Section 6: How are Environmental and Social Issues Evaluated in Engineering?

Transcription

1 Section 6: How are Environmental and Social Issues Evaluated in Engineering? 6.1 Exploring the Sustainability of Nike Flyknit Shoes In the article you are about to read, a team of students investigates the sustainability of the Nike Flyknit Shoe, a product that is marketed as more environmentally friendly than traditional athletic shoes. The team approaches these claims with a holistic view of sustainability, considering potential environmental, economic, and social concerns that could stem from the life cycle of the Flyknit. The team uses tools, methods, and strategies to investigate these concerns and uses the necessary conditions framework to begin reflecting on whether the Nike Flyknit shoe lives up to its claims as a sustainable technology. While you read this article, you should be looking for a few key things: 1. The team develops multiple social, economic, and environmental considerations around the Nike Flyknit shoe. These considerations demonstrate the importance of thorough, rigorous, and holistic thought process in both the design and evaluation of sustainable technologies. 2. The team approaches their questions and assumptions around the Flyknit by using specific tools, methods, and strategies to evaluate aspects of its sustainability claims. 3. Even after using these tools, methods, and strategies, the team still expresses uncertainties in the sustainability of the Flyknit. Ultimately, this reflects how challenging sustainability is to evaluate and achieve, and thus, reiterates the need for engineers to be active and present in pursuing sustainability. For your information This article contains the terms collective bargaining rights, last mile distribution, onshoring, and nearshoring. Collective bargaining rights are the rights of an employee to negotiate on pay, work hours, working conditions, etc. with their employer. Last mile distribution refers to the transportation of a product to its final destination (i.e. from a store to the consumer s home). Onshoring occurs when a company relocates part of its business to a cheaper location within the same country. Nearshoring occurs when a company hires an external company in a nearby country to complete a business process. Exploring the Sustainability of Nike Flyknit Shoes Madeline Dray, Robert Kraynak, Helen Lee, Kristine Schantz READ HERE 1

2 6.2 Testing your Ability In the Nike Flyknit example, the student team demonstrated the ability to think holistically about the sustainability of a technology considering a wide range of potential social, economic, and environmental concerns. In this subsection, you will be presented a series of questions that ask you to think critically about the team s process and the sustainability claims of the Nike Flyknit shoe. In a notebook, on a separate sheet of paper, or on a computer/device, try to answer the following questions by yourself before checking the sample answers provided at the end of the section. Refer to the Exploring the Sustainability of Nike Flyknit Shoes article as you answer the questions. The team first conducted literature review to gain context around the potential concerns of the Flyknit shoe, the sustainability claims of the technology, and Nike s corporate social responsibility. What evidence did the team find to support/undermine the sustainability claims or presumptions of the Nike Flyknit Shoe? Categorize the team s findings, assumptions, and questions about the sustainability of the technology in the Venn Diagram below. 2

3 After completing the literature review and gaining context around the Flyknit shoe, the team still had unanswered questions about the sustainability of the technology. Therefore, the team strategically chose specific tools and methods to gain insight into their unanswered questions. What procedures or tools did the team use to collect additional evidence supporting/undermining the sustainability claims or presumptions of this technology? Upon use of additional tools and strategies, the team was left with the following question: Is the Nike Flyknit Shoe a sustainable technology? Using the necessary conditions of sustainable design and the information gathered through literature review, evaluation tools, and strategies, the team began to answer this question. Does the evidence provided meet all of the necessary conditions for technology sustainability? a. If yes, then describe the evidence supporting its sustainability. b. If no, describe what evidence exists, what evidence is needed, and procedures that would be used to collect evidence. Compare your answers to the sample answers in Section 6.3. Are your answers more or less detailed than the sample answers? Did you struggle to answer the questions? If your answers are less detailed or if you missed key concepts outlined in the sample answers, you may consider revisiting Sections 1 through 5 of the core content. In the Nike Flyknit example, the team conducted thorough literature review, life cycle assessment, social hotspot analysis, and total cost of ownership assessment to verify Nike s sustainability claims. The team found that the environmental impacts of the Flyknit were less than those of traditional athletic shoes and that uncertainties still remain on the social impacts of production. More importantly, the team uncovered that the impacts associated with retail distribution (i.e. global manufacturing, online shopping, and a variety of shipping options) are significant and should be considered to improve the sustainability of the Nike Flyknit shoe. By evaluating the sustainability of a technology system and thinking comprehensively about how it impacts society and the environment, the team was able to identify areas of improvement in the sustainability of the product. Once we have learned to evaluate technology sustainability, we can then begin to consciously make decisions in design that promote more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable technology systems. 3

4 6.3 Sample Answers from the Nike Flyknit Example 1. What evidence did the team find to support/undermine the sustainability claims or presumptions of the Nike Flyknit Shoe? Apparel companies have begun to operate in a more sustainable manner, focusing on sustainable product design and supply chain practices such as supplier selection and monitoring for compliance with codes of conduct [3]. Top drivers to adopt sustainability are corporate values, top management commitment and market requirements [4]. Nike identifies the following as priority sustainability opportunities: sustainability and business growth are complementary, materials matter, and climate change requires business change [5]. Nike s gains in sustainability are related to the same core strengths that drive its economic performance: leadership, organizational design, market strength, market positioning, and culture [6]. Nike s Considered approach to product design was the company s initial effort to integrate sustainability principles into decision making. A case study about the Considered initiative outlines challenges surrounding sustainability product design, including: performance, design, time, profit margins, supply chain partners and consumer preferences [7]. The Flyknit emerged from the Considered campaign. An LCA study done in 2013 on a pair of Asics running shoes estimated that a typical pair has a carbon footprint of 14 ± 2.7 kg CO2 equivalent, in line with previous research done on Puma and Timberland shoes [8]. This includes producing the entire shoe, excess scrap material, packaging and distribution, which explains variations between these studies. Additionally, most of the emissions in shoe production are released during the material processing and manufacturing phases, particularly when creating shoe uppers [9]. The Flyknit attempts to address this, with shoe uppers knit from mainly recycled PET rather than polyester fibers made from virgin raw materials [10]. Similar to other apparel companies, Nike faces risk in waste production and use of toxic materials and water, as well as public criticism surrounding factory conditions [11]. Working conditions in the apparel industry in China, where a portion of Nike shoes are manufactured, face significant challenges such as low wages, overtime for little or no pay, restrictive collective bargaining rights, unsafe working conditions, forced labor and child labor [12]. Another area of concern is the effect of automated technology on the low skilled labor force. Technological innovation that is process based tends to reduce labor needs; since developing countries are more likely to import technological change, these innovations may lead to labor reducing impacts [13]. The apparel industry has long struggled with labor issues associated with global manufacturing. Richard Locke contends that current top down auditing model for social compliance is ineffective and should shift instead to one rooted in partnership and long term investments [14]. 4

5 Works Cited: [1] Product. Nike. [2] Why Waste?. Nike. [3] "Environmental sustainability in fashion supply chains: An exploratory case based research." Caniato, Federico, et al. International journal of production economics (2012): [4] Ibid. [5] Nike Corporate Sustainability Report. Nike (2013). [6] Why Nike Kicks Butt in Sustainability. Epstein, M. J.; Buhovac, A. R.; Yuthas, K. (2010). Organizational Dynamics, 39(4), [7] Nike Considered: Getting Traction on Sustainability. Henderson, R., Locke, R. M., Lyddy, C., Reavis, C. (2009). MIT Sloan Management. [8] "Manufacturing focused emissions reductions in footwear production." Cheah, Lynette, et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 44 (2013): [9] Ibid. [10] "Environmental analysis of textile products." Chen, Hsiou Lien, and Leslie Davis Burns. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 24.3 (2006): [11] Sustainability Assessment of Nike Shoes. King, Andrew Derrig Pearson, Jake Stocker Ethan Tinson, and Luke Warren Ellen Winston, University of Vermont. (2010). [12] Facts on China s Garment Industry. Gillian Kane. Clean Clothes Campaign (February 2015). [13] "Innovation and employment." Pianta, Mario. (2005): [14] The Promise and Limits of Private Power. Richard M. Locke, Cambridge University Press (2013). 2. Categorize the team s findings, assumptions, and questions about the sustainability of the technology in the Venn Diagram below 5

6 3. What procedures or tools did the team use to collect additional evidence supporting/undermining the sustainability claims or presumptions of this technology? The team used the following tools to complete their analysis: Total Cost of Ownership: The team broke down the cost of purchasing and maintaining the Nike Flyknit shoes from the customer s perspective, taking into account potential for price variability. Life Cycle Assessment: The team used Umberto, an LCA software, to compare the environmental impacts of the Flyknit shoes to traditional shoes. Social Hotspots Database: The SHDB is a tool that can be used to aid in Social Life Cycle Assessment. This database helped the team identify production activities in the supply chain that could present social issues. 4. Does the evidence provided meet all of the necessary conditions for technology sustainability? a. If yes, then describe the evidence supporting its sustainability. b. If no, describe what evidence exists, what evidence is needed, and procedures that would be used to collect evidence. While the Nike Flyknit does appear to meet some of the necessary conditions for sustainable technology, it does not meet all of the conditions: Does the design make significant progress toward an unmet and important environmental or social challenge? Based on the team s LCA data, the Flyknit appears to have lower environmental impacts compared to traditional shoes. If we were to extrapolate these impacts across all athletic shoe sales, we could see a significant reduction in environmental impact compared to traditional shoes. Is there potential for the design to lead to undesirable consequences in its lifecycle that overshadow the environmental/social benefits? While the team s LCA does not suggest any undesirable environmental consequences, the team does consider that the adoption of automated production used in manufacturing the Flyknit could result in loss of jobs or near/onshoring. The team s social hotspots analysis also suggests that there is very high labor risks in China due to apparel production. Is the design likely to be adopted and self sustaining in the market? The team assumes that the Flyknit is currently successful in the market based on the number of Flyknit shoe models available for purchase and competitor adaptations of the product. However, the fashion industry is unpredictable, and consumers may not desire the Flyknit in a few years. Is the design itself so likely to succeed economically that, due to rebound effects, planetary or social systems will be worse off because of the design? The team suggests that the Flyknit could support greater consumption, which could overshadow the environmental benefits of the product. 6

7 Ultimately, the answers to the questions posed by the necessary conditions suggest that there could exist conditions in which the Flyknit could be considered sustainable. However, in order for this to happen, Nike must first analyze and take action to mitigate the social and labor risks associated with Flyknit production in China. A more thorough and comprehensive Social Life Cycle Assessment is needed to understand and verify these potential issues. References Dray, M., Kraynak, R., Lee, H., & Schantz, K. (2016). Exploring the sustainability of Nike Flyknit shoes. 7