Thinking out of the box: currently, retail is largely about mass, transactional relationships. <\/i><\/p>\n
Can business ever be good? Henry Leveson-Gower<\/b> explores.<\/p>\n
A\u00a0<\/span>year ago I was on the hunt for examples of successful circular economy models. I was pointed in the direction of Tom Szaky of Terracycle, in the US, as one of the few real success stories.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He had set himself the goal of ending waste while still at school and now has a very successful business recycling products for multiple high street brands. His team is genius at finding ways to recycle any product thrown in their direction \u2013 however they were originally made.<\/p>\n There was, though, a big \u2018but\u2019. He admitted that the one thing he couldn\u2019t get his clients to do was to rethink the design of their products, so they were more reusable and recyclable. That was a no-go area.<\/p>\n The result was that these big brands could provide their customers with the warm glow of recyclability to sell them more stuff, while the overall environmental impact from consumption and recycling continued to soar. Not exactly the point of creating a circular economy.<\/p>\n Luckily there now seems to be some more promising initiatives emerging. For instance, top jeans manufacturers are redesigning their wares so they are more recyclable<\/a>. The manufacturers and designers are actually collaborating with sustainability experts to create an industry standard. They are also encouraging a second-hand market for jeans.<\/p>\n \u201cOur\u00a0generation<\/b>\u00a0has to\u00a0choose<\/b>: we can be\u00a0green<\/b>\u00a0or we can have\u00a0growth<\/b>, but we can\u2019t have both\u00a0together<\/b>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Another leading actor is Ikea. It is promising to buy back and recondition or recycle used furniture<\/a>.<\/p>\n However there remains an even bigger but. A clue is in the final sentences of the article on Ikea\u2019s recycling initiative: \u201cIkea\u2019s biggest franchisee said demand was rising after lockdown as people seek to do up their homes. Its latest figures showed sales in the year to August were \u20ac39.6bn.\u201d<\/p>\n Addressing the issue of curbing demand seems the ultimate no-go area.\u00a0 <\/span>Maybe the only real exception is Patagonia who famously took out a full-page ad in The New York Times, <\/i>telling customers: \u201cDon\u2019t buy this jacket\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However it is increasingly becoming clear that the dream of continuing to grow the economy while reducing environmental impact is just that, a dream.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As Simon Kuper wrote in the Financial Times<\/i><\/a>: \u201cOur generation has to choose: we can be green or we can have growth, but we can\u2019t have both together\u201d. And of course, if we choose growth, we continue along the road to dangerous climate change, ecological collapse and likely civilisation collapse.\u201d<\/p>\n But such a choice is not easy. You only have to look at Shell\u2019s recent experience of asking on Twitter what people were willing to change to reduce their emissions<\/a>. Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, supported by thousands of others, made it clear that Shell had no moral authority to ask such a question. The problem was not the question, it was the questioner.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Shell might be thought of as a special case. It has publicly admitted knowing the impending disaster of climate change, whilst seeking to sow uncertainty and prevent change<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But does any company have such moral authority? Ultimately all companies with shareholders are under pressure to grow by selling more \u2013 even if it is more of something that is recyclable, re-usable, low-impact, energy efficient or even a service. And many have been influencing people to want more for decades through advertising.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIf\u00a0businesses<\/b>\u00a0are to\u00a0treat<\/b>\u00a0their\u00a0customers<\/b>\u00a0as citizen\u00a0collaborators<\/b>\u00a0and\u00a0work<\/b>\u00a0with\u00a0refurbishers<\/b>\u00a0and\u00a0repairers<\/b>\u00a0to create\u00a0local<\/b>\u00a0circular\u00a0economies<\/b>, then\u00a0retail<\/b>\u00a0would need to\u00a0revolutionise<\/b>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So can business re-write the rules of the game, so they can focus on what humanity really needs rather than shareholder returns? Can they be truly good?<\/p>\n I think the answer is probably: not by themselves. If they take on the financial institutions which are effectively the voice of shareholders, they are likely to lose \u2013 as Paul Polman famously did when he failed to move the Unilever head office.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, businesses that truly want to serve humanity and prevent ecological collapse, have some potential allies: their customers and employees, who are also citizens and people with children and grandchildren; impact investors looking beyond financial return and governments who are being pressured to act to tackle the ecological crisis.<\/p>\n So the challenge and opportunity for good businesses becomes threefold:<\/p>\n Let\u2019s focus on the first element, which suggests a radical upending of retail relationships, particularly when thought of in the context of developing circular economies. <\/span>\u00a0<\/p>\n Currently, retail is largely about mass, transactional relationships. Customers only have the option to buy or not to buy. Shops are effectively dumb terminals of complex international logistics, supply chains and marketing strategies. This is the logical conclusion of the economies of scale of mass production and take-make-waste linear economy.<\/p>\n If businesses are to treat their customers as citizen collaborators and work with refurbishers and repairers to create local circular economies, then retail would need to revolutionise. They would need to have the capabilities and power at a local level to have richer relationships with their local communities, government and businesses, required to co-create circular economies.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n