Marks & Spencer, a global retailer best known for knickers, socks and divine foods, has recently reported on progress with its Plan A. The 107 environmental commitments enshrined in this plan were originally outlined in 2014, with a goal of achieving them all by 2025. So far 64 have been achieved with a further 25 on track, 11 lagging and six apparently abandoned. The global graphics industry has many reasons to engage with Marks & Spencer from signage and packaging, through to commercial print applications, so being aware of Plan A might help when bidding for new business or striving to hold on to existing work.
The work on ISO 21331, the ISO standard for assessing the deinkability potential of printed matter, is mired in industry politics. However the market really doesn’t care a jot and is moving on regardless. This is a problem for the maneuvering politicians in the paper industry because it means that the market is shifting further away from current practises. The most visible example of this is the work digital press manufacturers are doing on deinking. There are now at least six digital press manufacturers working on new approaches to deinking in order to ensure that digital prints are recyclable.
Efforts to improve the environmental footprint of print take many forms. However the only ones likely to make a difference generally coincide with commercial interests. Owners of such efforts are in a slippery position in that they potentially lay themselves open to charges of greenwashing and exploitation, no matter how sincere their offerings. But even if greenwashing is often the case, it’s not necessarily a bad thing because it can still encourage debate and interaction. This helps break down perceived barriers separating commercial interests and environmentalism. The two are not mutually exclusive, wherever you sit on the environmental spectrum
There are plenty of organisations offering to sell you an ecolabel of some description. But many of these are self-certified labels that actually have little meaning. Their adjudicators are happy to take your money, but do little to make any real difference to the environmental impact of products and services. It’s only cosmetic and it’s the worst kind of greenwash, because the monies paid are rarely invested into developing the tools to improve environmental impacts. Apart from FSC and PEFC chain of custody certifications for wood based products, there are no sector specific labels for graphics products and services. However the major ecolabels for the most part specify requirements for print.
Working out if it’s better for the planet to communicate in print, or to do it digitally just got easier, sort of. ISO standards developers working on documents for graphics technologies, have written a document for calculating the carbon footprint of electronic media. ISO 20294 is moving into the final stages of its development and is expected to be with ISO to ready for final publication by the end of the year. This is by no means a definitive piece of work, but it is hoped that it will encourage better appreciation of the environmental impact of digital media. At best it’s a start, but you don’t get anywhere without making a start.