I’m a big coffee drinker, but I’m also a law student, which means that I drink too much coffee, and the coffee makes me even more anxious than I would be without caffeine.
So in an effort to have a less anxious spring semester, I’m in search of caffeine alternatives. Last week, I started reading about the health benefits of matcha, and decided that I needed to try it.
So like every other zombie consumer out there, my fingers typed ‘amazon.com’ into the search bar without my brain even realizing it, I instantly had dozens of matcha options that could be at my door in a matter of hours.
However, I was quickly sidetracked from my matcha research by a little green symbol in the search results next to the words, “Climate Pledge Friendly.”
Amazon launched its Climate Pledge Friendly program to inform consumers of sustainable products in 2020, and added even more products to the program in 2021. But are products that Amazon deems friendly to the environment actually sustainable, or is it just greenwashing?
What makes a product ‘Climate Pledge Friendly’?
Each product with the “Climate Pledge Friendly” label is certified by one or more organizations for its environmental impact. These organizations range from Fairtrade to Energy Star. The Climate Pledge is a commitment by hundreds of major companies, including Amazon, to reach net zero carbon by 2040.
The “Climate Pledge Friendly” label acts as a sort of ‘super certification,’ aggregating 32 sustainability certifications under one umbrella certification. In theory, purchasing a product deemed “Climate Pledge Friendly” is more sustainable than the alternatives– might we say, the unfriendly.
What certifications really tell us
For the conscious consumer, there’s nothing better than discovering that a chocolate bar or a t-shirt has a sustainability certification. It happened to me the other week–I was elated to see that my new pair of Madewell jeans had a “Fair Trade Certified Factory” tag.
In theory, certifications are the ticket to more sustainable consumerism. This stamp of approval from a third party, represented by a small icon on the product’s packaging, ensures the consumer that their purchase isn’t exploitative or doesn’t harm the environment.
However, certifications aren’t completely reliable. In “The Truth About Modern Slavery,” author Emily Kenway points out how the economic model of certifiers is not conducive to transparency. The certifying organizations make money when companies pay them to certify the sustainability of their products– certifiers are incentivized to certify. That’s to say, if a certifying organization finds that a brand doesn’t meet it’s certification requirements, they’ll likely lose that brand’s business entirely.
Brands that aren’t certified may still have sustainability issues. In Nov. 2021, Corporate Accountability Lab filed a lawsuit against Hershey’s and Rainforest Alliance because they claim that Hershey’s chocolate is sustainable, although there is evidence of forced labor in their cocoa supply chain. Similar claims have been made at tea plantations that are Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance certified.
Even if a brand is sustainable, is it impactful to avoid or even boycott brands that aren’t sustainable?
In my conversation with Dr. Kristy Leissle, an expert on cocoa farmers, she pointed out that boycotting a candymaker like Hershey’s because of its labor practices might not be the most effective. If you don’t buy a Hershey’s bar because they don’t pay cocoa farmers a living wage, the only person in the supply chain who will lose is that farmer. That’s to say, Hershey’s and the other corporate interests will pass those losses down to the beginning points of the supply chain and will blame low prices for cocoa on lower demand.
Does the same apply when you boycott a company that harms the environment? Not exactly. By buying produce from your local farmer’s market instead of Amazon, or buying a Climate Pledge Friendly product instead of one that isn’t certified, you are demonstrating to the company that you don’t want their product. But without directly communicating to the company why you didn’t buy their product, your informed buying decision can’t create change.
Of course, there are great certifications that aren’t included in the Climate Pledge Friendly program. One of my favorites is B Corporation, a comprehensive certification that ensures that a company meets environmental and social standards.
Compact by Design: Amazon joins the certification game
Included with external certifications is Amazon’s own certification, “Compact by Design.” Products that receive this certification are more efficiently designed and packaged to reduce carbon emissions in packaging and shipping. Amazon gives the example of a tube of mascara packaged in a small box rather than a hanging container.
Products qualify based on their unit efficiency, a metric calculated according to the product’s volume and weight. Amazon calculates a threshold for products across a category, and any product that is more efficient than this threshold is deemed “Compact By Design.”
But being “better than average” doesn’t necessarily mean that a product is “good” for the environment. When we know that industry standards are to package products cheaply and inefficiently, a tube of mascara or bottle of laundry detergent packaged more efficiently than average isn’t enough.
“Compact By Design” is a moving goalpost at best, and meaningless at worst. Buying products that are “better” than average won’t stop our climate from warming at increasing levels.
The bottom line: We can’t buy our way out of a climate crisis
If you’re shopping on Amazon and are between buying two products, one of which is “Climate Pledge Friendly” and the other is not, buy the “Climate Pledge Friendly” product. At the end of the day, it’s probably better to buy a certified product than one that isn’t certified. But keep in mind that certifications, despite their name, are not 100 percent trustworthy. Furthermore, the certification process is expensive–some products that would meet the certification requirements can’t afford the certification or might just choose not to go through the process.
Amazon’s Climate Pledge is a noble goal, and one that more companies should commit to. But deeming products to be in line with that goal harkens back to an old trick of exploitative corporations: putting the burden of change on the consumer.
You might have heard that the concept of the “carbon footprint” was created by oil giant ExxonMobil to shift the blame for climate change from corporations to individuals. Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly program uses a similar sleight of hand: by putting some of the burden on consumers to make environmentally-conscious decisions, Amazon diverts responsibility for its environmental impact. Of course, whether Amazon is net zero carbon by 2040 is still the company’s responsibility. But creating a program that encourages consumers to be the ones to change replicates a corporate attitude that diverts attention from systemic, institutional change.
The best way to approach Climate Pledge Friendly is like a search engine. You can filter your results on Amazon to only see products that are Climate Pledge Friendly. Search for what you need, whether that’s matcha tea or mascara, and you’ll get products that have some sort of climate certification.
When you do find something that fits what you’re looking for, note the brand and buy it somewhere else. Brands that have climate certifications are probably large enough that you can buy them at your local grocery store. And no brand with a third-party climate certification is selling exclusively on Amazon.
Create impact through Impactfull below:
- College Football, Ariana Grande, and Water - September 3, 2023
- Livestock and Land Use: How Are We Feeding The Planet? Impactfull April 2022 - April 19, 2022
- What Does Voluntourism Look Like? A Case Study in a Cambodian Orphanage - March 28, 2022
Very informative and important information; thanks for dissecting the subject in a very cogent and thoughtful manner.
I see that they’re climate pledge, friendly, but what about these iPad products that are being made by child slave, labor are we not concerned about that