Dauvergne, P. and Lister, J. (2013) Eco-business: a Big-Brand Takeover of Sustainability.

Cambridge:
The MIT Press, pp.22-26.

The Limits of Eco-Business

Great care must be taken when evaluating the ecological or social value of eco-business.
Consequences are multi-dimensional and uneven, and any gains may be temporary. Eco-business
has not been, and will never be, a simple linear process of constant gains. The process will be messy
and complex, with even small changes to products and processes requiring great efforts with often
unanticipated setbacks. The financial investments, though measurable and real, are also a tiny
fraction of a company 's revenue turnover or total profits. Company forums and consortia to share
sustainability ideas and cooperate on standards may even function as a veil for collusion. We saw
this in 2011 with the European Commission's fine of Unilever and Procter & Gamble for price setting
when introducing their “eco-friendly” line of concentrated laundry detergent (in response to
Walmart's packaging demands).

Companies are achieving some eco-business targets and falling short on others. Walmart reached
only half of its carbon- reduction target for 2010. Starbucks has so far failed to meet its energy-
reduction and recycling targets. IKEA fell short of its 2006 commitment to reach 30 percent
sustainable sourcing by 2010. Its proportion of certified chipboard and fibreboard was even further
off the mark, at just 10 percent. All are promising to do better. IKEA's reason for the failure to reach
its target, however, is revealing of the limits of eco-business: according to IKEA's global forestry
manager, it was impossible to source sustainable wood in a way to keep prices low enough to
sustain the company's rapid growth.

The total environmental impacts of consumption, moreover, continue to increase even as the per-
unit energy, material, water, and waste impacts of producing, consuming, and disposing of some
consumer goods are declining. The same big brands trumpeting sustainability programs are
aggressively marketing “new” products to billions of “new” consumers: diapers, soft drinks, plastic
razors, flip-flops, bottled water – the list could go on and on. According to Stacy Mitchell, the author
of Big­ Box Swindle, “Walmart is accelerating the cycle of consumption, speeding up how fast
products move from factory to shelf to house to landfill. Even if Walmart does reduce the resources
used to make a T-shirt or a television set, those gains will be more than outstripped by growth in the
number of T-shirts and TVs we're consuming. It's one step forward and three steps back…”

Eco-business may even accelerate a decline in global environmental conditions as the same
processes that are enhancing the efficiency and control of business push up consumption. The
ultimate goal of eco-business is more consumption of brands and discount goods, and big brands are
investing savings to expand and grow – especially in developing markets. “Sustainability is a business
strategy, not a charitable giving strategy,” explains Beth Keck, Walmart's senior director of
sustainability. “We're thinking about sustainability from the customer's point of view. We don't want
customers to have to choose between products that are sustainable or products that are
affordable.” Absolute environmental gains are an incidental outcome rather than the goal of eco-
business. It doesn't aim to curtail consumption to stop ecological loss; it helps to ensure that any loss
doesn't impede more goods and more growth.

1
Eco-business is not about transforming the world economy that underpins today's global
environmental crisis. It is about advancing the growth of ever-larger businesses. It assumes – indeed
it needs – increasing production and consumption for its dynamism and rationale. Scaling back
consumerism or eliminating brands or products with high social costs are not part of what eco-
business is aiming to change. Consumers are the ultimate source of brand power: more consumers,
buying more brands, creates more power. Eco-business cannot be divorced from lobbying efforts to
lower corporate taxes. Nor is it possible to separate it fro1n advertising efforts to convince
consumers to want-and to buy-ever more stuff. The same big-brand company investing millions in
sustainability is weaving brand messaging into children's TV shows, blockbuster movies, and prime-
time sitcoms. And the power of brands over popular culture continues to grow, with entire films and
TV dramas now made for the purpose of marketing brands. John Wells, the producer of The West
Wing, ER, and Third Watch, lamented this in 2011: “The day isn't far off when brands will have more
power than writers.”

Big-brand companies are the backbone of a world retail economy that is mass-producing cheap
consumer goods designed for rapid obsolescence and turnover. Maintaining high sales for these
goods relies on shifting the environmental and social costs of production and consumption onto less
powerful and distant regions, ecosystems, and future generations. Some so-called gains from eco-
business, such as replacing products or processes, may also cast equally, if not more damaging,
ecological shadows of consumption. The genius of Walmart's founder, Sam Walton, was his pursuit
of ever-lower costs and ever-higher sales. His goal was more warehouse-style stores and more
control of low-end markets, aiming to increase long-term total profits rather than maximize short-
term profit margins. In theory, this strategy doesn't require more consumption worldwide, just more
sales and market control for Walmart. Yet in practice it does tend to stimulate wasteful and
excessive consumption, as options rise, as prices fall, and as more and more shoppers look, in
Walmart's words, to “save money” and “live better.”

Turning sustainability into eco-business, moreover, is altering the nature of environmentalism,

increasing its power to accelerate some forms of change, but limiting what is on the table to
question, challenge, and alter. Sustainability as an idea can be radical: not just calling for changes in
the rules of the game (i.e., market dynamics), but also to the game itself (i.e., the global economy). It
can, for instance, challenge individuals to reduce consumption. It can challenge businesses to stop
certain practices, eliminate certain products, and produce more durable goods. And it can challenge
public and private organizations to operate systems within ecological and social principles, and not
just within economic ones. The big brands' takeover of sustainability, however, is shifting the
purpose and goal of sustainability governance toward the need to create business value as an
outcome of pursuing sustainability. And the levers of change within resulting governance
mechanisms are increasingly under the control of large private organizations. States and NGOs can
advance some causes by stepping strategically on these levers. But eco-business on its own cannot-
and never will-alter the underlying logic of accelerating consumerism and unequal globalization
behind the increasing power of big brands.

For some, this is the full story, and it signals a future with even less hope. For them, big brands will
never be part of any sustainability solution. For at least some of those working on trying to
implement sustainability, however, the big brands' takeover of sustainability is a still-unfolding tale
that needs more actors to join for any hope of creating a more sustainable pathway forward.