Puma has become the world’s first major corporation to publish details of the cost of its impact on the environment.
Speaking at the launch of the company’s environmental profit and loss accounts (EPnL) in London two days ago, chief executive Jochen Zeitz said reducing Puma’s environmental impact would improve its future performance.
Jochen Zeitz, Puma CEO. Photograph: Timm Schamberger/AFP/Getty Images
“Sustainability is essential to the health and future of our business,” he said. “The business implications of failing to address nature in decision making are clear – since ecosystem services are vital to the performance of most companies, integrating the true cost for these services in the future could have significant impacts on corporate bottom lines.”
It seems Puma is changing the face of corporate discussion. Even the term “ecosystem services” sounds new. For years environmentalists have been frustrated by the demands of policymakers to put a value or worth on the environment. Perhaps corporate involvement will help; putting a price tag on nature seems to be the best way to save it.
Charges of hypocrisy have been levelled at Puma over its sponsorship of Formula 1 and Moto GP. Mr Zeitz responded by saying Puma is encouraging participants and partners in these sports to embrace the sustainable agenda. Personally, I think the issue of the environment is one so large; people tend to be overwhelmed when addressing it. When one change is made, then immediately 200 other things that should also be done to reduce one’s footprint come to the fore. However, I’m of the mind that one needs to take one step, then two steps, and not quibble righteously about hypocrisy each time an improvement is made. We don’t live in a perfect world, but that does not mean we cannot improve things.
Last year Puma changed their shoe packaging. They project that the change will save 8,500 tonnes of paper, and mean a reduction of 60% in water and energy used during the production process.
Because of their concern for the environment, many consumers want to know how products are being produced. We vote with our money, that is our power, our prerogative. Our concern has much to do with a corporation such as Puma stepping forward to fight for environmental sustainability.
When I was writing about my plastic shoes last week, I wanted to explore the environmental angle. Obviously, cows are high on the food chain, so it takes more resources to mass produce leather. However, I have no idea whether PVC shoes are made responsibly, with limited levels of pollution, humane factories, etc. There is truly a limited amount of information offered on how objects are manufactured. Companies have no incentive to offer this information. I applaud Puma for taking this first step. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if products like shoes had a label on the side of the box with an overview of how responsibly they were made? Like nutrition labels on prepackaged food!
I saw that Mr Zeitz was quizzed on the news about the cost of football kits changing every season, and the costs of fashion and consumerism in general. These are great questions. I am not sure that Puma can provide all the answers, though. Despite their responsible stance on environmentalism, they still need to be competitive with regard to trends. I believe that question is up to us, the consumers. Our discernment is what ultimately drives the market, and change.
-Miss H
UK Stores
2011 90s Style – photo from Irish Times
Recent Visitor Comments