person - I'm not the best in that department - to that end & on the running tip, National Geographic has what they call their "Green Guide", and their writer Maureen Ryan took a look at the big running shoe makers to figure out what running shoe to buy for the conscious consumer. "Runners go through running shoes at unprecedented rates, causing a lot of waste," says ultra-marathon champion Scott Jurek, who worked with running-shoe company Brooks to develop a more eco-friendly shoe. "While it would be wonderful if every company was completely green, we have to start 
small," he adds. Starting small, such as reducing polyvinyl chloride (PVC), is how many companies have changed from being the target of environmental and labor non-profit campaigns into more responsible corporations. On the environmental side, many manufacturers have eliminated glues containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like neurotoxic toluene from their products and replaced PVC, a plastic that generates carcinogenic dioxin during production, with less-toxic ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) or thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). Moreover, after decades of bad press surrounding labor abuses, several manufacturers sought external help. The third-party Fair Labor Association (FLA), with whom Asics, Adidas, Nike and Reebok work, allows FLA representatives to make unannounced factory visits at random to ensure factories provide safe, healthy work environments. Although effective, the FLA has been criticized for not requiring living wages rather than local minimum wages, which often don't provide workers and their families with the basic means to survive. Another auditor used by Nike and New Balance, the non-profit Verité, is paid by manufacturers to monitor their factories and then work with factory owners to improve conditions if they're found undesirable. Brooks's parent corporation, Russell, relies on the independent verifier CSCC, which audits all new Brooks factories and conducts unannounced visits to ensure factories comply with the company's code of conduct. Russell belongs to the FLA's collegiate-licensee program, which monitors university apparel production. Responsible companies have begun publishing the names and addresses of their factories to maintain transparency and consumer confidence. Despite these good intentions, companies can still improve in issues like the living wage and supporting labor unions. To help you make sense of it all, below i
s listed a few of the more responsible, mainstream athletic shoe companies, what they're doing and where they need improvement. And remember: "It's not enough just to shop for green products," says Joel Makower, executive editor of GreenBiz.com. "Consumers must also let companies know when they think a company is doing the right thing—or the wrong thing." That's a great site y'all - GreenBiz - good stuff. Have a Great Day!....and now the results:NIKE
While the company was embroiled in sweatshop labor problems during the late '90s, Nike has reformed itself. "I think Nike is a genuine leader, making bold moves to eliminate toxic materials, improve recyclability and generally reduce waste and emissions of their products and their manufacturing processes," says Makower.
The Good
* Publishes the names and addresses of all factories and suppliers online
* Manufactures Nike Considered, a line of organic-cotton clothing and shoes
* Recycles any brand of used running shoes through its Reuse-A-Shoe program
The Bad
* In its 2006 labor report, Offside: Labour Rights and Sportswear Production in Asia, Oxfam International found that Nike placed a higher volume of orders in non-union factories and hasn't required that workers receive a living wage.
REEBOK
The Good
* At least 90 percent of Reebok shoe boxes and tissues are made of recycled paper.
* Publishes the names and addresses of all factories and suppliers online
* Provides international suppliers with detailed guidance on dealing with and respecting trade unions
The Bad
* Despite Reebok's efforts to respect trade unions in foreign factories, the Oxfam report noted that the company has discouraged attempts to unionize factories in the U.S.
ADIDAS
The Good
* Oxfam's report noted that Adidas "has probably done the most research and thinking" about living wages for Asian factory workers.
* Provides suppliers with a detailed explanation of trade-union rights
* Reduced VOC emissions during shoe production from 140 grams/pair to 19.3 grams/pair
The Bad
* Does not publish factory and supplier addresses online
ASICS
The Good
* Has used EVA foam since the 1950s
* Replaced the carcinogenic heavy metal chromium in leather treatment with less-harmful tannin
* Has instituted their EcoPet program, which collects and recycles synthetic school PE uniforms, in 500 schools
The Bad
* Does not make factory and supplier addresses available to consumers
BROOKS
The Good
* Recently introduced HPR Green, a silica-based, petroleum-free sole used in the Adrenaline ASR 4 and Cascadia 2 that reduces the amount of petroleum used in production by more than one pound for every 10 pairs
* Works with FLA's collegiate-licensing program
* Relies on production techniques that eliminate waste by 50 percent
The Bad
* Does not publish factory and supplier addresses online
NEW BALANCE
The Good
* The only athletic footwear company that maintains U.S. production factories
* Enforces a corporate policy that international footwear suppliers limit work weeks to 54 hours/week
* Uses 100-percent recycled materials in Dunham, Aravon and PF Flyers shoe-boxes
* All stuffing and tissue wrap made with 100-percent recycled materials
The Bad
* Criticized by Oxfam for its lack of transparency in labor policies
* Does not publish factory and supplier addresses online
1 Comments:
Lance how come you are not writing for a RuningTimes, or Runners world?
Post a Comment