Category Archives: carbon

It’s hard to know why Apple made the decision to opt out of certification by EPEAT, the green computing standard, without hearing from the company directly about it. One thing is all but certain: the company made a considered decision to do what it thought was in the best interests of its shareholders.

The reality is that there is no single definition of a “green product.” The manufacture, use and disposal of IT products can have a wide range of environmental impacts. Some products may have excellent environmental performance in some dimensions–such as energy efficiency or the absence of toxic materials–but unimpressive performance in others. Apple has performed life cycle assessments of its products in the past and found that 91 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its products are traceable to the manufacturing and use phase. It traced just 2 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions  to recycling. It will be interesting to see how the new Macbook pro fares in an updated LCA.

Some organizations have green procurement policies that require the computers they purchase to be EPEAT rated. Apple’s move may make it difficult for these organizations to continue purchasing Apple products in the categories that EPEAT rates. Notably, this does not currently include tablets or smart phones, two growth categories for Apple. I have seen little evidence that individuals or small businesses consider environmental labels highly when deciding to purchase Apple products.

This move may ignite a debate about the definition of a green computing product, and it may drive discussion about how to define standards for newer categories of products like tablets and smart phones that are not currently addressed by EPEAT ratings and in which Apple dominates. Defining a standard there that excludes the market leader would make the standard less relevant than it otherwise would be.

By Bonnie J. Wallace

It’s becoming clear that the proliferation of eco-targeted labels (currently 424 in 26 countries, according to Ecolabel Index) is contributing more to confusion than to loyalty among consumers. Except for a handful of the most recognized logos– the Recycling Symbol, ENERGY STAR, and USDA Organic lead the rest by a long shot– most people still make decisions primarily based on price, style, convenience, and health benefits. Only the last of these ties in directly with perceived green qualities.

The Biobased label could well add to this confusion, since a product can get certified as Biobased without any demonstration of its superior environmental performance. It’s not technically an eco label in this sense. So why do we need yet another label, and why should you consider incorporating the USDA Certified Biobased standard into your company’s marketing strategy? For three major reasons: first, because this label has the recognition and credibility of the USDA’s backing.  Secondly, the muscle of the Fed drives the initiative. Finally, it’s in alignment with a move away from petroleum-based materials, toward renewable materials, and efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The label is part of a larger program backed by Executive Order to create agricultural jobs and better manage the carbon cycle. (http://www.biopreferred.gov/).

Distinguishing this label from so many others is its test-based standard, and the requirement that the percentage of Biobased content be included on the label. This makes for a powerful antidote to the numbing and meaningless claims of “natural,” “non-toxic,” etc. that flood the market and lead to a sense of greenwashing for even legitimately sustainable products. Different product categories have different content requirements to be recognized as Biobased. Categories of product that don’t yet have a standard established must meet at least 25% Biobased content to qualify for the label.

A controversial aspect of the new standard is its exclusion of “mature market” products from the program. Products with significant market penetration in 1972 (example: paper plates, cotton t-shirts) are excluded; the rationale being that the government wants to encourage the development of new Biobased products. But this can lead to the odd prospect of a new plastic plate with only 51% corn-based PLA qualifying for certification, while its 100% Biobased paper plate competitor does not, which is both confusing and misleading to consumers.

One way to get around the mature market issue is already in the hands of green marketers. Since sustainable qualities alone are not enough in a crowded field to compel most consumers to open their wallets, the best opportunity for market share may in fact be to create a new market category entirely.  This could mean either redefining an existing product to fill a new or unmet need, or approaching old needs with a new eye. Most of the examples I can come up with in this category are technology or service-based (iPad, ink-jet printers, Zipcar, pizza delivery) but this doesn’t mean the opportunity is missing.

Redesigning existing products to meet new category status could both qualify the product for the USDA Certified Biobased label and open up an entirely new field to lead. What products do you have that may already qualify as Biobased? What might you be able to reposition in a new category, pairing green aspects with a compelling benefit (cost savings, stronger design, more convenient) to win both the label and a first mover advantage?

Bonnie J. Wallace is a freelance writer living in Los Angeles, specializing in responsible business. She holds a Sustainable MBA from Bainbridge Graduate Institute as well as a strong belief in business as a tool for transformation. When she’s not writing, Bonnie enjoys exploring ways that art can create community, and performing her supporting role as a stage mom.