But I’m not here to tell you not to buy shoes. I still try to buy a new pair of running shoes a year, a lot more consumption than my rocking-rubber-green-shoe days. I see it as necessary, a carbon footprint I find hard to reduce.
That is why I was excited to see Puma’s name appear in my news aggregate below this blog’s Post section. It appears that Puma
“is the first company in the world to put a value on the ecosystem services it uses to produce its sports shoes and clothes . . . and has published an economic valuation of the environmental impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and water consumption along its entire supply chain. It plans to become even more ambitious by integrating both its social and economic impacts.”
- the Triple Pundit.
I’m not here to sell you Puma shoes. I want to sell you the idea. What if Congress passed a bill that required most, if not all, of the producers to include such things as GHGs and water consumptions on the labels? I have been studying up for my LEED exam and I see this voluntarily adopted in construction and building design. Puma is smart to kick off this type of thinking in its business strategy and it won’t be the last. It’s not the majority of the marker that I am worried about because I think a lot more companies will follow. I trust the free market will shape this initially.
It’s the companies that has something to hide and will refuse to label their products this way who worries me. Those are the companies probably making the worst impacts on our consumers and our environment.
So if we should just depend on the free market to drive this kind of responsible corporate culture, we may fall short of curing our problems. Should we depend on legislatures remains an important question we have to answer. Until then, let’s give Puma a pat on the back and say thank you for your transparency.