Ditched companies and products who don't respect the environment a while back... Just preparing for the future where the others won't have the choice anyways :)
I understand the environmental reasons for a company to do this, it’s very important and would you happen to know the business incentives for them doing this?
Wouldn't the biggest impact for the environment be the company ceasing production altogether? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here, just that even a company with highly ethically sourced items is still supplementary consumption and productions.
There is literally no reason you can justify this being good for the environment. It may make business sense but it's still a crime against the planet.
Almost certainly due to different regulatory regimes.
One would have accounted for the pollution and costs and the other wouldn't basically instructing the corporation to be wasteful and pollute unless it wanted to lose money by doing so.
I sort of wonder this too. The logic seems simple. Companies are attacked for being bad for the environment. In ways such as fossil fuel consumption it is impossible for them to change. However, in ways such as making packaging slightly lighter or of different materials it is easy to change. Companies support existing environmental groups fixated on fringe issues as a way of appearing progressive while the main issue (which would be costly) goes on touch.
As a resident of California who has seen plastic straws be banned (which are highly visible but small) while millions of other types of waste are allowed I suspect it is the case.
It explicitly lists this as a point when providing examples of incorrect reasons "why industry is going green on the quiet."
> It refused, not because the innovations were trade secrets, or because it risked losing a cost-saving competitive edge (due to cheap electricity prices, the cost saving amounted to less than 1%)
reply