Of course we do, we all cry! We want to ensure we leave a better world for our children and grandchildren.
But the needs of the environment need to be balanced against a raft of other priorities we have in our lives. For consumers, we need to make sure that we can still afford to buy what we need to buy. For brands, they still need to make money.
This is not the only reason why the environment is not higher up our list of priorities. On the consumer side there is a lot of confusion about what is real and what is greenwashing. There is also a lot of cynicism about whether the actions we take will actually make a difference.
On the brand side, companies commited to Net Zero objectives and built out significant teams but have failed to see the value coming back. Much of this work started getting dismattled during the second half of 2024. It has left companies with some tough decisions to make. They have spent a lot of money getting nowhere and are nervous about trying again in case its not successful.
Whilst the consumer may have the underlying desire to do the right thing, they are only going to put this into action if they have confidence that it is the right thing to do. The amount of negative press confuses the consumer, and brands are wary of trying to make change because the risks are far too significant.
The Apple Watch class action is a very good example of this. In Dib et al v Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 25-02043, Apple is being sued for an unspecified amount over claims that several items in the watch range achieved carbon neutrality.
On 27th August 2025 the plaintiffs appealled against Apples second attempt to get the case dismissed. The case is ongoing, however in Germany, Apple have been banned from making such claims (see: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/apple-watch-not-co2-neutral-product-german-court-finds-2025-08-26/).
We don’t believe so, but it does require a rethink of how we approach the challenge. For brands, we need to take a step back and look at the supply chain as a whole and understand what we want our supply chain to look like in the future.
For consumers, if we can provide them with the right information in a way that is easy to understand and is backed up by robust facts, then they will be more likely to make the right choices.
It all starts with the brands - the makers of the products we want to consume. Take a polo shirt as an example. If the product label said that this shirt produced 7kg of Co2e which is 3kg less than 12 months ago along with a QR code giving the consumer all of the data they would need to understand the claims, we would be on a very good track towards Net Zero.
In the main this isn’t happening….. yet.
Most companies have tried to take on environmental impact head on. Whilst this is one approach, it does assume that you already know everything you need to know about your supply chain and it also assumes that your supply chain is fit for purpose.
Both of these assumptions need challenging. Many companies think they understand their supply chains, but the information they have has been gained from the compliance journey over recent years. This information often provides information about the legal entity of the supplier rather than the manufacturing base. For many suppliers this can differ. The compliance journey rarely required to go right to the end of the supply chain to the raw material supplier, nor did it require you to understand how the suppliers interact with each other. It is this interaction that is critical to making progress towards Net Zero.
The second assumption is that the supply chain is fit for purpose. Most supply chains have been designed to deliver the lowest cost product to market in the shortest possible time. This often means that the supply chain is not very agile or responsive to change. To achieve Net Zero, we need to rethink how we design and operate our supply chains. Often speed needs to be compromised as speed normally involves airfrieght which has a significant carbon cost.
If we understand the supply chain at this level then we have a good chance at being able to calculate the impact of each product we produce. We can then start to implement changes, measure the benefit of the change and then communicate this to the consumer.
Focussing on cost and speed has created supply chains that may not be fit for purpose in todays complex world. When procurement teams select suppliers based on the lowest unit price, we rarely consider any other variable - and this is not just environment - the world has changed and we need to consider many more variables.
We need to think about resiliance and agility within the supply chain and this often means having multiple suppliers for the same product. Whilst this might dilute purchasing power, having suppliers more local to the consumer market can significantly reduce transportation distances and therefore carbon production.
Having a multi-supplier strategy has many other benefits. Aside from the benefits of near shoring, a multi-supplier strategy allows companies to be more resiliant to supply chain shocks. In 2019, if someone said that China would shut its borders and global supply chains would stop they would have been laughed at, but in 2020 this happened. Planes stopped flying, ships stopped sailing and China exports fell dramatically. Companies that had non-Chinese suppliers didn’t see the full impact that those depending on China saw.
In todays environment we must consider the impact of tariffs. The situation isn’t stable and is not looking like it will achieve stability any time soon. Having supply from multiple countries allows brands to be more flexible and responsive to changes in tariffs.
We also need to consider where the suppliers manufacturing output is going to come from. Is the manufacturing site near a sea port? If not, how far does it need to travel to get to the port? Is this by road or by rail? Is there an alternate supplier nearer to the port that can be considered?
If we need to fly product, does the airport at the suppliers end have direct connections to the destination airport? Short haul flights are significantly more carbon intensive than long haul flights, so the number of steps needs to be minimised. This has never been considered before as the environmental impact has never been an objective.
Most companies have misunderstood what Net Zero means for their business. It is not trying to eliminate all carbon production. That would be Gross Zero and for most companies this is unachievable.
Net Zero means eliminating unnecessary carbon production and then paying for what remains through carbon mitigating actions.
If we ignore Net Zero, the unnecessary carbon produced will impact product margins in an uncontrollable way. If we understand what carbon we are producing, optimize the supply chain to minimize this then we are in a good position to protect product profitability but also start educating the consumer into what we are doing and the impact their purchasing decisions are having on the enviroment.
This is a very powerful position to be in, and brands that achieve this over the next couple of years will be the winners in the long term.
Well, thats were we come in. Zero Pro is an enterprise ready cloud based set of tools that supports brands, there suppliers and there consumers on the journey towards next generation supply chains.
It provides the ability to collaborate across the supply chain, analyze data, model scenarios, certify data and track change.
Want to know more? Get in touch at at hello@zeropro.co