Brit's Eye View: British supermarkets are going green

But why?

Posted by Peter Madden (Guest Contributor) at 6:42 AM on 25 Jan 2007

Read more about: Wal-Mart | business | food | greening biz operations | United Kingdom

Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, writes a monthly column for Gristmill on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe.

British supermarkets are now competing to go green. Two big retailers have just launched initiatives to tackle climate change.

UK grocery

Marks & Spencer, which sells food and clothing to Britain's middle classes, promised this month to cut waste, sell fair-trade products, and make the company carbon neutral within five years. Environmentalists praised its 100-point "eco-plan." Greenpeace U.K. said, "If every retailer in Britain followed Marks & Spencer's lead, it would be a major step forward in meeting the challenge of creating a sustainable society."

Later the same week, Tesco, one of the top five retailers in the world, set out its own stall on climate change. As the giant of British supermarkets -- one in every eight dollars spent in British shops goes into its tills -- Tesco is in a similar position to Wal-Mart in the U.S., and faces many of the same criticisms.

Tesco's 20-point plan promises independently audited absolute reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions from its operations (amounting to a 30 percent cut per case of product by 2009), carbon labeling on all products, and a thrust to make green choices available to millions of consumers in an affordable way. For example, it will be selling low-energy light bulbs at half price.

We Brits have also watched the remarkable changes at Wal-Mart with interest, not least because that company owns our second-biggest supermarket chain, Asda.

Why is all this happening? I think that different supermarkets have different motivations. Marks & Spencer has always been a high-end, high-quality, and high-price player. It clearly realizes that it will reinforce its brand and keep customers loyal by tackling sustainability issues. This is great news -- that there is enough of an affluent and concerned market to drive this change.

For Tesco and Wal-Mart, the story is a little different. Of course they are getting some pressure from customers. Tesco says that customers "want our help to do more in the fight against climate change." But I don't think this is the overwhelming driver. The majority of ordinary shoppers still put price and quality way ahead of ethical and environmental issues.

I think there are two main factors at work. It is partly to do with license to operate. These companies are so big, with such major influence, that they risk becoming lightning conductors for all kinds of opposition. This means they need to sort out their corporate citizenship on a range of issues.

It is also because tackling climate change is coming to be seen as a central part of business leadership. As Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said, "as we look at our responsibility as one of the world's largest companies, it just became obvious that sustainability was an issue that was going to be more important." Similarly, Terry Leahy at Tesco now says he is "determined that Tesco should be a leader in helping to create a low-carbon economy." And Leahy is no soft touch; he was voted "Most Admired Leader" in Management Today three years in a row.

Will these words make a difference? Here I must declare an interest. My organization, Forum for the Future, advises both Marks & Spencer and Tesco on sustainability issues. I understand why many in the environmental movement have been critical of the major supermarkets. However, I do think there are good reasons to welcome these moves.

Firstly, for the signals they send to the rest of the business community. When Leahy nails his colors to the mast on climate change, the rest of business listens -- even the most hard-nosed. It is great news that the bosses of these companies now see climate change as a strategic part of how they will do business in future. As Leahy says, "it demands that we transform our business model so that the reduction of our carbon footprint becomes a central business driver."

The sheer size and clout of these companies means that they can radiate impacts up and down their supply chain. Marks & Spencer says that its influence "extends to over 2,000 factories, 10,000 farms, and 250,000 workers," and that its action on climate change will be equivalent to taking 100,000 cars off the road. On light bulbs, Tesco promises that "we will work with our suppliers to ensure that every type of fitting in the U.K. has an energy-efficient option."

Size does bring with it problems, but it also allows these companies to mainstream sustainability. Supermarkets can help millions of customers to make straightforward and affordable choices.

The influential "I Will If You Will" report, published last year by the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, concluded that we need to make sustainable choices much easier to take. As part of a supportive framework, it called upon business and government to "edit the choices" for consumers. The supermarkets are doing more and more of this choice editing, on fair trade, organic produce, and climate change.

Tesco has now moved the debate a significant step further, committing to "work with others to develop an accepted and commonly understood measure of the carbon footprint of every product we sell. ... It will enable us to label all our produce so that customers can compare their footprint as easily as they currently compare their price."

The competition to go green is heating up.

For story: Brit's Eye View: British supermarkets are going green
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Jim Morrison

That's all fine and well, but what about The Doors?

Check out

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/23/the-new-friend...

Seems like grand gestures play better than the simple stuff. Reports with catchy titles obviously work better for the bottom line than actually putting doors on fridges (which is great for you, being in the report-writing and not fridge-door-fitting game and all).

How about advising your overpayed clients (do they overpay you?) to quit flying in green beans from pesticide-suffused greenhouses in Kenya and instead give British farmers a decent price for their goods?

You can also tell Marks and Sparks that their South African offshoot (which trades under the name Woolworths - no connection to Woolworths in the UK or USA - I guess because it wasn't convenient to have 'real' Marks and Spencers operating in the days of Apartheid) leads the pack out here in terms of transporting goods over ridiculous distances and wrapping them up in as much plastic that they can.

I can buy Israeli avocados more easily than South African ones in Woolworths branches in Cape Town, fer chrissakes (in fact, I've only ever seen Israeli ones in our local branch! And the SA ones taste better!) The very fact that Woolworths SA displays no inclination to be even vaguely green makes it very clear that M&S's greening drive has no moral dimension, but is purely based in pandering to perceived customer preference ('Ooh! It's covered in a lot of shiny plastic! It must be worth the premium price they're asking!'). M&S are followers, not leaders.

I worked on a British farm and the way UK supermarkets treat farmers is nothing short of criminal. The amount of GHGs supermarkets emit to bring in crops - that could be grown in the UK - from all over the world must be amazing.

Scuse my cynicism on this count. I just saw, first-hand, far too much bullshit going on in the agri-food business while I lived in the UK, and far too many overhyped consultants spouting greenwash to protect the supermarkets who were causing a lot of the grief.

The people who run supermarkets are grownups that should be held to the same moral standards as the rest of us. We shouldn't be fawning over them when they edit just a small part of their mendacious, un-visionary behaviour.

Whiskerfish

by Whiskerfish at 8:39 AM on 25 Jan 2007

"sustainability" contradiction

Its great to see big box stores trying to do the right thing...its hard not to argue the potential in mainstreaming 'green.' However, I'm afraid to say that they'll have to refrain from using the term 'sustainability' to mask their efforts. Unfortunately becoming 'green' and 'carbon neutral' does NOT imply a whole-systems approach to running a business. They fail in the areas of labor issues, fair trade, social welfare, globalisation, sprawl, etc.

Wallmarts, Tescos, and the like, thrive in suburban settings, and we all know that suburban sprawl is an oxymoron for the word green, and especially for the word sustainability. ..Becoming green may even give leeway for wallmarts to diversify their big box growth, and spread into city-centres, given the dense population of 'green urban professionals'. So, will the world become one big homogenous Wallmart zoo?

All in all, I'm supporting a big box extinction. Its the only way for them to become 'sustainable'. If they become green, yes, it will slow down the rate of planetary destruction and make green consumption more convenient. But its just not the answer. We're better off teaching our kids about sustainability, rather than hypothesize how the greening of Wallmart will make us better off.

I have the feeling we'll just be witnessing green-washing at its best. Given their mass-consumption ethic, they are bound to give the word green a bad name--

Alison

by alisonrae at 11:47 AM on 25 Jan 2007

Peter Madden, ...

... how about a reply?

Whiskerfish

by Whiskerfish at 10:56 PM on 25 Jan 2007

The triple bottom line still includes people

Sustainability has to include a fair labor component. I agree with Alison, and I'm afraid that anything else is just greenwash. More here.

by ivanoats at 2:25 PM on 26 Jan 2007

Response

Whiskerfish, Alison and Ivanoats, sorry for the delay in replying.

I'm not claiming that supermarkets are suddenly paragons of virtue, but that there are good reasons to welcome their moves on climate change, which is after all the biggest environmental challenge we face. I won't repeat these.

On packaging - I couldn't agree with you more. And it is particulary annoying when it seems to be organic products fruit and vegetables that are the most over-packaged.

On green beans from Kenya, the issue is not quite so clear cut. Some people in the UK argue that developing countries gain from export horticulture, especially when prices for traditional commodity exports decline. And on the environmental impact assessment, I'm not sure that growing in heated greenhouses in Kent is any more sustainable. The best answer to this one is probably to eat as seasonably as you can. (I can't see any excuse for Israeli avocadoes in S Africa.).

Treatment of producers is also complicated. In the UK we have had decades of farming subsidy, which has led to over-production and over-capacity in some agricultural products - and thus drops in price and quality. But I do agree that there are likley to be problems when you have a handful of very big and powerful retailers. I do think that M&S, for example, are trying to work well with suppliers.

On Labour issues, I suspect that these big UK companies and brands are probably better than many others. I know M&S are using fairtrade cotton now in many mainstream lines. And both have codes of conduct and audits - precisely because they are well know brands.

For me, the big remaining question is to do with the sheer size and continuing growth of the major supermarkets, and what this means for sustainability. If the essence of the business model is to sell ever more stuff to ever more people in ever more places, we will need more than the one planet earth.

Now, I know it is only a start, but the promises of Tesco to restrict air freight to only 1% of all imports, and more importantly, to make big absolute cuts in C02 emissions, are something more businesses could do with following.

Peter

by Peter Madden at 8:00 PM on 28 Jan 2007

Thanks, Peter!

glad to know you're listening, at least, even if some of your clients aren't.

Whiskerfish

by Whiskerfish at 6:11 AM on 29 Jan 2007

Tescos = DREADsco

I have an intense dislike to Tescos.
Supermarkets are tarred with the same brush.
The stack em' high, sell em' cheap philosophy has been pertinent in the collapse of British industries right across the board from the local grocery shops to the independant farmer.
Their greedy monoploisation has seen local shops disappear from the UK high streets, to be replaced by 20 to 30 aisle supermarket with produce from across the world and faceless checkout assistants.
Their buying power has put a strangle hold on British farming, eroding sustainability.
Their food importing has clocked up enough C02 to perpetuate global warming for the next 50 years ofr more.
Now we are to believe that these economic consortiums have a conscience?
Unlikely.
It has only been talk of environmental issues/regualtions and the possibility of competition that supermarkets have been forced to splash around the green paint.
A reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions and a decrease of their redundant "landfilling non-biodegradeable" packaging, hardly groundbreaking.

http://www.tescopoly.org/index

by sayno2gm at 3:13 AM on 31 Jan 2007

Tescos = DREADsco

Even if Tesco stop importing from overseas, they'll still truck the stuff up and down the motorway several times before it reaches the stores

by garpol at 3:03 AM on 23 Feb 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.