Search

The term waste audit may conjure up images of people sifting through garbage, elbow-deep in a trash can. While that’s sometimes the case with large audits for cities or businesses, an at-home audit can bring you the same benefits without digging through week-old waste. 

It’s easy to throw something in the bin and forget about it, so a waste audit is a great way to stop and think about what you’re really sending to the landfill each time you tie up a garbage bag. By tracking what’s thrown away, you can identify ways to decrease your waste. Maybe you’ll start switching disposable items for reusables, take up composting, or shop at a refill store more often afterward. 

We’ve done a few personal waste audits over the years, and inspired by our Sustainable Living Challenge, we decided it was time to reassess. So, over the past week, we tracked our trash. 

How to do a simple waste audit 

Digging through a week’s worth of your own trash by hand leaves a powerful, lasting impression. TriplePundit's editorial assistant Taylor Haelterman did it for her first-ever waste audit and vowed to find a better way.

The new favorite method: Keep a piece of paper and a pencil near the garbage can to list items as they're thrown out, using tally marks to count duplicates. This offers an easy, visual reminder, but you can also keep track virtually on your phone’s notes app or in a spreadsheet.

Once you’ve documented everything you’ve thrown out over a period of time — we recommend one or two weeks — you can move on to sorting the items on your list into categories like food scraps, packaging and personal hygiene, for example. The number of items in these categories will help you determine where making the effort to divert your waste will have the biggest impact. 

The great big waste audit: Our results

Taylor Haelterman, TriplePundit editorial assistant. I’m shocked that I used almost 50 tissues in one week when I wasn’t even sick. I was reminded how quickly the small things we throw away add up the day that I marked down 13 tallies next to the word “tissues” on my garbage list. Switching out disposable tissues for handkerchiefs is something I’ve yet to make the leap to try, but after this week I might be convinced to give it a go. 

My personal hygiene category gave me the most pause overall. Tracking the floss I threw away twice a day kept me pondering potential alternatives for my dental products, too — something that hadn’t occurred to me until recently. 

The other most common thing I threw away was food scraps, which was less of a surprise. There’s no composting program where I live, and researching my composting options has been lurking at the back of my mind for months.

Though they are small, an apple core here and a bell pepper stem there add up to a pile of waste that could be put to use creating nutrient-rich soil instead of emitting greenhouse gases in the landfill. Keeping track of the tiny pieces of food I was tossing throughout the week was the push I needed to begin my search for a composting method. And I’ve started freezing vegetable scraps to make stock at home. 

Mary Mazzoni, TriplePundit executive editor. Considering I cook at home almost every day, I expected most of my waste audit to happen in the kitchen. But some of the things I'd been throwing away without noticing did surprise me. 

It started to irk me to see how frequently a half-plate or so of leftovers were ending up trashed after going off in storage containers in the fridge. Once I became more aware of it, it seemed easier to remember to toss that last bit of roasted veggies into today's stir-fry or add that half cup of rice to a fresh pot of soup. If left up to chance that someone will microwave it later, it'll probably end up in the bin, but making use of ingenuity and the online recipe libraries devoted to leftovers seems a straightforward way to cut it off at the source.  

Another thing I noticed was the tortillas. So many tortillas. My Mexican partner eats them at almost every meal, and I can't believe I didn't realize how often we were trashing them — some toasted for meals and not eaten, others the remnants of paper-wrapped packs from the Mexican grocer that went stale too soon in the fridge. The sad thing is that reusing them is so easy. Stale ones are perfect for tostadas or tortilla chips — just pop them in the oven or some oil in a frying pan until crispy. My personal favorite way to use them is in chilaquiles, a dish of tortilla chips cooked in a spicy salsa and topped with beans that is typically enjoyed for breakfast, though I love it any time. 

Beyond these (yes, very specific) examples, eating more seasonally seems a good strategy to keep my kitchen bins empty for longer overall. Cans of my beloved San Marzano tomatoes, for example, do start to pile up, and while steel cans are readily recyclable, choosing seasonal ingredients more often — or maybe even canning some freshies myself in the summer season — could certainly reduce waste. I also tend to use frozen vegetables more often in the winter months, and those plastic packs are not recyclable. 

Tossing an empty tube of sunscreen also made me think about my skincare addiction and its effect on the planet. While most of my moisturizer jars and serum vials end up washed out and reused for other things, I haven't figured a way to reuse tube packaging yet, and most of it is not recyclable. I generally choose plastic or glass jar packaging where possible for this reason, but I've yet to find an option like this for sunscreen. While I'd never stop wearing it just because I'm tossing a tube a few times a year — seriously guys, wear sunscreen, skin cancer is a thing — I'm curious to learn more about this. If anyone has any ideas for a lower-waste sunscreen option or a reuse solution, I'm all ears. 

The next steps

In the coming months, we'll start implementing changes to reduce the waste we've observed in our waste audit, moving slowly and steadily to avoid disengagement by swapping or replacing one or two things per month.

We'll keep track of how it goes — such as if we grew to love our replacement items or if we went back to the old — and report on our progress in July for the next Home Month in TriplePundit's Sustainable Living Challenge. If you decide to trade out something in your own home to reduce waste, we'd love to hear about it! Get in touch with us here. 

The workaday world of concrete is getting a long-overdue makeover, as new lower-carbon mixes enter the market. But with millions of possible mixes already available, choosing the most sustainable concrete for a project is all the more complicated. If that sounds like a job for artificial intelligence (AI), it is. 

The U.S.-based startup Concrete.ai has developed an AI-powered platform that helps project managers sort through the options and find the optimal mix for the job, with both sustainability and performance as key factors.

Building our way into catastrophic climate change

Concrete accounts for about 9 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. All else being equal, that figure is all but certain to expand in the coming years, fueled by urbanization, industrialization and population growth.

The technological obstacles to decarbonizing concrete have been formidable. Over the past 10 years, other sectors of the global economy made significant strides in adopting renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other pathways to a low-carbon economy. In contrast, new processes for making concrete were slow to emerge.

The main obstacle is cement, which is the binder that mixes with water, sand, gravel and other fillers to form solid concrete. Cement only accounts for about 10 percent of the total mix, but it’s the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from concrete production. Making cement involves both fossil energy and a chemical reaction that releases carbon dioxide.

Cement is made of a material called clinker, which is processed from clay and limestone. “Limestone … is baked at up to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,640 degrees Fahrenheit) in enormous kilns that are fired almost exclusively with fossil fuels,” Scientific American reports. “The chemical reactions involved produce even more carbon dioxide as a by-product.”

Those chemical reactions have not changed since cement was first invented more than 200 years ago, as Isabel Malsang wrote for Phys.org. “If concrete were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases on Earth, behind only China and the United States,” Malsang notes.

Building our way out of catastrophic climate change

Fortunately, new approaches are emerging. One avenue is the “buildings as material banks” concept, which supports a circular economy model that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions through recycling and reuse. New building materials like cross-laminated timber can also help reduce the use of concrete.

New technologies that directly reduce carbon emissions from cement and concrete making are also appearing. In January, the U.S. Department of Energy selected five firms to share a total of $20 million in funding for new cement and concrete technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the awardees, the Massachusetts startup Sublime Systems, received a $6.7 million grant to develop a process that deploys renewable energy and electrification to replace combustible fuels. The company also uses non-limestone feedstocks to produce its low-carbon cement.

AI helps to choose the right concrete mix for the job

Another approach is illustrated by the California firm CalPortland, which received a $4 million grant to develop a method for reusing the cementitious materials in waste concrete. The company also recovers stone and other aggregate materials for reuse.

As these new materials come on the market, either as drop-in replacements or feedstocks for blending, building project managers will be faced with an even more complicated array of choices to make.

TriplePundit spoke with Alex Hall, CEO of the U.S. startup Concrete.ai, to learn more about the scope of the challenges involved in selecting the most optimal concrete mix for columns, floors, pavements and other infrastructure.

“Concrete … is the second most consumed product after water,” Hall said. “Just in the U.S., we produce 15 million cubic yards per year. We pour enough concrete every 3.5 days to build another Hoover Dam.”

There are 6,000 ready-mix concrete plants in the U.S. alone, Hall told us. As a group, they deploy 10 to 25 different materials to offer a range of mixes covering over 2,000 different designs. All together, the number of possible concrete mixes reaches into the millions.

New, lower-carbon cement provides the opportunity to introduce sustainability as an optimizing factor, without impacting performance. However, introducing new mix designs is typically a long, slow process of trial and error. That is the obstacle tackled by Concrete.ai’s signature product, Concrete Copilot.

“Historically the way we’ve built these designs is through experimentation, looking at end results, validating the process. This is slow and iterative,” Hall said. “Now we apply our patented models to these elements. Ultimately it’s about data. The more data we have about the performance, then we can start the validation process.”

How it works: The benefits of data

Concrete Copilot uses an AI platform created over a 10-year period at the Institute for Carbon Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. Based on criteria submitted by concrete producers, the platform can generate millions of possible mix designs in a matter of seconds and present the most optimal design. The producer can accept the mix as-is or modify it according to their needs.

In addition to evaluating their current formulas, producers can use Concrete Copilot to evaluate new products and respond quickly to shifts in their supply chains.

Concrete.ai launched the platform commercially in January following a period of extensive field testing among concrete producers across the U.S. last year, covering more than 2 million cubic yards of concrete.

“The average material savings were $5.04 per cubic yard, and the average carbon reduction was 30 percent,” the company reported. “For most producers, these results were seen within just one month of activating the platform.”

The potential for rapid transformation

The leading U.S. concrete firm VCNA Prairie Material provides a good example of the potential for a rapid transformation of the concrete industry.

Chris Rapp, vice president and general manager of VCNA, told 3p that the last “revolutionary” change in the concrete industry happened about 15 years ago when paperless, electronic delivery ticketing began.

“Innovation happens very slowly in our industry,” he said. “Ready-mix is still very archaic.”

Nevertheless, VCNA is on the alert for new opportunities to innovate. The company participated in the field tests for the AI solution last year, providing VCNA's team with about five months of experience using mixes generated by Concrete Copilot by the time it launched commercially.

“From a client perspective, there is little difference in what they’ve seen in the past,” Rapp said. “They get a mix design with a lower carbon footprint but the performance is the same.”

Rapp also anticipates that new alternatives to cement will be widely accepted, though the sheer volume of the industry presents a hurdle to scale up. “Anything that can replace cement that doesn’t sacrifice performance is the way this market will trend eventually,” he said.

In the meantime, cement stakeholders that seek to gain an edge on decarbonization can take steps now, as illustrated by the leading firm Holcim. The company has introduced a lower-carbon concrete that incorporates alternative materials, including recovered demolition debris. 

Last October, Holcim announced a $100 million upgrade for its cement plant in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. When it’s completed in 2025, the upgrade will increase the capacity of the facility — which is already the largest facility of its kind in North America — by 600,000 metric tons while reducing net carbon dioxide emissions by more than 400,000 tons. 

This story on an approach to covering difficult topics without invoking avoidance is part of The Solutions Effect, a monthly newsletter covering the best of solutions journalism in the sustainability and social impact space. If you aren't already getting this newsletter, you can sign up here. 

When the COVID-19 pandemic started, I found myself in a moral dilemma. I was a journalist who avoided the news at all costs because it was overwhelming and upsetting. Did that mean my work was also negatively affecting some of those who read it? Probably. 

Hoping to end my contribution, I changed the way I wrote stories. But the industry-wide problem hasn’t gone away. As of 2023, the number of people who avoid the news, either all the time or periodically, was near a historic high at 36 percent, according to the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report. 

“Certain news stories that are repeated excessively or are felt to be ‘emotionally draining’ are often passed over in favor of something more uplifting,” according to the report, which is based on a survey of over 93,000 online news consumers around the world. 

Repeating grim statistics and headlines over and over again dampens curiosity, action and constructive conversations. It’s critical to cover problems, but we must find ways to do so without invoking hopelessness and avoidance — especially when it comes to the most pressing societal issues that are often the most difficult to read about.  

That’s where solutions journalism comes in. Focusing on how people are working to solve problems and what we can learn from them can encourage agency, hope and productive public discourse. 

I’m not the only one who turned to solutions: 55 percent of news avoiders are interested in more positive news stories, and 46 percent are interested in stories about solutions, according to the Reuters report. 

Would you rather read a story that recites statistics about the ever-intensifying wildfires in California, or a piece about small businesses using herds of goats to graze down overgrowth across Sacramento as a fire mitigation method? 

I’d choose the goats. This Sacramento Bee article does a great job explaining the benefits of the method and why it’s needed without glossing over the drawbacks. It also includes photos of the goats. What more could you want?  

Not all solution-focused pieces on difficult-to-read topics can be as lighthearted as talking about goats, nor should they be. This piece from Reasons to be Cheerful, for example, covers the lack of access to safe drinking water in India through the stories of entrepreneurs who are running “water ATMs.” Trained and supported by the nonprofit Safe Water Network, the entrepreneurs are improving access at a significantly cheaper price than other suppliers. 

TriplePundit’s ongoing solutions journalism series approaches another challenging topic — the hidden human rights costs of the low-carbon transition — by looking at how local stakeholders, governments, and the mining sector are responding to long-scrutinized environmental and social harms caused by mining. Each of these stories focuses on responses that already exist to emphasize that immediate action can be taken, like empowering Indigenous voices and ensuring company due diligence assessments are conducted properly. 

Along with global challenges, solutions journalism can also be useful in covering issues that hit closer to home. This article from The Trace focuses on a city-funded violence intervention program in Philadelphia that was launched in response to a sharp increase in gun violence. A coalition of community members reaches out to people who are considered at risk of participating in violent crime and offers them access to social services, help toward getting a job, or any other support they need. The emphasis on data and personal anecdotes as evidence that the program is working makes for a powerful, but not disheartening, read. 

Each of these stories tackles a serious, often overwhelming, societal problem in a way that shows solving it is possible. They still explain the scope of the issue and make clear that the solution is not a panacea, but none of the articles left me with the sense of dread that led me to turn away from the news in the past. 

That’s the power of talking about solutions. 

The world’s biggest problems will always be difficult to digest, but it is journalists’ job to find the best ways to share important information with the public. The endless stream of negative news is not effective. Revamping the way we report is an easy way to bring back readers who are avoiding the news, prevent others from giving up on it, and encourage more constructive conversations. 

If you’re not a journalist but are avoiding the news, try reading a few solutions journalism stories. It might be the fix you’re looking for.  

Most of the examples listed above were found via the Solutions Journalism Network’s online database of solution-focused stories. If you want to find more stories like these, I recommend checking it out. 

We find ourselves amidst an intensifying climate crisis, aggravated by the sluggish impact of government legislation. At the same time, media sensationalism surrounding ‘woke’ corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices is making many businesses nervous about investing time and money into ESF programming.  

This presents a pivotal moment for businesses. Embracing sustainability isn't just a moral imperative. It's a pragmatic necessity. Those businesses that continue to invest stand to reap a plethora of rewards, from improved employee engagement to enhanced consumer loyalty. And this isn't an either-or scenario that pits product against purpose; it's about harnessing ESG efforts to drive performance, creating a win-win situation where companies can make a positive impact while seizing lucrative commercial opportunities.

The Size Of Prize report, released this week by the research-tech firm Glow in partnership with TriplePundit and 3BL, underscores this point emphatically. It reveals a staggering $44 billion potential windfall awaiting brands that are perceived as more sustainable — and that’s just from 12 U.S. industries. 

Capturing a share of the sustainability bounty demands more than mere lip service to eco-friendly practices. It requires a concerted effort to do better and to communicate those efforts effectively.

While consumers express a desire to support environmentally conscious brands, myriad obstacles often stand in their way. Price is consistently a barrier,  but surprisingly, it isn't always the primary deterrent that limits people from shopping more sustainably. In fact, in 5 out of the 12 industries covered by the SOP report, factors like familiarity, availability, or a lack of education were found to exert significant influence on consumer decisions. For example, more than a quarter of consumers say they don’t choose more sustainable energy options because they aren’t available to them. Across industries, around a quarter of consumers said they "don’t know enough" about brands' sustainability credentials to make an informed decision, while nearly 20 percent said they don't see a "significant difference" between brands when it comes to sustainability. 

For brands operating in sectors as diverse as automotive, financial services, food and grocery, retail, and pension funds, addressing these predominantly communication-driven barriers is the key to attracting more conscious consumers.

The food and grocery sector leads, but barriers remain

Let's dig into some industries to illustrate the point. A key industry seen to be leading the way in sustainability is food and grocery — which ranks in the top three most sustainable industries, according to consumers. However, this position of leadership does not mean all brands are doing brilliantly, or all consumers are purchasing sustainably.

Four in 10 consumers say that sustainability considerations had a “significant” influence on their choice of products within their last grocery shop, according to the Size of Prize report. Price was the key barrier amongst those for whom sustainability wasn’t a serious consideration while grocery shopping. This is not surprising given the current cost of living crisis and the huge impact grocery bills have on overall household budgets. 

Two other barriers to more sustainable choices stand out within this industry. Information is the second largest choice barrier — people say they don’t know enough about the sustainability credentials of brands to judge them. This is clearly a communication issue, highlighting the importance of promoting your positive actions if you want people to choose you over other brands.  

Quality concerns are the other interesting area that is disproportionately higher in this sector than in others (bar automotive and fashion). People worry whether sustainable products will functionally deliver to the level they expect. For example, will plant-based meats taste as good, or eco-friendly cleaning products clean as effectively? Quality concerns can be mitigated by experience, requiring brands to stimulate trial and demonstrate social proof, tasks underpinned by strong communication. 

An example of a good product marketed effectively is Dove — a brand consistently ranked by consumers as a top 10 sustainability leader, as measured by Glow’s Social Responsibility Score (SRS).  Dove is not the cheapest brand available, nor is it priced significantly above the category average. Dove offers a great product at a good price while also having a differentiated social positioning by championing body positivity, mental well-being, and inclusion, which has helped the brand succeed in highly competitive categories.

Banks need to educate consumers

In contrast, banks are generally not well respected in terms of their sustainability credentials. This is backed up by SRS data which shows the large U.S. banks tracked scoring 20 percent or more below the average score for all brands, with little differentiation in score between the major banks (bar one performing significantly worse). Given all banks are spending many millions in ESG areas, this highlights their failure to effectively communicate their efforts. 

Nearly 8 in 10 consumers say it is important for banks to act responsibly when it comes to society and the environment, but only 1 in 3 say their last choice of bank was significantly influenced by sustainability considerations. Why the gap? The key barriers are educational: a lack of information about banks’ sustainability credentials and a view that all banks are the same.

This represents a massive opportunity for banks with good ESG credentials to activate consumers by telling their story with conviction. There is evidence of this success in other markets where SRS data shows banks with a strong community or purpose focus score better than average perception scores. 

Trust is important for auto brands 

For the car and automotive industry, price is the top barrier getting in the way of more sustainable choices of vehicle, but trust is the second most important barrier and disproportionately important for this industry. This reflects the impact of multiple safety, environmental, and managerial controversies in recent years which have eroded consumer trust in what auto brands say about their ESG impact. 

Transparency is key to building trust, and the brands that are doing this well, such as Toyota, are starting to establish a differentiated position in the eyes of consumers.

The barriers are coming down 

What is clear across all industries is that the impact of sustainability on purchase behavior is and will continue to increase. Over half of consumers said sustainability concerns were more important in their purchase decisions than a year ago (with only 15 percent saying they were less important), while similar numbers anticipate these considerations being even more influential on decisions a year from now. 

It's time to take action. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities of sustainability in business, it's crucial for each of us to evaluate our own programs. Are we truly maximizing our potential to drive positive change? Are we effectively communicating our efforts to consumers?

I urge you to take a moment to assess your company's sustainability initiatives and how you are communicating them. Identify areas where you can break down barriers and enhance consumer engagement. Whether it's improving product availability, educating your audience, or refining your messaging, there are steps you can take to position your brand as a leader in sustainability.

By evaluating and enhancing your sustainability programs, you not only contribute to a better future for our planet but also unlock significant commercial opportunities for your business. Let's seize this moment to make a meaningful impact.

Access the Size of Prize report here

Access sample brand sustainability reports here

(This article series is sponsored by Glow and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.)

We often hear that consumers are looking for sustainable products and brands, and that many are even willing to pay more for them. But it’s often difficult for brand leaders to pin down just how much of an impact sustainability really has on consumer purchasing, making it harder to tie investments in sustainability to the bottom line. A new piece of research out this week puts a dollar figure on consumer affinity for sustainable brands for the first time — and it's big enough to make leaders take notice. 

A $44 billion prize is up for grabs as consumers switch from brands they perceive as less sustainable to brands they perceive as more sustainable, according to the analysis from the research technology firm Glow, in partnership with TriplePundit, our parent company 3BL and panel partner Cint. 

"We wanted to really understand: If it's important, can we see it in the data? Can we show a link between business performance and the investment in sustainability from a consumer perspective?" Glow CEO Tim Clover said during an on-demand webcast we hosted about the research. "The key point here is that the opportunity is quantifiable."

Consumers are voting with their wallets, and now we know how much that's worth for sustainable brands 

The notion that businesses acting responsibly is somehow controversial has crept into the fringes of the U.S. cultural zeitgeist over the past few years. But there's little evidence the public is on board, and our research is the latest to prove this out. 

More than 85 percent of U.S. consumers consider it important for businesses to act responsibly with regards to society and the environment, compared to only 3 percent who don’t, according to our survey of more than 3,000 U.S. adults conducted in November 2023. 

"In this study we show, as has been shown previously, that this issue is almost universally important to consumers," Mike Johnston, data product leader at Glow, said during our webcast interview. "We also show there's an expectation for businesses to act on these issues." 

That expectation increasingly translates into how people spend their money. As part of the report, we asked consumers about the level of influence sustainability has on their choice of products and brands across 12 industries. About a quarter of respondents said they stopped doing business with a brand in 2023 because of its social or environmental behavior.

The rate of sustainability-driven brand switching is even higher in some sectors. In the food and grocery sector, 33 percent of consumers said they switched from one brand to another because of sustainability last year, while 31 percent said the same about pension fund providers and airlines. 

“In a sector like food and grocery, this might be expected," observed TriplePundit contributor Andrew Kaminsky, lead author of the report. "Think about how often consumers make food and grocery purchases, and how easy it is to try a different product. Pension funds, on the other hand, are much less transitory, and consumers need to go through considerable efforts to make sustainable changes." 

Still, 22 percent of consumers say social and environmental issues are "the single most important factor" in choosing a pension fund provider, according to the report. A finding like this is significant "not just for pension fund managers, but for all companies nationwide," Kaminsky noted. "As pension funds invest in a wide range of companies across sectors, the high priority placed on sustainability means that companies that want to attract investors will have to improve their sustainability credentials.”

Brand switching and preference for sustainable brands is only increasing

Even as the rising cost of living reaches crisis proportions across the U.S., people are still interested in sustainable brands and products. Of course price is an important factor for consumers, but it's far from the only thing they're looking for in a company they patronize — and most told us that sustainability will only play a bigger role in their buying patterns over time. 

More than half (58 percent) of consumers say social and environmental considerations are more influential today than they were a year ago, and half expect this influence to continue growing in 2024.

"We hear a lot of talk about, 'People say sustainability is important, but they won't act.' Well, that's not what the data says," Clover told us. "What it says is that there are cohorts of people in the population who are very well-educated around key issues for particular categories and industries, and that they will often act. And that cohort of people is growing."

The fact that sustainability plays such an important role alongside other purchase drivers like price and product quality — enough to put it in a top-three rank or higher for many industries we analyzed — may be surprising to some. But Johnston cautions brand leaders to pay close attention to findings like these and not fall into the trap of prioritizing price above all else. 

"This kind of report does two things. One, it really gives the rationale and the economic viability to act now because there is payoff, but it also shows that there's a future imperative," Johnston said. "As cost of living starts to reduce for certain cohorts of the population — and it will — those that have ignored sustainability while it's been growing in importance in the background will be playing catch-up. And you don't want to be in that position with something that is going to continue to be of increasing importance to how customers make their decisions."

The communication opportunity for sustainable brands

Consumers have to know what sustainable brands are doing in order to reward them for it. Our research shows many are actively seeking more information about what brands do when it comes to society and the environment, presenting a golden opportunity for sustainable brands to reach consumers with effective messaging and score new sales. 

"If we don't communicate, we can't educate people about where we are and why we're investing and taking the pathway we're taking," Clover said. 

Around a quarter of consumers said the reason sustainability didn't factor more into their purchase decisions is because they "don't know enough" about brands' sustainability credentials to make an informed purchase. 

"Price and lack of information are the leading reasons why consumers don’t consider sustainability more in their purchases," Kaminsky noted in the report. "While the need to pay more for products that are responsibly managed might be unavoidable, lack of information is certainly within a brand’s control." 

The report explores in detail how to best reach various audiences with effective messaging on the platforms where they gather to learn more about sustainability, but the top-line message is: A growing segment of people want to learn more, and if brands don't tell their own sustainability stories in a way that reaches and resonates with these consumers, others will tell that story for them.

"There are ways to discuss sustainability in an accurate and informative way, without falling prey to 'greenhushing' or retreating to the sidelines," Kaminsky wrote in the report. "It’s fairly straightforward, but it’s something that brands and their marketing teams struggle to do effectively."

The type of messaging that stands out is keenly focused on the issues consumers care about, backed up by evidence and, ideally, confirmed by third parties like media partners, researchers and influencers who consumers look to and trust. 

Learn how to better tailor your sustainability communications to reach consumers and discover more insights about consumer perception of sustainable brands in the new report, titled "The $44 Billion Sustainability Opportunity for Brands," available now. 

Local tree-planting projects have engaged community volunteers in neighborhood conservation efforts since the environmental movement of the 1960s. Such efforts pale beside the massive forest projects underway today. Still, brands that seek carbon offsets in the reforestation field should continue paying attention to the human factor, particularly when prioritizing biodiversity and ecosystem restoration.

Forests are carbon sinks …

The role of forests in carbon management is, at heart, a simple one. Trees are important carbon sinks. If left undisturbed, they can lock carbon dioxide away for decades, at the very least. Many species of trees live for centuries or longer.

Because human activity has whittled away at forests on a global scale, the opportunity exists to reverse the decline and restore these natural carbon sinks. About 30 percent of all global carbon dioxide emissions since 1850 are the result of deforestation, according to the MIT Climate Portal.

Leading brands have already taken up the large-scale tree-planting mantle in support of the World Economic Forum’s “Trillion Trees” pledge of 2020, although concerns over reputational risk were already arising. Establishing a new tree plantation can cause community displacement, for example. 

Still, there are many opportunities to engage in tree projects without such risks. Existing forests are a more effective pathway to restoring the global carbon sink potential of trees, according to a new study. 

“So far, humans have removed almost half of Earth’s natural forests,” the study reads. “At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential.”

The researchers estimate that 61 percent of restored carbon sink potential could come from protecting existing forests, enabling trees to mature and biodiversity to flourish. Another 39 percent could come from planting new forests on available land, meaning land that is not already populated, farmed, or otherwise unavailable for large-scale tree planting.

“Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets,” the researchers wrote.

… but it’s complicated when it comes to carbon offsets

In terms of carbon offsets, the cautionary note about reducing emissions should be taken under advisement. The overwhelming consensus is that forests are significant carbon sinks. The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, included large-scale forest projects in its 2023 decarbonization roadmap.

Nevertheless, new research indicates that forest-based carbon offsets are no substitute for reducing emissions at the source.

In May of 2023, for example, the journal Science published a study that explored the unlikely scenario of eliminating all forest management activities in favor of all-natural forest restoration. 

“This work provides further evidence that changing forest management is not an alternative to cutting carbon emissions,” Bianca Lopez, an associate editor at Science, wrote.

The U.S. Forest Service took note of another complicating factor last April when it published a study indicating that climate change has already caused some forests to deteriorate, potentially leading them to act as carbon emitters instead of carbon sinks. The issue of forest deterioration was also studied in China, where researchers advise that aging forests are less efficient at trapping carbon.

In a similar study in Japan, researchers advocate for a more rigorous approach to calculating the impact of forest projects, with an emphasis on taking tree age into consideration. The research team also advocated for a stronger relationship between local communities and carbon markets, enabling underserved populations to realize the economic benefits of forest conservation. 

A recent study from MIT and Imperial College London provides additional insights on the ways brands can ensure that their carbon offset projects are effective, including biodiversity and social goals.

Trees and other natural climate solution projects have “enormous potential to deliver ‘win-win-win’ outcomes for climate, nature and society,” according to the study.“Yet the supply of high-quality [natural climate solutions] projects does not meet market demand, and projects already underway often fail to deliver their promised benefits, due to a complex set of interacting ecological, social and financial constraints.”

Challenges to overcome 

One challenge identified by the researchers is the project funder’s preference to focus on risk avoidance rather than project effectiveness.They found that many carbon offset projects focus on improvements at commercial tree plantations because data and transparency are relatively established, helping to mitigate risk. In contrast, projects that emphasize biodiversity are challenged by a lack of established metrics.

The overwhelming majority — 96 percent — of U.S. forestry carbon offset credits were related to improvements in forest management, rather than biodiversity-oriented projects like forest ecosystem conservation or tree planting, according to research from the University of Colorado Boulder.

The expectations for a social benefit from forest projects can also lead to disappointment.

“Socioecological co-benefits of [natural climate solutions] are unlikely to be realized unless the local communities engaged with these projects are granted ownership over implementation and outcomes,” according to the MIT and Imperial College study.

Next steps for effective forest projects

Despite the challenges, government-funded forest projects tend to focus on a holistic approach that emphasizes biodiversity, which brands can support through new public-private financing models, according to the MIT and Imperial College study. The public funding element also “nests” a project within established national frameworks for monitoring and data collection, helping to mitigate reputational risk.

The researchers also point out that the development of new “green taxonomies” for sustainable investment in carbon offsets can help alert brands to projects that could involve human rights violations and other risks.

In addition, a substantial body of knowledge has developed around the social criteria for a successful forest project.

Successful projects “have robust internal governance, as well as support from regional and national governments; they operate in environments where land tenure is secure; they provide material benefits for local communities; and they allow for the full participation of women and those across a spectrum of socioeconomic groups,” according to the study.

The development of platforms for calculating the value of natural ecosystems is yet another factor aiding forest biodiversity projects.

In support of the nature valuation movement, for example, the Joe Biden administration issued a first-of-its-kind proposal requiring federal agencies to account for ecosystem services in their cost-benefit analyses for new infrastructure projects last fall.

All in all, the field of forest management, conservation and replenishment is a complex one. Nevertheless, as new science-based evidence emerges about the role of trees in carbon management, brands that engage in forest projects for carbon offsets have new opportunities to highlight their support for global sustainability — going far beyond a simple matter of planting trees to embrace habitat conservation, biodiversity and social equity.

Since TriplePundit launched our Sustainable Living Challenge, I'm seeing way more eco-friendly living tips pop up on my "for you" pages across social media. As they say, once you have an eye out for something, you start to see it everywhere. These simple, accessible recommendations for creating a more sustainable home stood out most to me this month, and they're helpful for anyone looking to cut their personal footprints down to size. 

Become a laundry pro to make your clothes (and washing machine) last longer 

Denise Jordan has "managed a home for more than 50 years" and shares her top tips for the younger generation on social media, including her YouTube channel Homemaking with Denise that boasts more than 67,000 followers. In this quick video, she provides a wealth of helpful information that can improve anyone's laundry skills. 

While sustainability tips like using the cold-water cycle and washing during off-peak hours are fairly well known, fewer people think about the things they do when washing that can make their clothes — not to mention their mashing machines — wear out before their time. Simple steps like turning clothes inside out, avoiding overfilled loads and using the right amount of detergent can help extend the life of both. Trust us, you'll be thanking Denise later, and she's got plenty more where that came from on her account.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Carleigh Bodrug (@plantyou)

Reuse your peanut jars more easily (and get a snack in the process)

I love reusing old jars as food storage containers, and peanut butter is a common pick. But I won't lie, removing those leftover bits can be a major pain. Believe it or not, when I worked for a low-waste lifestyle publication many moons ago, we wrote a whole article about the best way to clean your PB jar to reuse it, so you're not wasting so much water that you cancel out your good eco deed. 

This method, though, is way better than a soak and elbow grease. Simply follow this recipe to turn those leftover PB dregs into a tasty peanut sauce for stir fries or salads. Once you're done, the jar will be way easier to reuse and no bits of your peanut butter have gone to waste. The video is part of an ongoing "scrappy cooking" series from Carleigh Bodrug of the plant-based, low-waste Instagram account PlantYou. Check out her page for more ideas. 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Alessandro Vitale (@_spicymoustache_)

Turn your old clothes into reusable wax food wraps

This is a classic example of how creating a more sustainable home doesn't have to cost money. Wax wraps act in place of tin foil or plastic film to keep foods fresh and contained. They're easy to find for purchase online and in local shops, but the sticker price is often much higher than a roll of cling film.

It makes sense why reusable wraps would cost more, especially if the brand prioritizes things like sustainable sourcing and equitable pay. That's great to support, but not everyone has the financial means to spend more upfront, even for something they plan to reuse. And that difference in sticker price can reinforce the idea that sustainability "isn't for me" or is only "for rich people." 

It really is not, and this is a case in point. This method from Alessandro Vitale, an urban gardener with over 4.5 million followers on Instagram under the moniker SpicyMustache, uses low-cost materials to transform old clothes and other household fabrics into wax wrap replacements for free. If you have any "ick" about reusing clothes in this way, disinfecting them first with common household items like baking soda can help. 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Dad Advice From Bo (@dadadvicefrombo)

Maintain your car with help from an Internet Dad

If you have a car, keeping it maintained can improve fuel economy, which reduces the carbon footprint of your trips. Proper maintenance also keeps your car running better for longer, and as we know, the most sustainable thing is the thing you already have. Still, knowing which things to check and fill can be overwhelming for those who aren't used to it.

Dad Advice From Bo is here to help. The popular Instagram account amassed more than 3.5 million followers by sharing practical advice from a father of six who likes to fix things himself at home. This video featuring "dad advice" for basic car maintenance, in partnership with NAPA Auto Parts, is a great place to start for keeping your car in top shape. 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Kathryn Kellogg (@going.zero.waste)

Create a tasty reuse solution for that half a cabbage in the back of your fridge

We tried out making homemade stock from leftover vegetable scraps earlier this month, but we were saddened to learn that cruciferous vegetables like cabbage can make your broth bitter and aren't the best fit. If you struggle to get through the whole head of cabbage, this recipe is a quick and tasty solution. 

Kathryn Kellogg, who shares sustainable and frugal living tips on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, posted her favorite recipe for roasted cabbage in a miso maple dressing that is tailor-made for cabbage that's already started to go limp. It's part of an ongoing recipe series based on commonly-wasted food items, so check out her account for more ideas.

Tips to create a more sustainable home all year long

Jhánneu Roberts shares sustainable home and travel recommendations with more than 50,000 followers across channels like YouTube and Instagram. In this short video, she lists five things that almost anyone could try to become more sustainable at home in 2024. From choosing loose-leaf tea to leaving paper towels behind, it's a good reminder that creating a more sustainable home doesn't have to mean changing everything right away. Even small shifts add up over time, which is a notion we're always here for.

Have you tried out anything new to reduce your environmental impact at home this month? We'd love to hear your sustainable home ideas, advice and experiences! Get in touch here for the chance to be featured in an upcoming TriplePundit story. 

Imagine a wireless keyboard that doesn't have to be plugged in or a remote control that never needs new batteries, because they get their charge from indoor light with solar technology. This futuristic tech could soon become the norm, with products rolling out as early as this year. That’s good news for consumers, the planet and municipal garbage infrastructure.

The problem with batteries is bigger than we think

The average American throws out eight dry cell batteries each year. That’s the kind typically found in household electronics like double A, triple A and coin batteries. It might not sound like much, but it comes out to roughly 3 billion batteries trashed annually. That’s 180,000 tons of toxic waste containing mercury, cadmium, battery acid, lead and more.

It doesn’t just stay in the dump, either. It leaches out into the ground and contaminates the surrounding soil and water. Meanwhile, batteries that are incinerated with the rest of the garbage in waste management systems release those same chemicals as toxic fumes. Some types of batteries can even explode or cause fires when they’re thrown out, putting workers and infrastructure at risk.

“Despite the regulations that are in the world, invariably, batteries end up in landfills,” said Bates Marshall, co-founder and CEO of the energy technology company Ambient Photonics. “The state of California, where it's illegal to throw batteries into the trash, still has 99.5 percent of the batteries ending up in the trash. It just hasn't been working to keep these things out of the landfills.”

A solar solution for batteries

But what if batteries ending up in landfills could be replaced with indoor solar harvesting? Ambient is among the companies vying to make this vision a reality with solar cells that harness energy in low-light conditions. The company’s dye-sensitized solar cells operate much the same way that photosynthesis works in plants, Marshall said. Instead of relying on chlorophyll to absorb light and create energy like plants, the cells use a dye made of organic materials to absorb light.

Ambient is focusing on the electronics where it can make the biggest difference — namely household items. “We're working very intensively on remote controls because there's 800 million of these sold every year,” Marshall said. Each of those remotes typically has two batteries that need to be replaced at least once a year, he added. 

Computer mice and keyboards are also ideal products for this technology, Marshall said. “Nobody likes to sort of stop working and plug in your mouse for an hour if it starts blinking red.”

Sensors and thermostats are also on the list due to the rise of smart homes, smart retail, and a general increase in automation in buildings. Not only do these upgrades increase the number of batteries that end up in landfills, but some have to be changed out by technicians — which adds cost and inconvenience to the existing battery problem, Marshall said.

Hastening sustainable change

“There’s this interesting combination of attributes that seems to be pulling the technology into the market,” he said. “The sustainability and environmental side is obviously foundational for us and really important. But it's also really important to have a net economic benefit — not just a net economic cost — because then you get a double win. That tends to put the accelerator on the technology.”

This accelerated transition is something Marshall experienced when he worked in outdoor solar. While solar energy wasn’t mainstream when he first joined the industry in the early 2000s, it quickly became so once regulations and economics began to favor a shift. New regulations in the European Union that aim to make batteries more sustainable and circular, and a new law in California requiring battery producers to create or fund stewardship programs for battery collection and recycling, could create the same conditions for low-light solar, he said.

Not that he expects low-light solar to require legislation to succeed in consumer markets. “The best thing we can do is make the economic case, make the user experience case, make a better product,” he said. “And if it happens to come with a corresponding stick to the carrot, then I think that's very helpful … but we're not banking on government support in any way. I think that puts you in a pretty precarious situation, and we've built our whole business on demonstrating that consumers care about these issues.”

Limits to low-light solar cell technology

It would be nice if phones and laptops could be charged with the same technology, but the low levels of energy available from indoor light aren’t sufficient for that purpose, Marshall said. It would be a mere drop in the ocean compared to their power needs. So, electronics that rely on larger batteries aren’t in line for indoor solar harvesting, and it’s important to be realistic about the technology’s potential.

“Setting that class of devices aside, there are all kinds of things that have coin cells, double A batteries, triple A batteries, and small, permanent lithium-ion batteries,” Marshall said. “It's that big class of devices that we're targeting.” 

Though this may seem small compared to the entirety of battery usage, it’s a niche that will no doubt make a big environmental difference. 

As a vegetarian or pescatarian for my entire adult life, I no longer struggle to find meat alternatives. But certain products, like cheese, yogurt and eggs, remained elusive — a far stretch from the real thing in plant-based form. 

Vegan diets have gone from niche to mainstream with a wide range of plant-based products at our fingertips. While only a small percent of Americans are vegan, the diet has rapidly grown in popularity. Unsurprisingly, the plant-based foods industry is booming. Global sales of plant-based dairy and meat reached $29 billion in 2020 and are expected to climb to $162 billion by 2030.

As part of TriplePundit’s Sustainable Living Challenge, I set out to eat more plant-based foods. When I discovered vegan croissants were just as good as the original, butter-filled pastry, I realized this was a new and improved era of plant-based food. Inspired, I aimed to find vegan alternatives that met my foodie standards. It was surprisingly easy.

Finding plant-based foods

Venturing into vegan land doesn’t need to be overly complicated. As you’ve likely already noticed, many plant-based foods products are commonplace. 

Plant-based milks are nearly ubiquitous, making up 15 percent of all milk sales in the United States. Other plant-based products like butter, yogurt and coffee creamer are also growing in popularity.

Finding vegan options to replace their meatier counterparts is also easier now than ever before. A wide variety of plant-based burgers, chicken, sausage, turkey and even fish exist in most grocery stores. Plant-based substitutes typically contain less protein than meat, but also more fiber and less fat. The taste varies, too — especially if you regularly eat meat.

If you don’t want a meat substitute, a variety of plant-based protein sources exist like tofu, tempeh, beans, legumes, seitan, nuts and many green vegetables. If you like to cook, a quick internet search turns up dozens of sites with mouth-watering vegan recipes. If, on the other hand, you prefer to dine out, vegan restaurants are increasingly commonplace. Even fast-food restaurants now regularly offer plant-based products.

My experience eating more plant-based foods: Starting small with one home-cooked vegan meal a week

My strategy for eating more vegan foods was pretty modest: cooking one vegan meal per week. Even this small change compelled me to reexamine the vegan section of the grocery store and scour plant-based cooking sites.

While I regularly make dishes with meat substitutes or tofu, replacing items like eggs remained a challenge. On one hand, baking without eggs is fairly easy since you can substitute common products like applesauce, bananas and even carbonated water for eggs. However, a replacement for the kind you eat with toast on a Saturday morning was a harder find. I’ve tried store-bought vegan eggs and thought they were a good substitute, but they’re not always available where I shop. 

So, I rolled up my sleeves and tried two eggless scrambles, one made from chickpea flour and the other from tofu. I greatly preferred the tofu option, since it had a better egg-like consistency and more protein. I also made the rookie mistake of combining the two, resulting in a soggy mess I wouldn’t recommend.

When I set out to make a plant-based Italian dish, vegan cheese loomed on the horizon. My past experiences with this alternative were rubbery and bland. Dairy products are hard to replace since they have proteins and fats that are difficult to mimic in vegan form. 

However, this corner of the plant-based foods world has evolved. My grocery store had several vegan cheeses that were creamy and flavorful. My limited forays into vegan pizza also confirmed the gooey delight of plant-based cheese when done well.

While I’ve long used plant-based butter, yogurt remains a sticking point. I still haven’t come across a plant-based variety that I like. With the rapidly evolving vegan market, I’m sure a convincing plant-based yogurt is coming soon. 

The benefits of a vegan diet

If you love cookie dough ice cream and blue cheese as much as me, you may be wondering: Why even bother with vegan products? Turns out, the range of benefits is eye-opening.

For starters, a plant-based diet can be quite healthy. It can reduce your risk of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and certain types of cancer. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index than those who eat meat. Plus, it’s a good option for people who can’t digest lactose. More than a third of Americans fall into this category, and in other regions of the world, lactose intolerance is much more common.

In addition to human health, vegan diets benefit the environment. Animal products exceed plant-based ones in greenhouse gas emissions. Phasing out animal agriculture over the next 15 years would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 68 percent by the end of the century. Skipping meat and dairy would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by half the amount needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That’s the minimum threshold required to avert the worst effects of climate change.

In addition to its sizable carbon footprint, animal agriculture takes up a lot of turf. The vast majority of U.S. farmland is used to produce meat and dairy. If all Americans switched to a plant-based diet, nearly 25 percent of our land could be used for other purposes. But such a switch would require an increase in irrigation by 5 to 15 percent.

Finally, livestock and dairy farms also produce large amounts of waste — fueling water pollution and fish kills in surrounding areas. However, even plant-based diets vary in quality. Those high in refined grains, fruit juices, sweets and sugar-sweetened beverages have worse outcomes for the environment and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease versus those based on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts, tea and coffee. 

Eat your veggies

Consuming more vegan options reminded me of one of the unexpected benefits of being a vegetarian: exploring new recipes, foods and cuisines. Plus, I realized there was a whole array of vegan products and dishes that I’d been missing out on. 

Eating lower on the food chain is a choice that’s good for our health and the planet. As a result of this little experiment, I realized that doing so is easier than ever before.

As the world reduces its reliance on fossil fuels, demand for minerals that are critical for fueling renewable energy technologies — dubbed transition minerals — is skyrocketing. The mining sector has long been scrutinized for the environmental and social harms it’s caused. This article is part of our solutions journalism series investigating potential interventions to prevent the negative impacts of mining as we race toward the net-zero energy transition. 

“We have a new wave of extraction that is coming to Indigenous peoples’ lands, but this time, I think we can make a difference,” Galina Angarova, executive director at SIRGE Coalition, said while reflecting on the sharp increase in demand for transition minerals. 

With 54 percent of transition mineral projects located on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands, these communities feel the impacts of the green energy transition firsthand. From 2010 to 2022, 49 violations of Indigenous rights were reported in projects concerning transition minerals, according to the Business and Human Rights Resource Center.

Organizations like SIRGE, which stands for Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy, are working hard to ensure that Indigenous lands and Indigenous peoples are not neglected as the green transition marches forward.

One of the primary ways to achieve this is to ensure that free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is obtained from Indigenous communities before the development of any mining project on or near their lands. 

The qualifiers "free, prior and informed" are added to ensure that Indigenous peoples have full determination over the status of projects that affect them. It ensures that consent is not coerced, is obtained before any work starts on the project, and all relevant details of the project are fully disclosed.

Why is free, prior and informed consent vital to the success of mining projects?

The reason we are trying to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels is that we are in the midst of a climate emergency. If we don’t implement any changes, we risk rendering parts of the planet uninhabitable. In short, the green energy transition is about prolonging the existence of the human race.

If mining transition minerals negatively impacts the survivability of certain groups, and renders parts of the planet uninhabitable, how noble is this pursuit of net zero?

Substituting one evil for another isn’t just, nor does it make good business sense.

While the legal standing of free, prior and informed consent varies depending on the country, various courts have made rulings that suggest the failure to obtain it is indeed a breach of the law, even when there is no explicit mention of FPIC in a country’s legal system.

Regardless of the legal standing, however, obtaining free, prior and informed consent before beginning a mining project is in a company’s best interest.

The Las Bambas copper mine in Peru, lithium mines in Chile, the Cobre Panama mine, and countless other mines faced disruption due to local protests emanating from a lack of transparency and consent. 

The cost of mine suspensions from social conflict is estimated to be about $20 million for every week the mine is not in operation, according to a study from Harvard University. This figure varies depending on the size of the mine and the nature of the disruption. The Cobre Panama mine reportedly lost $80 million per day due to inactivity from protests and blockades.

Mines operating without free, prior and informed consent also often lack adequate environmental assessments. 

The disasters at Canada's Mount Polley mine, Brazil's Mariana and Córrego do Feijão mines, and the decades of damage at the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea are just a few examples of some of the catastrophic consequences of irresponsible mining and lackluster environmental assessments. They destroyed local communities and carried steep financial costs for the companies operating the mines.

Vale, the company that operated the Córrego do Feijão mine, agreed to a $7 billion compensation package on top of the other expenses it incurred from the dam breach disaster that killed 270 people, flattened entire communities and heavily degraded the surrounding environment. Businesses run serious risks when they forego proper consultation with Indigenous groups on projects that could affect them.

“It can be legal risk, political risk, reputational risk, or operational risk and all of that adds up to material risk. If there are operational delays, that’s a material risk,” said Kate Finn, executive director at First Peoples Worldwide, which along with the SIRGE Coalition and Cultural Survival produced a guide for Indigenous leaders on how they can define their FPIC processes and protocols.

Mining companies agree that FPIC is essential

With the growing role that sustainability considerations play in consumer and investor decision-making, conducting proper due diligence and acting responsibly is vital for today’s companies, and mining executives are taking note.

“Strong environmental and social performance is essential to our ability to operate, and a key part of that performance is engagement with Indigenous peoples,” said Jonathan Price, president and CEO of Teck Resources, which recently negotiated 22 agreements with Indigenous communities over the expansion of the Quebrada Blanca copper mine in Chile.

“Their input was incorporated into the project to better reflect their environmental and social priorities,” Price said. 

A Sweden-based mining company, Boliden, expressed a similar approach. “We have a strategic working method to keep a continuous dialogue with Indigenous people, which is based on our and the Sami villages’ willingness to cooperate and find local solutions for specific activities,” said Klas Nilsson, director of communications at Boliden, referring to the Indigenous Sami people of Scandinavia.

While the public comments of mining companies may sometimes be more altruistic than their actions, the acknowledgment from mining executives of the importance of Indigenous peoples’ inclusion in discussions is certainly a step in the right direction.

How could consent not be free, prior or informed?

It is the duty of both the state and the mining company to obtain Indigenous groups’ free, prior and informed consent to a project.

“Each Indigenous community may have different needs, priorities, and agreement processes that companies have to respect and manage,” said Finn of First Peoples Worldwide. “The whole process of FPIC will vary from community to community. There is no one-size-fits-all approach or handbook on how to conduct FPIC.”

Unfortunately, obtained consent isn’t always free, prior or informed. Cases have surfaced in which Indigenous leaders were coerced or bribed into consenting to a project, like at the Fenix nickel mine in Guatemala. In this case, the mine was ordered to close when those findings came to light.

In other instances, important details about a project that may have influenced a community’s decision to provide consent were withheld, and sometimes there is no consultation at all.

Though it’s not a mining case, the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016 are an example of Indigenous groups being left in the dark about a project that may significantly impact them and their land. The original $3.8 billion project ended up costing an extra $8 billion in lost profits and legal proceedings when all was said and done.

Projects that do not obtain free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous groups face serious material risk and severe financial consequences. Above all, they are exacerbating the threat to human life that the green transition is attempting to solve.

FPIC guides the way forward in the green transition

It isn’t a perfect system. The lack of legal clarity will lead to debates over what is and what is not considered free, prior, and informed consent. The process can be quite time-consuming, as well. Giving the community time to conduct its own internal decision-making process and ensuring all information is provided in a format and language community members understand takes time. 

This time investment at the beginning of the process can pay massive dividends down the road. Having the support of Indigenous groups that also want to see the project succeed can be an incredibly valuable asset.

Indigenous peoples understand the land better than anyone, and they can provide critical information to companies to help them make better-informed decisions.

“It is a false dichotomy that Indigenous peoples are opposed to development," said Angarova of the SIRGE Coalition. "What is true is that Indigenous peoples have economic, social, cultural and environmental priorities that need to be a part of the discussion from the beginning.”

If, for whatever reason, an Indigenous group says no to a project, that means no. Denying a project may prevent major environmental disasters and social unrest, which could also save the company money in the long run. Indigenous peoples know their land, and they can foresee the effects of a mining project.

The inclusion of Indigenous groups in these discussions and the opportunity for them to provide valuable feedback, including the ability to give or withhold consent on a project, may prove immensely valuable to mining companies over the life of a project. And it ensures that the green energy transition is something we can all be proud of.