Datuk datuk, datin datin.

Been flipping The Edge and came across cover stories.  These people with their photos taken on the page, who obviously are the 'talking heads' of their organisations.  Sometimes they come with a title and sometimes they don't (but most of the time they do).  Got me thinking.  Or questioning in fact, how much calibre do these people have?  Cause I've met a few (obviously not enough to warrant a proper qualitative) but some that I really question the information they provide and trends they spot.  If they are who they claim to be, then the most immediate result would be how the company runs, the products or services that are put out, the marketing that goes with it and most importantly, the people behind who make all these happen.  Just so Datuk so and so and Datin so and so can say something on The Edge's cover story.

Just wondering.  No harm done.

The evolution of Man: What CAN we become?

Once upon a time, shortly after the completion of our social research on eco awareness, The Green Chronicles, we propagated that producers/manufacturers should not stop their consumer purchase cycle at 'consumption' but at 'disposal'.  When it is put into their mandatory action list, I am very sure it will drastically change the way products are planned and launched (think cameras, think smartphones).  If manufacturers are responsible for products at the disposal stage, then we will have better quality products with longer 'usage' life and a more sustainable eco-system of consumption.

While I shopped at H&M last weekend, that's one brand which recently launched a global awareness campaign on their sustainable recycling strategy.  Simple: Bring in your old clothes and trade for discounts for new ones.  Old clothes will then be recycled into materials which will be used in manufacturing new ones.  This practice now has a label and it's called EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility.  The whole point is not to mindlessly put new stuff into this world - we need to seriously consider how to 'delete' them from our system.  There.  Are.  Just.  Too.  Much.  Stuff.  In.  This.  World.  Seriously.

Now, you may not think much about this tiny little extended marketing program, but assuming the best that ALL manufacturers in this world were put in place to ensure sustainability in their product life cycle; then the first most immediate visible impact would be: NO LANDFILL.  This world will have no more landfill.  If you can't think of a way to dispose and/or recycle your products sustainably then you can't produce.  Period.  Simple as that.  Imagine, a world with no landfill.  NO LANDFILL.  No more rubbish dumps in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that spans for kilometers in diameter.

Watch the video below to get the picture.

p/s: If you're reading this and are in the business of production, please, I beg of you, consider this epic insight.  As starters, I'll even volunteer my time to discuss possibilities if you need an additional thinking buddy (consultation thereafter is chargeable though, ha ha ha).  Well I'm serious, really, think about it.



Obviously, I'm not the only one propagating.  More reading: You see Garbage, I see Value: Let's make the recycling business a no-brainer.

Corporate social accountability.

Many of these roads are being cut through the heart of Cambodia's forests and no doubt many logs are disappearing across the border into Thailand, before resurfacing as garden furniture in Europe - page 59, Lonely Planet Cambodia

This made me wonder. Where on earth (pun intended) does Ikea get its wood supply from? Is there an opportunity for corporations who are truly conscious of their social responsibility to tag and be transparent on the sources of all their material and ingredients? Would that make any difference to their brand and sales? Would consumers care? Not sure about this part of the world, but I'm sure in countries where Greenies are increasingly being converted, I think it will make a huge difference.

Can furniture giants like Ikea state with confidence their supply comes from a non-reserve forest? Can Nike say they've stopped exploiting third world children? Can Estee Lauder justify every single ingredient that went into their make-up?

Can we see more of this?

The team’s commitment to tackling environmental issues was demonstrated at the school. Firstly the changing of the light globes will save 44.8 tonnes of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 - thereby offsetting the team’s entire carbon footprint for the (F1) race itself more than five times. Also on display at the school (Albert Park Primary School, Melbourne, Australia) was Honda’s revolutionary FCX Concept vehicle, the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell car which emits only water. The light globe changing initiative, driven and funded by the Honda Racing F1 Team, will reduce the school’s annual electricity use on lighting by approximately 70%, while saving more than $8,000 per year in electricity bills. - Honda (non-Italic mine)

And less of this?

Nike has caused fury among animal rights campaigners for launching special edition trainers made from crocodile skin. The £1,400 shoes, which have 18-carat gold lace tags, are on sale at the brand’s flagship stores around the world. The limited edition trainers were made to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Nike’s Air Force 1 range. - ethicalcorp.com

Sigh. Some never learn.