Tag: consumption

What about you? Feet, health and 2ndhand shoes – An interview with Prof. Dr. med. Stefan Sesselmann.

Posted on by AnnJoest in Business-Sustainability

To promote a business case as well as more sustainable consumption and production patterns, there is an increase in the resale and consumption of secondhand (shoes). While the business case is growing with an expected networth of 1.27 billion USD by 2027, the resale value in terms of “health promotion” might decrease. That is because of the potential effects of shoe resale on consumer health. For example, the materials of most shoes such as for the inner and outer soles have the tendency not to be adjustable to a new consumer footprint. Because we all have a unique footprint, wearing someone else’s shoes means that our footprint does not fit and that can be problematic. Because I am not an expert in the field, I set up an interview with Prof. Dr. med. Stefan Sesselmann who specializes in orthopaedics. Through the interview I learned that buying secondhand shoes can indeed be disadvantagous because of our different footprints and to my suprise it might be better to buy new shoes instead of secondhand shoes. At the same time, it made me think that buying secondhand shoes could be health promoting too, if they had an integrated design in which the outer and inner sole of a shoe could be exchanged before, during and after resale.

Of course there is much more to it and I am happy to share the full interview with you;

Ann: When I contacted you, I mentioned that I experiment with second hand boots and I got worried about the health of my feet and the feet of my customers. I am not an expert and understand, how little I know about feet and feet health in general. How would you describe a healthy foot?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: If you start to define health in general, you find that it cannot be defined that simple. For example, according to the World Health Organization, health is a state of perfect physical, mental and social well-being. And if you think about a foot, you could have a first physical look and find that it doesn’t show any signs of ill-health. To elaborate, you then might consider the skeleton of the foot, how it is positioned, its arche structure, and also the foots’ joints. Then there are also ligaments, tendons and so that all has to work well together, including the foot muscles. They, I would even argue are extremely important. At the same time, purely visually a healthy looking foot can also cause pain that cannot be objectified. And as in the case of spinal complaints, the psychological component can also play a role by perceiving that pain is a result of ill-physiology, when it is caused by a psychological phenomenon instead. For example, back pain has been linked to stress too as oppose to an inconvenient sitting posture only. There are no studies on the foot, but one could transfer this principle in similar ways to the foot.

“Social Sustainability” is often associated to lets say human rights and worker safety. That is important, but it very much also about us individuals and the relation we share with products and our bodies too.

Ann: I was not aware about the potential role of the psyche in relation to perceived (ill)-health of our feet. It makes me think about how little I am connected to my feet and their physiological components. There seem many factors that influence a healthy foot, if it can even be described like that. Would you say there is a shoe that is most suitable for our feet?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann:  Very general, I would say that shoes can be poison for our feet. The best thing one could be doing is to walk barefoot on a soft floor. To give you an example, when an arm is broken, a cast is placed around it, with the intend to heal it. While it is supportive, it also relieves the muscles. Taking off the cast, one can notice that muscles have become correspondingly thinner, simply because these muscles were not used for a while. A similar principle can be applied to our feet in relation to shoes. Most shoes, unlike the barefoot shoe, relieve most muscles not extremely like a cast, but worn over a longer time it does. Accordingly, shoes can turn our muscles lazy and they degrade. Here many foot problems can be found; Because of a weakened muscle structure, that is no longer competent to support the foot itself.

Ann: Oh, you know, last week I purposely bought a pair of sport sneakers, because I thought it would be the best for my feet. They seem(ed) to be very supportive, kind of tight and light to wear. Is such sneaker bad to wear then?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: You cannot conclude something like that. For example, insoles are good for the short term, to relive acute pain, but not in the long-term. There are, for example, sensorimotor insoles, which are deliberately designed to provide stimuli and these stimuli are intended to activate muscles. They actively stabilize the foot. If I take a shoe like that for a run and don’t wear it all day, that’s okay. But again, at home, walking barefoot is definitely better. Across the wide range of shoes, you cannot say they are bad. For example, barefoot shoes activate most foot muscles. But you have to get used to it. And if I notice that my foot does not have the optimal pose, I should train it actively to begin with. Such training can also help to balance out mal positions in the skeleton through an improved muscle structure.

Ann: What exactly are mal positions and why do they occur? To ask a bit biased, do they originate from wearing the wrong shoes?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: It means that I may not have the most optimal foot skeleton posture due to certain malalignments. These can be inherent. In addition to that, I may have been wearing shoes for many years that on top of such malalignments relieve my muscles too much. Then I may need specific shoes again to provide that supporting function.  

Ann: I understood that malalignment can be inherent. But again, can it be caused from wearing the wrong shoes too? For example, I had a shoemaker repair the shoe soles of two boots that were worn off. So, I thought if I resell them without a small refurb, the next customer might get problems with their posture and possible backpain.

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: If my foot is bent, the arch flattens out and my leg axis shifts slightly so that my knees tend to bend inwards. As a result, it feels like my knees have to carry a unilateral overload in the lateral portion of the knee. In many cases it can create asymmetry. While such asymmetry is often natural, it creates a functional difference in my leg length but also a slight pelvic obliquity. This may affect the spine and can cause back pain. An asymmetrical shoe could reinforce that. That’s why you should change shoes more often. Buying a new shoe, I can assume it to be completely symmetrical and in a sense health promoting. This might differ with a secondhand shoe, which may do the opposite depending on how long it has been worn by a different pre-owner.

Ann: Can you elaborate that?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: For shoes it is typical that they are rather worn off from the inside or outside. It depends on the foot properties of the person who did wear these shoes before. For example, if my foot properties differ and I wear shoes of a different pre-owner, this can cause problems. However, while a worn off outer sole of a shoe is easily visible, more attention should be paid on the shoes’ inside, because there most footprints are (pre)-fixated. Because we all have a unique footprint, wearing someone else’s shoes, means that our footprint does not fit. For shoes this is problematic too, because most are made of materials that are difficult or not possible to adjust to a new foot. This differs to new shoes, that we tend to break in first.

Ann: That makes me think of that most shoes I resell have been worn for around a season and that means I resell a seasonal footprint with multiple wears a day. Could I conclude that this is even harmful, because of how pre-owned shoes counteract our unique physiology?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: Perhaps not directly harmful, but not favorable. It is not beneficial to health. If you want to pay more attention to health than ecological sustainability, it could be recommendable to buy a new shoe or a secondhand shoe with a small previous shoe life. Because unlike textiles, the effects of a secondhand sweater on my body are rather small. But the foot, you could say is the foundation of our body. It influences the statics; when we walk, stand, run. Its a different relationship, one could say.

Leather is often known for being a durable product and I also wrote about its use case for re-use. I think its still the case, but not for all product parts. Some need replacing more often. How to design for that?

I think that overall, buying secondhand shoes is not bad, especially if the pre-owned shoe was worn only around 2-3 times. But if the shoe has been worn rather often, it could be rather disadvantageous. So if I would buy such shoe, I would look at it too with a critical lense. How is this shoe made? Does it suit my footprint. And when I think about environmental sustainability specifically, I could also think of whether a recycled shoe, but a new shoe is even more sustainable in terms of my health and the environment as well.

Ann: That makes me think about design for circularity and business models too. For example, there are approaches in which products should be designed to last a life-time. This should incentivize consumers to pay a higher price and products could be produced better. But you are kind of encouraged to wear only a limited pair of shoes, because they last a “life-time”. This goes a bit into the direction of resale, but also to wear the same over and over. What are your views on that? Should we wear less, but better?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: There are studies specifically for runners that show that runners are encouraged to change shoes more often. And there are strong effects between two pairs and even a third pair has shown a positive effect. One could consider whether this is also valid for everyday shoes. I suppose that such a change could be beneficial for feet, because of such new stimuli. Different shoes have different structures and because of that stimulate different muscles. Of course the shoe owner has to get used to it. Still, it likely is not as good as to run barefoot on repeatedly uneven ground, but likely better than to always wear the same shoe.

Ann:  So even if I would find the perfect and most “sustainable” shoe that I am eager to invest lets say a couple of hundred Euros in to last a life-time. It wouldn’t be good over time, because it activates only a particular set of muscles. While the environment benefits, I might not. This makes me  question whether a most sustainable shoe can even exist or designed. What do you think?

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: We humans are very individual and our feet are just as individual. There is no one size or style that fits all. In addition to that, different shoes might be worn in different seasons and for different activities. Some people may even have 30-40 pairs of shoes. The perfect shoe, when specifically looked at from a health perspective is less about design, but it relieves our foot muscles; intrinsic foot muscles (in the foot itself) and extrinsic foot muscles (on the leg itself).  The ideal shoe affects these muscles at least, or even irritates, so that they remain in training. One could even wear a high-heeled or plateau shoe, but the dose makes the poison, as with drugs. If I can wear it once to go out for a few hours it is perfectly okay, it even positively stimulates feet, because different muscles are activated.

I told some of my friends about the interview outcome, which was used to justify shoe shopping. Arrrgh no, it’s all about balance! We don’t need that many new shoes that often, but a change once in a while seems reccommendable.

Ann: I may even call this ambivalent. From an environmental perspective we should overall consume less and I also hear that more consumption in terms of shoe is advantages when it comes to our physical health. Makes me think of new approaches for shoe designs and value sold too; whether health could become a more integrated part in product design for circularity. I liked your mentioning on sensory inlays. Or I might also like a barefoot shoe, if it looked a bit more casual.

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: Yes, the barefoot shoe is great, but yes, the design is very particular.

Ann: In a small research I did on consumer purchasing interests in relation to their shoes, the aspect of design was mentioned more often, indeed. But yes, I would say that’s a topic for a different interview. Thank you for your time!

Prof Dr. Stefan Sesselmann: You are welcome.

[I hope you enjoyed the interview. Feel free to reach out to me, comment and contact Prof. Dr. Stefan Sesselmann on his LinkedIn for further discussions on the topic]

References

Moorhouse, D., & Moorhouse, D. (2017). Sustainable design: circular economy in fashion and textiles. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1948-S1959.

Why selling product sustainability seems fruitless

Posted on by AnnJoest in Uncategorized

Sustainability has become a trend. It can be found in now almost every store. Yet, when it comes to purchasing products that are more sustainable, we find consumers who do not do so or they may with the same or similiar consumption cycle. Why is that?

  1. The ideal(s) of sustainability cannot be internalized.

Sustainability sets an ideal. The notion is that you can buy something and nobody has been harmed, neither the environment and the people producing it. Now you are not offered the product mainly, but you are offered the standard of sustainability or the “ideal” of it. Its’ a sustainable form of marketing, in which you are made to identify with this ideal. As a result, you will likely buy this product, because of what it intends to reflect and project onto you too.

However, the ideal sold is not necessarily an ideal that is true to yourself. For example, buying the sustainable value “peaceful production” does not create peace within you such as when wearing a jacket produced in peaceful conditions. Because of such mismatch, between what is ideal and what is wanted, felt or aimed at to replace with such purchase, dissatisfaction arises. To compensate such lack of satisfaciton you may keep on buying again. Or you may not buy it at all, because of this recognition.

“Waaa had I had a shitty day at work. So much conflict. Wow, look at that jacket. It’s produced so peacefully. This is what I want.. Grrrr that conflict still persist at work. This jacket is ugly. I actually don’t know why I bought it. I want a different one. I want a non sustainable one, because this is how I feel. Or I want none at all. I want that conflict resolved. Rrrrrh. ” [Internal conflict]

2. Sustainability is a trend and trends do not sustain internally.

It’s the end of the season, or it’s a new season and what you did wear last year is no longer in trend. Currently a lack of sustainability may no longer be in trend. “You need to buy sustainable to be in trend.” Unconciously you may think that you are no longer in trend. However, you cannot be in trend. You are. Yet a result you may go on to buy something new to be in trend. In the long term this does not play out, because of this lack of unconcious identification or “removal of identity” through changes in trends. It creates dissatisfaction with the self (your “true identity”) and likely increases consumption. This applies to trend-changes in sustainable product categories too.

“Damn, I bought this vegan jacket, because its made from banana fiber and not vintage furr, but I don’t really like it and pretend I do for a bit but I do really miss my furr coat. I feel bad though for liking my fur coat. But this is not doing it. I am gonna keep on buying different vegan jackets, to give me the same feeling that my furr coat gave me, but I unconciously know it won’t happen, because my furr coat was unique to me. Shit, I feel so bad for liking something thats not trend based anymore. Will I be accepted if I am outtrended? I am worried I won’t ”

3. Some consumers may wish to want it sustainable.

“Lastly”, there is plenty of market research out, which asks whether consumers would like to pay a higher price for sustainable products. Most respondents will point out yes, but when it comes to the actual purchasing most might not. Such phenomena can be referred to as wishful thinking” Yes, it sounds nice to buy a house and if I had the money, I would also pay for it, but actually I want to use my money for different things I deem as important. For example, more finger food during the week, some other joys or anything. A 20 Euro price increase doesn’t seem much but it seems much in comparison to the joy I get from 5 cappucchino this month with my best friend in comparison to a better produced shoe.”

“Dang, you pay 60 Euros for THIS? I’d pay 5 Euros for this. But ya, I guess you value something differently then I do. ”

4. Are we fundamentally screwed?

Yes, and no. I feel that sustainable products have a greater chance, if they find a particular use case. If they are not promoted for the “value” only, but for example particular features. When I did a social-practice based research on bamboo vs timber, bamboo boards didn’t sell well when marketed as sustainable, but when marketed for what they were “similiar to hardwood, suitable for x and y use case and hey, they also to help restore some degraded mines.” I feel that most product marketing tends to disregard the latter, or switches it around. It likely doesn’t sell well. A better way to go about it might be “Hey this product is cat hair resistent, you may use this material to keep you save from toddler coloring, or you may keep on using that fur for that use case because its great for multiple wash. Polyester won’t do here or there.”

More to it? Let me know in the comments.

References

Van Vugt, M., & Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics: An introduction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 1.

Theories on psychoanalaysis (Object-relation, idealization, fantasy, wishfulthinking, internal object)

More sustainable materials? The case of leather and its alternatives

Posted on by AnnJoest in Business-Sustainability

By: Annjoest & Andrés Castro , collaborative work as part of the project more sustainable chemicals for the leather industry.

Source: LUM3N on pixabay

While leather traditionally has been perceived as a reliable and long-lasting material, it is increasingly associated with negative impacts on animal welfare, the environment, and the well-being of tannery workers and consumers. Because of that, there is a growing interest in alternative materials with a similar look or touch like leather, often advertised as “bio-based” leather alternatives and “purely synthetic” leathers. Bio-based materials can relate to materials that have a renewable resource base like pineapple, and synthetic materials can relate to materials made of fossil fuels mainly. Following, alternatives may be used for applications in which they can be less suitable, because the mechanical features differ, or because they are linked to better-perceived production processes. 

Therefore, this blog highlights some of the dimensions of sustainable production processes and the importance of mechanical properties when it comes to material choices. Its aim is to shed more critical light on the perception of materials’ impacts and to better enable consumers and producers to make more conscious material choices.

1. Shortcomings and opportunities of current sustainability assessments for leather and alternatives  

Due to leather’s linkage to animal farming, it is often associated as a material that contributes to large greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). In contrast, consumers and producers may perceive that synthetic and “bio-based” alternatives, which are detached from these GHG emissions, have fewer emissions in their total production. However, to really understand product-related emissions, it is necessary to look into the entire product life-cycle, starting from the raw materials used, the production methods, and their end-of-life paths. To best assess how leather and alternatives compare, a holistic assessment should take into account all impacts of production phases from upstream to downstream activities. In this respect, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is commonly used1.

Although LCAs can provide an overall impression on the impacts of materials and production processes, their results need to be interpreted cautiously. Currently, most LCAs consider different life-cycle phases, which means that the impact of products is analyzed in production boundaries. This can give a specific impression of a products’ impact, but it does not fairly compare materials for which production standards and assessment systems vary. To do so means that standardized system boundaries for product groups should exist. For instance, in the textile industry, the Higg Index is commonly used as a benchmark for textile materials. It measures the impact of production such as on climate change, the environment, the impact of chemicals used, and the extent to which resources for production are depleted2.

To compare the impact of different production processes, it sets similar production boundaries. It currently scores leather high (i.e., rather negative) on its environmental footprint (159 compared, e.g., with 44 for polyester and 98 for cotton)3. However, such a score can give a narrowed impression, because the Index allocates the total emissions from animal farming to leather, which does not happen with other products or their materials. To better compare materials and products means that an equal assessment for production processes and their boundaries has to take place. In analogy to cotton and polyester, it could be argued that the assessment boundary for leather should begin at a slaughterhouse as opposed to the cattle farm. 

Assessment criteria also need to consider the total resources used in the production and the processing of materials. Synthetic materials are mainly based on fossil fuels with a greater linkage to carbon emissions, while “bio-based” alternatives have a renewable resource base that by nature stores carbon. However, these bio-based alternatives may use fossil fuel-based additives to achieve specific material features and therefore, increase their carbon emissions. This can also apply to leather if chemicals are used for processing and finishing (surfaces). It follows that assessments better have to consider all the materials in the processing used. Only then, the impact of production can be correctly measured and communicated.

(Eco-)toxicity considerations

Whether a product can be claimed as more sustainable or with certain advantages in environmental performance, should also depend on its materials’ toxicological impact. For leather, around 85% of hides are tanned using chrome III  which can oxidize to chrome VI and be problematic for human health in particular4. If the leather has been processed and the final product handled properly,  chrome VI may not occur.  To avoid that tanning alternatives such as vegetable tannin can be used but if used in excess and not safely handled can promote other environmental impacts such as eutrophication and resource depletion. That is if the demand for vegetable tannins is higher than their “regrowth time” and or when unsafe handling of vegetable tannins results in eco-toxicological impacts of production. 

When it comes to alternatives of leather, fossil fuel-based materials, and bio-based materials with fossil fuel additives, there is little knowledge about their toxicological impact. If we assume that these materials need additional substances (i.e PVC or TPU)  to obtain a certain look or properties they may also have such an impact. In a certain regard, they can be linked to problematic additives that have been spotted to be regulated in chemical legislation. For example, phthalates are used as softeners in PVC production, or flame retardants as TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A) used in certain thermoplastics. Those intentionally added additives are often used in plastic production and they certainly represent a concern for human health and environment safeness. 

Although this can also apply to leather when mixed with additives, high-quality leather have better natural occurring features and often does not need extensive use of additives that could be hazardous. This can also happen in certain bio-based materials alternatives. Therefore, it is important to get to know the natural properties of each material and avoid mixing them with other materials where possible. 

Sourcing challenges

Source: ilyessuti on pixabay

Besides the already mentioned impacts, there are also concerns about the sourcing of materials. Leather often raises concern in relation to animal welfare and deforestation processes that might be linked to livestock. Thereby the perception exists that livestock is raised for the “skin” only. Although there is an indirect impact on how animals are raised in relation to skin quality,  cattle are not raised for the hides only. Hides are considered as by-products, which represent around 8%-12% of the value of fed cattle (Gary & Swander, 2020), whereas around 3.5 % of byproducts are allocated to hides5.

As dairy and meat consumption is expected to rise, increasing availability of hides as by-products can even be expected. Although there are regions, where hide waste products are strictly regulated such as by having to enter other production and consumption systems (i.e. animal feed, fertilizer, and bulk pet food), other regions may lack such regulations. The latter might be one indication that industrial waste products such as hides more likely end up in landfills or are being incinerated. It could be assumed for as long as dairy consumption exists, the use of the hide is beneficial. This can also apply to other waste products, whereas their production and use impacts depend on how they are being processed to fulfill what type of product needs.

2. What role do mechanical properties play in material choice?

What type of materials are used and processed plays an important role in the longevity of a product and therefore its “sustainability”. That is how long different materials can be used to fulfill specific demands on a product (e.g. aesthetics, safety, water protection). The less likely the range of product demands can be met over its lifespan, the shorter the lifespan of a product will be.  A consequence is that the same product is likely purchased more frequently and because of that the frequency of new production increases (i.e. fast fashion). Such a system pressures the environment because more materials and the energy to process them are needed.  It also means that more money is spent on the buying of new products over a person’s life. 

To avoid that products wear off more easily and that consumers repurchase them more often, the materials of which they are made are important. For products to last longer, they should be made with durable materials. That is where certain types of leather [e.g. genuine leather] are suitable. Because the leather has unique mechanical properties that allow it to age-long, other materials that are advertised as “vegan or synthetic alternatives” likely do not yet. Because these materials are different, they may not meet up to the specific features of leather over time. For instance, a couch made from a durable type of leather is less likely to wear off as opposed to a coach made from polyester. 

Such a difference can be less important for products that are kept shortly or are used less intensely, but gain importance if products are intended to be kept for multiple years and where product longevity or other unique features play an important role, e.g., besides furniture, also a wallet, jacket, shoes.

“There is a balancing act between the properties you actually want from your material. And in many, many cases, different materials will have different physical performances of leather, particularly where there are a lot of stressing and bending examples in footwear.“

Chemical Supplier

In the case of leather, it is made of a unique composition that is difficult to replace. It is made from hides, whereas hides consist largely of collagen – a structure-forming protein. During the processing of hides,  leather tanning proteins (fibrils and fibers) are intertwined and because of that give the leather its strength and structure. The upper hide layers have very thin and tight collagen fibers and because of that show higher mechanical stability (tensile and tear strength). As a result of leather’s origin in the collagen network, its tensile strength is noticeably higher compared to other materials (Meyer, Dietrich, Schulz & Mondschein, 2021). 

Meyer, Dietrich, Mond & Mondschein, 2021

Although tensile strength is an important material criterion, not all products benefit from tensile strength. Therefore, bio-based alternatives can be suitable for products with unique demands.  (see Figure 1: Comparison of physical properties of leather and alternatives). On the other hand, leather has a range of mechanical features such as elasticity, water vapor permeability, abrasion resistance, and durability. Because many alternatives only have a small fraction of these features,  materials may be enhanced synthetically. A result is that these features may not last, which can decrease the value of a product over time. This can also be seen in lower-quality leather (i.e. split leather) which is often enhanced using synthetics. Therefore, the right choice of material is important to make it last and to use it in accordance with specific product needs. 

3. How can the most suitable material for consumption and production be chosen? 

In the light of sustainable development, the material choice depends on its use case and the system surrounding production and consumption processes. Regardless of the material used, production processes and the materials should be safe for humans and the environment and it should utilize as little as possible of total resources for production where possible. Holistic assessments such as LCAs should give a differentiated view on the impact of different materials.

From a mechanical point of view, different materials have different properties which makes them more or less beneficial for different use cases. This means the right material can depend on how long a product should be used and what expectations exist on it. Instead of competing for being “the best” material, materials might actually add value to each other in a product for which each material is most suitable;  a bio-based shoelace that wears off quickly with a leather shoe topping to last.  

Sources:

Footnotes:

1Kurian Joseph, N. Nithya,Material flows in the life cycle of leather,Journal of Cleaner Production,Volume 17, Issue 7,2009,Pages 676-682,ISSN 0959-6526,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.018

2Mertens, J. (2020, 31. July). Higgs Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) Methodology. Sustainable Apparel Coalition. https://howtohigg.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Higg-MSI-Methodology-July-31-2020.pdf

3Davila, G. (2020, 2. November). SAC Responds to Leather Industry Concerns Over Higg MSI. Sustainable Apparel Coalition. https://apparelcoalition.org/sac-response-to-leather-industry-concerns/

4Hedberg, Y. S. (2020, 15. July). Chromium and leather: a review on the chemistry of relevance for allergic contact dermatitis to chromium – Journal of Leather Science and Engineering. SpringerOpen. https://JLSE.SpringerOpen.com/articles/10.1186/s42825-020-00027-y

5De Rosa-Giglio, Fontanella, Gonzalez-Quijano, Ioannidis, Nucci, Brugnoli. (2018). Product Environmental footprint Category Rules- Leather. On behalf of the Leather Pilot Technical Secretariat. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_leather.pdf

Further:

CO (2021). Retrieved from: Leather Production Sustainability | Eco-Friendly Leather Alternatives (commonobjective.co)

Gary, W. and Swanser, K. (2020). Quantifying the relationship between U.S. Cattle hide prices/value and U.S. Cattle Production. PhD Research Report. Leather and Hide Council of America Response to: Cross-Price Elasticity of Demand RFP

Meyer, M., Dietrich, S., Schulz, H., & Mondschein, A. (2021). Comparison of the technical performance of leather, artificial leather, and trendy alternatives. Coatings, 11(2), 226.

Suski, P., Speck, M., & Liedtke, C. (2021). Promoting sustainable consumption with LCA–A social practice based perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 125234.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization. UNIDO (2012). Brugnoli, F. Life Cycle Assessment, Carbon Footprint in Leather Processing. Retrieved from: https://leatherpanel.org/sites/default/files/publications-attachments/lca_carbonfootprint_lpm2012.pdf

Would we buy less, if the meaning of a product was better understood?

Posted on by AnnJoest in Uncategorized

Although I work in the field of sustainability and specifcially sustainable consumption and production patterns, I still caught myself to buy new things occassionally. Sometimes that was when I felt I needed something new, when I felt “bored”, or in a bad mood, when I wanted distraction, or when I felt I deserved a little reward, etc.

What I came to realize is that most of these goods did not last long with me and they also did not make me happy. Products that indeed made me happy, where those products that I chose to buy over weeks or sometimes (in the case of a leather bag) for months.

How did I stop buying stuff I didn’t need?

It happened that I learned about the psychoanalyst “Gustav Carl Jung”, who used symbolism to interpret his patients unconcious motives or desires. Within symbolism, colours, forms, and various patterns can be analyzed to understand ones own feelings, but also meanings and their biases that either suppress or support a decision (un)conciously.

Because I was curious to understand my own buying motives, I tried to integrate a psychoanayltical persepctive into my buying decisions. Therefore, I followed four steps, when I was about to buy high-heels, that I didn’t need. In doing so, I dissolved the meaning of the high-heels and also learned that the meaning, these high-heels emboddied, had nothing to do with the heels themselves that day, but my own (un)concious challanges and mood. By thinking about these (un)concious motives now more often, I am drastically reducing my buying behaviour and focus on other challanges these goods unconciously represent for me.

1.Why do I need this product ?

[High heels make me taller, and I am not as tall as other people. However, sometimes I perceive taller people as more powerwful.]

2. Where does that perception come from?

[ I was often told that I am not tall enough for a German and when I was taller I felt this observations was less mentioned. Because of that being taller made me feel more powerful. ]

3. Why did being tall matter that day or in that moment?

[I realized that I didn’t share an idea in a meeting that day. Because I didn’t, I missed out a powerful opportunity, which my team but also I could have beneffitted from. ]

4. What does my own analysis mean to me?

[I must have unconciously thought that by buying something that makes me feel tall , I would feel more more powerful. However, there is no relation between these heels and my work situation, and instead of buying these heels, I will work on sharing my ideas more often to empower myself and my team. ].

A systemic perspective on plastic production and consumption

Posted on by AnnJoest in Uncategorized

Every day tonnes of plastic are being used, produced and exposed. We all know that this system is called a linear system, with catastrophs for people and the environment. Now, there are ciruclar principles that aim at reducing plastic waste, by focusing on the recycability of the material, or the substitution of it by as much as possible.

Some initiatives are popping up much more in stores and I can see more brands advertising that their products are made with recycled ocean plastics or other recycled materials. On a first look that sounds great, because it means that we are avoiding the use of fossil fuels to create new bottles or other plastic based materials. It also means that industries working with waste problems and because of that support environmental actions.

On the second look, it does not sound sustainable. Taking ocean waste in the long term, will leave industries in a so called “lock-in”. It means their infrastructure may be build up to center around the need for specific waste products. For that to happen specific types waste must always occur in a specific quantity. This does not only leave the industry locked-in but also potentially increases the desire for waste generation. It also makes consumers believe that their product purchase is “green”, whilst it is not. Much recycled plastics products, such as rubber soles, or far worse, textiles made from recycled plastics, run off, and turn microplastics back into the environment.

Not all new sustainable systems, are sustainable by design. A transition must take place that is just, and well thought after for its long-term negative effects and possible opportunities.

Now, we could demolish plastics, but again not all plastics is bad. Some plastic materials can last very long and some of its material features might not compete with other material. What I like about it, is its ability to sustain. However, recycling requires a lot of energy and again, potentially nothing can be recycled forever and each product has its own footprint.

Much more that needs to be looked at is the system. Why are plastic based products produced? What industry do they encompoass? Who is the main target group of that plastic based content and why do they benefit from that product? What makes proudcers sell this product and what sustainable value is delivered with it?

Systems are complex ! They are interdependent and connected. One input leads to another output and one change, effects another change. Curious to learn more? Message me!

What good does it make, if Coca Cola and other industries recycle their plastics, when the fact that people are increasingly addicted to sugar, promotes such an industry to begin with? Why needing to order take-home food, wrapped in plastic, when the real problem is people working too much and potentially having too little time to cook? Why needing a range of plastic-based clothes for the many different occasions, when a smaller selection had done so well in the past? Why needing to substitute plastic straws, with other materials, when straws were long no nessecity? Why needing the many plastic- based cooking devices to cut vegetable in all sorts of imaginatory forms, when a knife had done so well for so long.

Sustainability and the self

Posted on by AnnJoest in Uncategorized

Recently, sustainability has been associated a lot to a green economy, an economy that is CO2 neutral up to CO2 negative. A CO2 neutral economy can happen, if carbon is captured during the production, usetime and end of life of a product. Most efficient are therefore products that are made from biological materials only, like a bamboo straw. A bamboo straw can be cut of the original bamboo plant, dried, treated, sold and used. The CO2 print hereby varies between CO2 negative up to positive, depending on the treatment, shipments and other processes involved.

The real CO2 print becomes more difficult for products that are processed heavily and consist of multiple product components like a shoe or jacket or many other basic products like hair dye and toys for kids. Many of these products consist of synthetic materials or materials that do not biodigrade at the end of their life. To make these products more ecological or more specific CO2 – sustainable, different type of processes might be used or product materials might be replaced with others i.e. plastic toys with wood toys.

So much stuff to rent. Why actually?

Regardless of the business model, consumption often continues to be promoted. Such an example is a “sustainable” business model in which consumers are encouraged to buy an ecological product such as a bamboo straw, but do not know whether the bamboo is harvested in respect to its necessarily growth time. Another example is a buisness model that makes you want to rent or lease products, although you never needed them before to begin with (i.e. expensive clothes or toys).

Why should the self be more recognized in the current sustainability agenda?

The self-concept is a general term used to refer to how someone thinks about, evaluates or perceives themselves. To be aware of oneself is to have a concept of oneself.

Baumeister (1999) provides the following self-concept definition:

“The individual’s belief about himself or herself, including the person’s attributes and who and what the self is”.

Carl Rogers (1959) believes that the self-concept has three different components:

• The view you have of yourself (self-image)

• How much value you place on yourself (self-esteem or self-worth)

• What you wish you were really like (ideal-self)

The impact of consumption on the self

Regardless, why or what we consume, it often relates to us – of course it does, since we consume it. However, media, advertisment etc. often distracts us from our true self and therefore encourage a desire to take on an identity by consuming something that does not reflect our true self. Our attention shifts towards a “fictive ideal-self”. An example is wanting to look like a celebrity , someone on advertisment, etc and therefore buying new clothes, dying hair or buying a product to align more with the desired persons’ trait. However, we are not that person, we are ourselves. We will never be that person and likewise, that person will never be us.

Desire for the fictive ideal supports a society less satisfied

Often, we are influenced by media, by friends, culture and societys’ expectations how we should be, what we should do, how we should look like and how we should behave. Many impulses that distract us from who we really are and want to be. Impulses that often lead to greater levels of dissatsifaction as we struggle to think about whether what we have and how we are is enough, or if we don’t need more or changes to be fullfilled.

After the point of consumption , and once realized that the image we created with the idea of the fictive ideal of us, stopped satisfying, the cycle of consumption, re-enters. In addition, other mental health problems might arise, because an image created does not align with the image of one-self. Think about advertisement that rewards or promotes white-caucasion skin types or even hollywood that (can) promote cultural stereotypes. What happens is that a society is created that does not thrive, but a society with wish-full thinking that imagines to thrive with a product that supports an idenittiy or part of it not true to themselves. That can happen, when buying or renting or changing something, that does not actually make happy.

An example is advertisement that illustrates a white rich man with a huge house and a loving wife. The image might create the perception that because of his white skin, a demanding job and a huge house his wife loves him. Because of that, one with darker skin might want to have whiter skin, wants to buy a house etc. In doing so the connection to the real-self gets lost and in doing so also the opportunity to identify success and happinnes for themselves (small job, free time, happinness to attract happinnes)

How can the true self be promoted more in the current sustainability agenda?

Feet are made for walking, jackets made for protection, blankets used to protect from cold, hair care products made to nurture them, body cream to make our skin less dry, to protect it. Food is made to keep us healthy, to connect us to others. Other products are made for comfort, help us sleep, help to support us. Many products weren’t made to sell a look or an image, but because of a fundamental function they support(ed).

A sustainability society or a sustainable industrial agenda, therefore needs to emphasize more to promote functionality over an image sold and a society that allowes for the production of healthy products, that are kept and not consumed to be trashed. This is possible if the self is satisfied with what it consumes. Therefore, products should provide a supporting function, align with the consumers true feelings and desires and likewise be accessible to a wide range of customers i.e. through product/market targeted business models (i.e. rental of healthy product to students, elderlies etc.). Doing so will allow society to thrive, be more happy, be more inclusive and to create an ideal image of the self, while also saving much of that CO2 .

Who cares whether you have bold or gray hair? Imagine time spent worrying , money spend on hair dressors vs. time spend on something fun and money spend to support that fun activity 😀

Resources/ Inspirations

Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California management review, 54(1), 64-87.

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31.

Frosh, S. (1991). Identity crisis: Modernity, psychoanalysis and the self. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Levänen, J., Uusitalo, V., Härri, A., Kareinen, E., & Linnanen, L. (2021). Innovative recycling or extended use? Comparing the global warming potential of different ownership and end-of-life scenarios for textiles. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5), 054069.

Muller, J. (1985). Lacan’s mirror stage. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 5(2), 233-252.

Velenturf, A. P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1437-1457.

Does circularity equal sustainability?

Posted on by AnnJoest in Uncategorized
    Can we really produce sustainable products within current production and consumption rates?

    A circular business model adds onto a sustainable business model

    I am a huge fan of the Circular Economy and business models for the Circular Economy, because they can help to capture the value of the product during and at the end of the life and likewise add on to the notion of “Sustainable Business Models”. Because materials and products “circle” , less pressure is put on the environment and therfore enable a more trustworthy notion of “sustainbility” i.e. producing in regards to a trees’ growth time without supporting deforestation. Such business models focus for instance on renting or leasing products. Renting out a product also stimulates the use of more durable “sustainable” materials to avoid repair costs. Although the price of production might increase, financial value is captured and returned over multiple renting periods.

    Renting instead of buying

    As example, instead of buying furniture for a few semesters (let’s think about students with a low budget), furniture could be rented and returned, instead of being thrown away at graduation. The latter happens frequently and had always amazed me as a student. Renting furniture, for instance, would put an empahsize on producing materials that are more durable and repairable and students or other customers likely take more care of it as they otherwise might have to pay a repair fee (just like when renting an apartment with a deposit). In following such a business model, less pressure is put on the environment i.e. trees, as products stay longer in the system. More happiness might also be provided to students, who can now afford to have furniture at home, that has not been pre-owned multiple times or furniture that matches their identity and therefore well-being. Likewise, they might even save costs as they don’t have to deal with graduation furniture deposit arrangements. 😀

    Woop, woop, isn’t the circular economy fantastic and sustainable?

    Yes, the idea of such a circular economy sounds fantastic, because it can help to save resources and minimizes waste. So, what’s the catch? Because customers are ought for new products on a frequent basis not all circular business models are sustainable. This particular accounts to those circular business models that encourage consumption instead of minimizing it. Such business models might be those that focus on short-term rentals. Short-term rental is not sustainable if it promotes customers to rent more products for various occasions be that for multiple seasons or meet-ups as oppose to promoting products to last or products that cater the customer’s identity and needs.

    The problem with short-term rental such as for fashion might also imply, that although goods are taken back, they may not necessarily circle in the next season, as fashion or other products become outdated and therefore disposed. Therefore, there is also a lower incentive to invest into the ecological sustainability of a material or product. Likewise, these models also influence consumers into constantly seeking for the new and therefore encourage the desire for personal up to identity change. “What I have is not good enough anymore, What do I need to have to be accepted? What if I don’t follow trends? Who am I? What do others think of me if I have the same for too long? Is it okay to always wear the same pair of pants to different occasions? “. – Of course it is okay! 😀

    What’s a sustainable and circular business model like?

    Ideally a sustainable and circular business model therefore caters around the aspect of “promoting to need less, promoting materials and products I identify or create a meaning with and to promote products and materials that add value to my well-being.” These type of business models should fill a consumer need, instead of creating a psychological need for customers to buy something they don’t need to begin with. As an example, my friends will love me, regardless of me wearing a special dress for easter or my casual street wear / outfit. Of course, changes are fantastic, but do we need them daily or weekly?

    A sustainable and yet circular business model should be needs oriented

    A circular business model becomes sustainable, when it caters around “our needs” and “identity” also. One of my favorite brands that supports such a business model is “OurChoiceFashion“. Besides its focus on durable and sustainable materials like leather, it also take into consideration aspects of time-less design, which allows customers to wear their shoes with multilpe outfits for various years. For customers to continue wearing their favorite shoes, they have implemented a repair service, that allows for shoe parts to be upgraded and returned back to you.

    Something new should not be the primary sales objective of a business model

    If we as customers feel like needing to rent or buy products that we never needed before, we think that what we have is not enough. We might therefore feel that buying becomes an essential part of our time spend, when quality time instead centers more around nurturing friendship and self-care. Think about a memory in which you enjoyed company or shared a meal. Does the memory make you more happy or the dress you were wearing as part of your memory ? 🙂

    How can we then better promote circular business models?

    Ideally, we would like customers to use their products for as long as possible and have them feel connected to it. We may also want to focus on a market-need and niche like student furniture rental. Likewise, can focus on design that centers around season-less colors, genderneutral styles, designs that fit into various waredrobes, furniture and other interior designs that easily match with other colors and of course purpose. For instance, I really enjoy up-cyling old furniture into new once by giving it a new life. Wouldn’t it be great to sell repair-kits in additon to pre-owned furniture to customers? Doing so would allow customers to feel more connected to their products, just like a child or even an adult that bakes a cake or builds a sand-castle or an image to be proud of. Often, we keep these products for as long as possible : ). Likewise, companies remain profitable – A win win situation.

    References

    Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainable business model innovation: A review. Journal of cleaner production, 198, 401-416.

    Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of business ethics, 102(1), 15-28.

    Wilson, M. C. (2013). A critical review of environmental sustainability reporting in the consumer goods industry: Greenwashing or good business. J. Mgmt. & Sustainability, 3, 1.