![\"Retail](\"https:\/\/dmsretail.com\/RetailNews\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/RETAIL-ONLINE-TRAINING-728-X-90.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Sustainability has long since progressed from a \u201cnice to have\u201d to a \u201cmust-have,\u201d backed by mandated requirements for the entire retail ecosystem. And while there are certainly costs associated with going green (though it turns out greenwashing is often more expensive), sustainability has the potential to boost sales, cut costs and increase efficiencies \u2014 including the bonus benefit of reducing product returns.<\/p>\n
That was the key message from Angus Hayman, a Senior Strategist at Akeneo who spoke on a Retail TouchPoints<\/em> webinar titled Green is Gold: Unlocking the Business Value of Sustainability in Retail<\/em>. He discussed not just the business benefits of going green but the negative consequences of greenwashing \u2014 like the $30 billion<\/strong> in fines Volkswagen <\/strong>paid when it was discovered that the carmaker faked emission test results in 2009.<\/p>\n Hayman also put numbers behind the benefits of actually going green:<\/p>\n Despite the progress that\u2019s been made in moving the retail industry toward greater sustainability, greenwashing remains a major problem \u2014 one that is a \u201cticking time bomb,\u201d according to Hayman. He quoted a Google<\/strong> survey revealing that 58%<\/strong> of CEOs and C-suite executives admitted that their companies were guilty of greenwashing.<\/p>\n The greenwashing doesn\u2019t have to be as blatant (or illegal) as Volkswagen\u2019s actions; often it\u2019s a matter of a company not sufficiently researching the impacts of their actions. For example, in 2019 McDonald\u2019s<\/strong> replaced its plastic straws with paper as it sought to polish its sustainability credentials. Only one problem: the paper straws actually were less<\/strong> recyclable than the plastic ones had been, meaning \u201cMcDonald\u2019s had to spend time and money on responsive PR and advertising campaigns to re-establish their green credentials,\u201d Hayman explained.<\/p>\n Hayman also contrasted two<\/strong> apparel retailers and their overall approach to sustainability. While H&M<\/strong> seemed to be supporting green goals when it promoted its Loop recycling initiative, only a fraction of the three billion<\/strong> garments the vertical company produces each year are actually recyclable. This example of promoting \u201cedge\u201d cases \u2014 making large claims about a small portion of a company\u2019s products or operations \u2014 is a classic greenwashing technique, according to Hayman.<\/p>\n Additionally, even though H&M used the industry standard Higg Index Tools to score its sustainability activities, \u201cmore than half<\/strong> of H&M\u2019s sustainability scorecards overstated the benefits,\u201d said Hayman.<\/p>\n Another, much smaller Swedish apparel retailer, Asket<\/strong>, offers a more limited product assortment that\u2019s designed to minimize waste by using long-lasting, high-quality materials. Hayman praised the company\u2019s ability to not just collect data but also to communicate that data to customers and other stakeholders.<\/p>\n Hayman gave the example of Asket\u2019s ability to calculate the carbon emissions generated by its products \u2014 one that requires a holistic approach to supply chain data: \u201cWhere did the raw materials come from? How were the raw materials turned into fabric? How is the fabric handled and created, and how were the products moved and [how did they] ultimately arrive to the customer? Asket can understand the actual and environmental costs of each of their products, and all this information, at a product-specific level, is visible on their product pages,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Asket also discloses the social impacts of their products, such as working conditions in factories \u2014 even if their information is incomplete in places. \u201cThey\u2019re very transparent \u2014 [they\u2019ll admit they] don\u2019t have 100%<\/strong> of the info for 100%<\/strong> of their products, but they acknowledge that,\u201d said Hayman. \u201cCustomers want that level of transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n One of the most immediate benefits of investing in the data-gathering needed for green initiatives is that, because it is by necessity product-specific, retailers can use it to make product descriptions more robust and accurate. This in turn can lower return rates, given that many shoppers return items because they don\u2019t match their online descriptions.<\/p>\n Additionally, the effort required to gather, analyze and share data in order to achieve sustainability goals provides an ROI when supply chain disruptions force retailers to pivot \u2014 which is a certainty yet also remains unpredictable as to when, and what type of challenge may cause the disruption.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen it comes to supply chain flexibility and being future-ready, if you understand where your [environmental] impact is from a supply chain perspective \u2014 and that means the carbon footprint as well as other costs and transportation \u2014 and you fully understand how your costs are configured, should you need to change your supply chain, you\u2019ll understand where to pull the levers in the most efficient way,\u201d said Hayman.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not an easy task, and like many other aspects of sustainability, it requires continuous monitoring and updating. \u201cYou need to have a supply chain for data the same way you have a physical one,\u201d said Hayman, noting that many suppliers are challenged by the need to prove their green credentials. \u201cThey\u2019re looking to improve, but they may not necessarily be able to provide all the data you need, all the time,\u201d he warned.<\/p>\n Hayman concluded the session with five <\/strong>pillars of a strong sustainability strategy:<\/p>\n\n
Tallying up the Costs of Greenwashing<\/strong><\/h3>\n
A Tale of Two Retailers<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Detailed Product Data Supports Supply Chain Flexibility<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n