Since my earlier article about Marks and Spencer’s ‘eco hypocrisy’, and an initial rather constructive email debate with them about their ‘green credentials’, all communication has now dried up. M&S no longer return my emails. I guess their patience with this one particular activist wore thin. Did I stump them with my questions? Who knows, but I think I’ll give it a few more shots yet.

Since then I’ve noticed several companies, just like M&S, claiming to be greener by reducing their packaging. Great! I hear you shout. On the surface of it yes it is a good thing, but I’m worried that more and more companies are using this message to convince their customer base that they care about the environment. Oh yes, the figures stack up, and their auditors approve them, but I’m not convinced less packaging always correlates with less environmental harm. The situation is much more complicated than it seems on the surface.

Let’s use a carrier bag as an example. Most carrier bags are made from plastic. Plastic is a derivative of oil. Oil is pumped from the ground and the whole process from extraction to conversion uses lots of energy perpetuating environmental impacts that are well documented. How much does the carrier bag weigh though? I’m not sure on this, but pick up an empty bag, let go and there’s a good chance it will float off in the wind. Contrast this to a Hessian bag. The bag is unbleached, made from plant fibre and sewn together. There are environmental by-products don’t get me wrong, I doubt there is a process on earth that does not have some measurable environmental impact. There will also be social economic factors to consider, but the weight of the bag is heavier, there is more product. I think I might start using a plastic carrier bag, surely that way there is less of it. Do you see what I’m trying to get at? Less packaging is not necessarily better for the environment.

The Humpty Dumpty Easter Egg company (fictious) wraps their eggs up in 2 cardboard boxes. The next year they focus on improving their environmental performance and move to one box. This is a 50% reduction in the same packaging, so in the crudest sense, we shout ‘of course it’s better than the original’. Year 3 the eggs are wrapped in plastic shrink wrap. ‘We’ve made a 99% reduction in packaging’ Humpty Dumpty proudly proclaim. Indeed they have if you go by weight, but is plastic better than card?

Is the card recycled? Is the plastic recycled? What energy goes into the processes that make these products? I don’t have all the answers, but I do think the current methods of measurement carry an element of environmental ambiguity. Consumers must use caution. Sadly for most of us these important debates add to the mire of confusion when choosinig products. Most people just want to nip into a shop, grab something off a shelf and then head home. The packet said ‘40% less packaging’, therefore it must be good right?

The construction industry got to grip with this problem some time ago, when the debate about which material was better really got underway. Now things like concrete, wood, steel are measured by embodied energy Which attempts to work out the true environmental cost of the material, including elements of extraction, transportation and fixing. Lets face it there are so many variables it’s hard to pin down an exact cost. But the construction industry does a better attempt than most. Maybe the food industry could learn a lesson or two, from this mechanism of performance measurement.