I suppose the reason I’ve never seen such a page on a corporate website is because it would never occur to me to look for one. The companies I do business with, as I stated earlier, are ones I do business with because of the quality and price of their product.

If I know of a company that has done a TERRIBLE job of protecting the environment, or one that has done injury and then not wanted to fix it, I’ll certainly do my best to avoid that one if I can. But it should go without saying that any company’s website is only going to mention the good things it does…if it’s also doing things that AREN’T good examples of “environmental stewardship,” they’d be the last to fess up, right?

The other reason I’ve managed to miss such pages is that when I want to read up on being more environmentally-friendly, I’m much more likely to look for sites like this one that tell me what I can do MYSELF.

If I buy a product from a company that isn’t yet environmentally-friendly, I still think that I can do more good overall by making other changes in my own lifestyle to outweigh any real “harm” I’ve caused by not patronizing a more “green” manufacturer.

http://www.limitedbrands.com/social_responsibility/environment.jsp

There is a term for this: Greenwashing.

Check my original post for more information.

(Can you believe Birkenstock doesn’t have some kind of environmental stewardship section on their website?)

Maybe I’ve just been to the wrong company’s websites, but I’ve never seen ANY company with an “environmental stewardship” section on its website. So my response would likely be, “Can you believe that there are people who actually look for one?”

I don’t know if the surprise I read in that question is because Birkenstock is supposed to be regarded as such an environmental leader otherwise that it is out of character for them not to have a section of their site devoted to such a subject, but I’m assuming that’s the case.

Unfortunately, as an “average Joe” consumer who does care about the environment, but doesn’t have unlimited funds, a company’s “environmental stewardship” is not, and likely will not be, my primary reason for shopping with them. A company can start a completely different website devoted to environmental stewardship, and can even send me free brochures with energy-conserving tips I can use at home.

But the reality of the situation from a consumer standpoint is that if the product isn’t right for me, or isn’t affordable, then I’m not going to buy it. Period.

I’m not going to spend MORE money to buy a product I like less because the manufacturer or the retailer has a better-publicized energy policy.

I’ll do my best to avoid companies that don’t, but even then, if their product is the only one I can afford and one I feel I need, I’m going to have to buy it. Hopefully, the money I save can go to more of those energy-saving light bulbs and other modifications that I CAN control.

But a company’s reputation of energy conservation, when one is on a budget, only goes so far.

Just my two cents.

Are you saying that the retailers who waste energy by keeping their doors open are contributing to climate change? If so, how?

I only ask that you refrain from using “global warming” as an argument. Why you ask? Because it isn’t an argument. We could spend all day digging up scientific evidence to prove or disprove the theory.

Now, I am totally in favor of responsible conservation. On a practical level, there are many many things that we can do to help improve and maintain a healthy environment. But I am not in favor of regulatory measures based on theory … especially when dealing with something so complex as the global climate. For the record, I have 6 years of higher education in Environmental Science and Policy. By no means am I a scientist (technically I am but I am no longer in the field)… but I am a thinker and I like to fairly discuss environmental issues.