illustration by Christopher Serra On a prematurely springlike day in Cincinnati, Len Sauers's workday begins as it often does -- with a meeting. On the 11th floor of Procter & Gamble's corporate offices, seven members of its Sustainability Leadership Council huddle around a table in a small conference room. Ten others listen in by phone from P&G offices around the world. The topic at hand is the company's commitment to develop $20 billion worth of "sustainable innovation products" in the next five years, a significant addition to P&G's current $76 billion in annual sales.
"There's no sacrifice required of the consumer, and yet there's this huge sustainability benefit," says Sauers, 49, extolling the virtues of one sustainable innovation product already on the market, Tide Coldwater.
Sauers is P&G's recently appointed VP of global sustainability, a job title that has gotten a lot more popular lately. Every big company these days seems to have an environmental czar running around headquarters. Citigroup, Dow Chemical, Ford, HP, Intel, Sara Lee -- I began to wonder, What do these impressively titled green executives really do? So I spent some time with Sauers to find out.
Much of his job is corporate-policy policing: making sure that P&G's many global divisions and myriad product units all approach sustainability the same way. At the time of my visit, in March, he had just finalized the definition of a "sustainable innovation product." The four-page document had taken Sauers the better part of three months to write and get approved. The pileup of boring generalities never actually says what a sustainable innovation might look like; when I ask Sauers for specifics, he demurs, citing competitive reasons.
What Sauers will discuss is Tide Coldwater. As he and I walk through P&G's Energy Star -- certified offices, the 22-year company vet explains why it's a perfect product. It goes right to the heart of P&G's publicly stated green goals: The product is concentrated so that packaging materials are reduced, and by not requiring hot water, it minimizes the consumption of energy during its use, thereby reducing carbon emissions (34 million tons less annually if every U.S. household used the product, according to Sauers). He also touts the Mega versions of Charmin and Bounty, which give customers bigger rolls, thereby saving on cardboard -- 144 million fewer toilet-paper cores per year if 1 million Charmin users switched.
Sauers is trained as a toxicologist, but none of P&G's sustainability initiatives address what's arguably its most fundamental environmental challenge: "green chemistry," or finding ways to make products without chemicals that are hazardous to human health and the environment. "P&G is doing a good job of reducing its greenhouse gases," says Devra Lee Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh, "but at the same time, it's using cosmetic ingredients like phthalates, where the evidence is growing that these chemicals could have a negative impact on our children and grandchildren."
Comment
Recent Comments | 2 Total
July 8, 2008 at 3:45am
Kasha FreseImproving product performance and maximizing shelf space sound more like business-as-usual than a new focus on sustainability.
July 21, 2008 at 1:45pm
Richard LenhamThis article must have been written by someone with no knowledge of toxicology or life cycle assessments. The mere presence of an ingredient in a product does not automatically make a product unsafe for use. Water and salt, for example, are both toxic if given in high enough doses. It is the dose that makes the poison not the mere presence of an ingredient and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible journalism.
By creating formulations that require the consumer to use less energy while still achieving desirable product benefits or reducing the amount of solid waste that must be landfilled or otherwise disposed of, P&G is making significant strides in sustainability.