The article in the url below reflects a company making a sustainability-related decision based on an honest assessment of its ability to make a difference, rather than the appearance of making a difference:
"Lego is scrapping plans to make its toy bricks from recycled plastic bottles after determining that switching to the material would result in it producing higher carbon emissions.
Importantly, the company is not giving up, just recognizing that the technology is not there, at present:
"Lego has long sought to replace its petroleum-based bricks with more sustainable materials. It tried making pieces from corn, but that resulted in bricks that were too soft. A wheat-based brick didn't look right. Bricks made from other materials over the years proved too hard to pull apart or lost their grip. Its latest effort was focused on recycled plastic bottles. The company found a one-liter plastic PET bottle could produce around 10 of its classic 2×4-stud bricks. The company has been testing bricks made from the material for their quality, durability and "clutch power"—the name Lego gives to the brick's ability to lock together with other bricks."
The challenge:
"Lego said it is abandoning the effort because it found that scaling up production wouldn't cut the company's carbon emissions: The extra steps involved in production would use more energy and manufacturing facilities would require retooling. … The company said it would instead continue with testing and developing Lego bricks made from a range of alternative sustainable materials, including other recycled plastics."
This reminds me of a phenomenon I have increasingly experienced when I meet people working in the CSR-related space. This is no doubt related to my advanced age and growing frustration, but I have taken to asking the people I meet whether they are interested in making money or interested in making a difference. It is obvious that there are plenty of ways to make money, via the perception of action or meaning. All the work being done in the market for ESG-related investment products is a great example – a whole industry has grown around consumer demand for more sustainable funds, with no discernible impact (as far as I can see) on either corporate behavior or, more important, actual carbon emissions. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people willing to dive into the space, because money is there to be made. When I push these people who I meet on the issue, 9 times out of 10 I don't hear from them anymore. My takeaway is that they are in it for the money, which is fine (people need to earn a living and markets offer a powerful motivator for change, when directed appropriately), but not conversations I want to waste time on. What is interesting about the Lego example is that it suggests the intention to make a difference, even if it means taking a short-term hit to perceptions (i.e., withdrawing a proposal that appears sustainable, on the surface).
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Lego's Latest Effort to Avoid Oil-Based Plastic Hits a Brick Wall
By Dominic Chopping
September 26, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B3
