JKR

FastCo have run an interesting piece on the Ikea sustainability scorecard. The scorecard rates each Ikea product against various measures – carbon footprint, shipping process, recyclability etc. The intention is not to share this information externally, but to use it as a stick to drive improvements – each product’s score should improve over time. The marketing carrot here is clear – the ability to announce constant improvement. And indeed aiming for ‘better’ has to be preferable to not caring one way or the other. The stick here will certainly lead to greener products relative to Ikea’s current footprint.

But as FastCo point out, Ikea’s real ‘green’ issue is that their products are not built to last fifty years. Broadly disposable products are not working off a particularly green base. So while measurements lead to more sustainable management, the real issue is arguably being dodged.

If the measurements are an internal project they can be used subjectively and wider ‘truths’ can be the first casualty. What’s the answer? The Sustainable Apparel Index and other industry wide initiatives gathering momentum at least offer the ability to objectively compare brands. But with issues this complicated, simple comparisons do not always work.

Is the best approach one that looks wider than one’s own navel and one’s own numbers? Leading by example is arguably more impressive and more useful. Nike might not have a spotless green record, but they are continuing to innovate and offer up their learning for others to share.  This Nike shoe is a ‘performance’ basketball design made from manufacturing waste off the factory floor. Check out their Better world site, where this and other innovations are explained and shared. Perhaps effective sustainable design is less about making one’s figures add up nicely and more about big steps that are used to bring the whole category on. What do you think?