Environment
when explaining their decisions but all three had been questioned, in March 2023, over their membership by Republican state attorney generals in the US who suggested that coordinated action to protect the environment might violate antitrust regulations. The sense that corporate America’s attitude has changed was reinforced when Larry Fink, BlackRock CEO, didn’t even mention climate change in his annual statement to investors in March. This was one of the most dramatic examples of a trend called ‘greenhushing’ in which many businesses, while maintaining their environmental commitments, prefer not to talk about them. Companies as diverse as Dell and Unilever have scaled back their marketing promoting sustainability. To be fair to business leaders, a similar retrenchment is happening in government. British prime minister Rishi Sunak’s controversial U-turn on environmental targets - and Labour leader Keir Starmer’s abandonment of a £28bn a year green investment - have even been mirrored at the European Commission. It’s president Ursula van der Leyen recently withdrew a proposal to halve the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture by 2030, promising further consultation. The concession, which she made in less time than it takes to brandish a pitchfork, was prompted by farmers’ protests across Europe. This episode added another term to the sustainable vocabulary - after ‘greenwash’ and ‘greenhush’ comes ‘greenlash’.
As self-interested as farmers’ grievances may seem,
they also reflect a sentiment shared by people across borders that the pain of this transition is not being shared equally. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality is particularly acute in the UK where the dumping of sewage in rivers is so bad that one Oxford rower in this year’s Boat Race caught
e.coli in the Thames. With water companies setting such a horrendous example, British consumers are entitled to wonder whether it’s worth boiling less water in their kettle to help the environment. That said, we, as individuals, talk a significantly better game than we deliver. Many polls have indicated our willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Indeed, a recent report by market research consultancy FMC Gurus found that 77% of Gen Z consumers believe that food, drink and supplement brands should do more to protect the planet. The trouble is that, when asked that question by a
pollster, we respond as citizens answering an abstract question. When we shop we behave quite differently, influenced by a host of factors, including - but not limited to - price, availability, visibility, convenience and time. As one eco-conscious consumer put it: “If you’re a parent with two children under the age of ten, your main concern in a supermarket isn’t looking for sustainable options, it’s getting out of the store as fast as you can, with as little drama as possible.” Priorities do vary across markets. As the Drupa blog
notes, there are some countries, particularly Germany, in which shoppers look for eco-labels and are put off if they can’t find one.
The difficulty for print service providers is how, when and to what extent should they invest in environmental solutions? The industry’s leaders are aware of the global challenge, even if they are not as up to speed as Mat Ilic, CEO of ed tech network Greenworkx, who
www.imagereportsmag.co.uk | 15
says: “The economic realignment required to achieve net zero by 2050 will probably represent the single greatest reallocation of capital and labour since the Industrial Revolution - and it needs to be accomplished in half the time.”
The technology is already there. As Drupa notes,
DIGITAL PRINTERS FACE THE UNENVIABLE CHOICE OF BEING TOO FAR AHEAD - OR TOO FAR BEHIND - THEIR CUSTOMERS
Artificial Intelligence (AI) can help optimise layouts, select the greenest inks and substrates, manage personalisation and reduce waste. Yet, amidst a general backsliding by companies and governments, digital printers face the unenviable choice of being too far ahead - or too far behind - their customers. It may well be that even as fundamental a challenge as
saving planet Earth is susceptible to what management consultants Gartner describe as the hype cycle. This five-stage model is normally applied to emerging technologies but it seems equally appropriate as we confront climate change: the trigger (when we understand the threat) is followed by inflated expectations (when we overestimate the progress we are making) and the trough of disillusionment (when we realise we’re not doing as well as we thought and can’t decide what to do next even though, under the surface, significant progress is being made). Luckily the next stage in the Gartner cycle is the slope of enlightenment (when we understand the eventual goal – and how to achieve it) which leads to productivity, when the changes we have made transform the way we operate.
There is no doubt that, in a year of elections, the cause of sustainability is stuck in the trough of disillusionment. There is equally no doubt that, ultimately, Drupa’s view that “sustainability is a necessary and central aspect of long-term and future-oriented corporate strategies” is on the right side of history.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
