of these life-cycle concerns is the troubling issue of the mobile industry’s manic marketing machine, which often turns a new phone into an unfashionable or unusable relic in a matter of a few years. This business strategy even has a name: planned obsolescence. The New York Times’ David Pogue described it well:

The electronics industry itself is built upon frequent renewal. The iPhone, iPod or iPad you buy today will be obsolete within a year. Every pocket camera model on sale today will no longer be sold six months from now. And Android phones — forget it. They seem to come out every Friday afternoon.

But while we can certainly blame the cell phone industry for this phenomenon, we may be equally to blame, says Pogue.

Does technology really advance that quickly? Or is planned obsolescence at work? It doesn’t matter. In the end, we’re as much to blame as the electronics companies. The manufacturers are simply catering to some fundamental human drives. It’s style; it’s status; it’s the confidence of knowing that we’re not missing out on anything. Owning outdated technology makes us feel outdated ourselves.

So What Now?

Though mobile technology provides a definite benefit to the world, the industry is still plagued with environmental and ethical issues. There are, however, ways you can make your mobile habits more socially responsible. Here are a few.

Assess Your Needs

If you use your cell phone primarily to talk and text, a simple flip phone may be all you need to stay connected. But if your phone serves as your digital camera, your music player, your GPS device, your news reader, and your very best friend, you’re probably better served with a functionality-packed device like the iPhone, especially if owning that one device eliminates the need for all those others.

Consider a “Green” Phone

According to Juniper Research, sales of environmentally-friendly cell phones – defined as those that are free of hazardous chemicals and contain half or more recyclable materials – will reach 400 million by 2017. Treehugger recently published a round-up of the most eco-friendly cell phones on the market, which includes the Samsung Galaxy Exhilarate (AT&T) and the Samsung Replenish (Sprint). In addition, UL Environment recently created a sustainability standard for cell phones, which takes into account the phone’s materials, energy consumption, energy consumption control, available networks, packaging, and end of life options. Currently, 29 mobile phones are included in ULE’s Sustainable Product Database.

Compare Service Providers

EcoSalon recently compared the eco-credentials of AT&T and Verizon, with Verizon winning out for its environmental accomplishments, which include reducing carbon emissions by more than 793 million pounds in 2009, reducing energy consumption by 84 million kilowatt hours in 2009, and establishing the telecom industry’s first energy-efficient standards in 2008. But don’t just take it from us; before you sign a contract, research and inquire about your cell phone provider’s environmental commitment.

Dispose Responsibly

If you must get rid of your phone, make sure you do it responsibly. First, follow the proper recycling procedures: cancel your service contract, delete all personal information, and remove your SIM card, battery, and accessories. A number of retailers, like Apple and Best Buy offer buy-back and recycling programs, which tend to offer credits or discounts toward future phone purchases. You can also donate your phone to a non-profit like 911 Cell Phone Bank, which provides emergency phones to victim service organizations, or Cell Phones for Soldiers, which donates phones to military veterans.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Diamond Engagement Ring Industry

Behind the Mother’s Day Flower Trade

Behind the Label: The Lululemon Manifesto

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Images: Peretz Partensky, Erik Hersman

The post Behind The Label: The Cell Phone Industry appeared first on EcoSalon.