Lately I’ve found myself picking up the remnants of Burger King bags, sandwich wrappers, and beverage cups from my yard. These weekly papery invaders got me thinking about the negative sentiments that such unsustainable packaging engenders, and the resulting brand liability.
On the surface, it isn’t Burger King’s fault that some irresponsible lout chooses my lawn (or at present, my snowbanks) as his dumping site. But let’s read between the lines: the very fact that Burger King enables its customers to turn its products into everlasting debris speaks to the company’s lack of understanding of the greater societal ecosystem in which it operates.
You’ve seen that little note on the packaging that requests that you dispose of this properly, showing a responsible-looking stick figure throwing her neat, compact trash into a cavernously empty bin. This is nothing like reality; chances are the real trash bin is already bursting at the seams — as is its eventual landfill destination. There’s really no “away”, anyway, so all that trash ends up somewhere, whether it’s in my yard or on a trash barge bound for nowhere.
Corporate social responsibility is no longer just about installing compact fluorescents, buying carbon indulgences and recycling your company’s soda cans. It’s about developing the mindset that your company is an integral part of this world and all its chickens, dandelions, sand, polar bears, ocean currents, grasshoppers and rainy days. It’s about examining every point of interaction with the world and making certain that each interaction is meaningful — and, eventually, that each is restorative.
So what’s the solution to BK’s ubiquity of soon-useless packaging? Perhaps it’s using organic, compostable ware, like these beautiful Verterra plates that sustainability/social media consultant Paul Smith pointed out to me. Maybe it’s using reusable plates for eat-in customers, if comparably-priced options can be found.
The point is, adopting the mindset that your products’ sustainability is your responsibility is your brand will make all the difference in the world.
January 19, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Yeah, agreed. But then, in thinking about alternatives, we need to account for performance characteristics (same look and feel? same user convenience? or perhaps *better* look/feel/convenience because people inherently dislike change and need a “payoff”?) and costs (safety-related, environmental, and financial, which launches us into LCA, which leads to questions about system boundaries).
For example, many organic, compostable alternatives (eg forks, knives) ironically seem more material intensive than the traditional items they replace. Is it because the material is structurally weaker and requires greater wall-thickness, or because the designers just think they can use more material “since it biodegrades anyway”? I sure hope it’s not the latter. By the same token, I am apprehensive that companies will use “green materials” as an excuse to make even more useless tchochkies because “it all biodegrades anyway” (not that that holds the majority of tchochky-makers back now).