On the heals of a number of studies that link trade and carbon footprints, the WWF has kicked off the Low Carbon Manufacturing (LCMP) Program in the Pearl Delta area. An area known for its long history of manufacturing for export, and reputation for not living up to the highest environmental standards.
Through this program, WWF is looking to essentially enroll manufacturers into a program that will track emissions through the supply chain, look to work with those manufacturers to reduce emissions, and provide a labeling system so that stakeholders (investors, buyers, government, etc) can see where they rank.
Through their study of three manufacturers from three sectors (textile, electronics, and apparel), WWF believes that the potential savings across the entire PRD area is roughly 74m ton of CO2 (A HUGE sum of carbon), and has build the program around three constraints:
- Carbon Reduction
- Green House Gas Management
- Distance to Best Practices in Operations
Fundamentally, the program itself is one that I think will attract big names (Nike, Adidas, and Burberry have already signed on), but I have a few reservations at the both philosophical and program levels
Philosophically, this program has two issues that I am working to reconcile (I have emails into a few friends at WWF now).
- The first is the fact that WWF is at the heart of its organization an NGO whose focus is on environmental protection, particularly the physical environment of earth’s creatures. It is not a manufacturing audit firm,it is not a carbon credit bean counting firm, and it is not a certification firm. so, this program is new territory for them (call it scope creep), and as an NGO leader myself I am concerned about the robustness of the program given the high profile it will surely attain.
- Second, are we going to end up being labeled out? LEED, Organic, Fair Trade, ISO, etc. Are we entering a period where we (consumers and brands) are being asked to take on too much? That because regulators have yet to raise the collective environmental bars, we are now forced into a position where NGOs are accrediting the manufacturing/ energy processes and equipment efficiencies of firms and equipment that should simply be regulated.
From a program perspective, the following things also stick out:
- The three constraints above are all very intangible in nature. Sure, you can monitor emissions, but to think that this can be done across a firms supply chain credibly by an environmental NGO is dangerous. Most firms in the textile and apparel industry are still auditing for labor compliance
- To draw a conclusion from, and develop a program, 3 samples to me seems very thin. No doubt improvements can be made, and no doubt carbon emissions can be reduced, but to put a number on how much savings could be made is a bit of a stretch
- How is this program going to stack up against others in the industry, but firms who are solely focused on it, and what will the entrant of WWF (a big brand) mean to those programs which are potentially far more robust
In the grand scheme of things, I am a big fan of certification programs., hwoever for them to be effective from a program sense (not a branding sense), they need to be credible. I have been a big fan of WWF, and love most of their programs, and do wish this one a success.. should they really pursue it. However, the idea that NGOs are looking to let their scope creep like this is difficult for m..espeicially those that are alrady working so hard to bring together global events that create mass awareness like Earth Hour.