Packaging
Amazon makes many promises about making their packaging eco-friendly. For example, they claim that as of June 2021 they “reduced the weight of outbound packaging by over 36% and eliminated more than 1 million tons of packaging material since 2015—the equivalent of 2 billion shipping boxes” (Amazon Sustainability). However, a report by Oceana found that less than 2% of customers actually make the trip to special facilities to recycle parts of their packaging. Moreover, Amazon’s reductions in waste are mere fractions in terms of their overall pollution: “Report estimates that Amazon generated enough plastic packaging waste in 2019 to circle the Earth 500 times (in the form of plastic air pillows) and that up to the equivalent of a delivery’s van worth of its plastic packaging is polluting the world’s freshwater and marine ecosystems every 70 minutes.”
One factor seemingly driving the move towards sustainability is one of Amazon’s principles, “Customer Obsession: Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers.”Nonetheless, customers desire packaging that is sustainable: the same Oceana poll found that 6% of Amazon customers surveyed are concerned about plastic pollution, 92% are upset, disappointed, and/or angry about the low rate of plastic being recycled, 87% feel that Amazon and other major online retailers need to do something about plastic packaging and 76% (of those who reported being Amazon Prime members) would use a plastic-free choice/alternative packaging. Amazon, then, is centering customer obsession in claims but not in their actions.
To see if customers have the same desire for sustainable packaging in a university setting, we sent a survey to the Duke community. We received 36 responses, and while we cannot generalize these responses to the broader Duke student body, they revealed a lot about customers’ desires and attitudes regarding Amazon packaging. Below are some anonymous responses.
- How do you feel about Amazon’s packaging, in terms of its eco-friendliness?
- “It’s not eco-friendly. It’s performative because their packaging doesn’t often get recycled (especially when they use the bag/envelopes instead of boxes).”
- “Bad honestly… it’s unclear whether most of it is recyclable”
- “It’s fairly good. Sometimes there is extra packaging though if the product is in a plastic bag within an envelope”
- “I recycle cardboard. I don’t usually reuse other forms of packing. Amazon has definitely improved packing some. They used to send tiny things sometimes in giant boxes. Also they do more to pack multiple items in one shipment.”
- “Honestly pretty good compared to most companies I buy things online from. Their large size gives them the ability to invest in small packaging.”
2. Do you think Amazon has any obligation to help the environment? Why or why not?
- Yes, because they profit so much off of the environment
- Their obligation is only to the shareholder/profit
- Yes they are a global company with a huge environmental footprint and they should be held accountable for the pollution they cause.
- Obligation? No…because capitalism I guess so they literally DON’T have an obligation to anything but the company’s well-being? but I think they have a lot of influence and resources and should be helping the environment.
- Yes. They not only have a moral obligation as a influential entity but they – like any large corporations- are a direct cause of climate change.
- Absolutely. They’ve helped destroy it. They employ so many people that rely on it. They impact so many people that rely on it
Carbon Footprint
Carbon Footprint is the total amount of carbon dioxide or other carbon compound emitted by actions of a group or a person. Usually, emission criteria for companies includes logistics, supply chain management, product manufacturing, electricity consumption (office buildings or data centers) and etc. In the light of recent climate change, companies sum up their carbon dioxide emission from all parts of their operation to announce and manage their emission levels. Below shows Amazon’s record of carbon footprint from 2018 to 2020.
Amazon proudly claims that their recent effort to reduce carbon footprint has been successful due to the fact that their carbon intensity decreased 16% in the midst of significant business growth in 2019-2020. The company’s absolute carbon emission has increased 19% during that period. Amazon also claims that customers made fewer trips to Whole Foods during the pandemic which has decreased their indirect carbon emissions. The company also boasts they are the largest corporate buyer of renewable energy and has achieved 65% renewable energy across operations. Amazon has ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles from a EV startup called Rivian Automotive to turn the company’s fleet run on renewable energy. (Amazon and Ford Motors are major investors in Rivian Automotive)
While all the initiatives mentioned above may sound promising, some still question the authenticity and effectiveness of Amazon’s efforts. First, critics point out that there is a lack of transparency in Amazon’s protection efforts. Climate impact is not regulated by the government and gives companies a lot of autonomy in announcing and managing their carbon emission status, which pretty much allows companies to say whatever they want.
Others claim that Amazon’s plan to reduce carbon emission falls back compared to that of its competitors. Microsoft plans to be ‘Carbon Negative’ by 2030 and start reducing carbon from the planet, a step further from being carbon neutral. Apple plans to change its entire supply chain to be carbon neutral by 2030. Google and Walmart has pledged to achieve zero-emissions by 2030 and 2040, respectively. However, Amazon is targeting to be only ‘net-zero’ by 2040: a significantly less ambitious goal that brings up questions on Bezos’ will to actually prevent climate change.
Another criticism is that Amazon’s promotion of overconsumption is causing huge damage to the climate. Amazon has won the e-commerce competition through offering lower prices and attracting more suppliers and buyers on the platform. In the center of such strategy stands promoting to sell as many products they can to achieve a greater economy of scale, which has inevitably stirred overconsumption. And overconsumption is definitely a large source of carbon emission as a lot of fossil fuel burning is required in making, transporting, and discarding of manufactured goods.
On the survey mentioned above, we had questions on whether Amazon was promoting over consumption to assess the validity of the claim. Below are the results.
We can see that response is evenly divided between agree and disagree, when asked whether they started to buy more when they started shopping at Amazon. This shows that Amazon has succeeded in promoting overconsumption among half of its customers. In conclusion, it is safe to say that Amazon overconsumption is another component that Amazon needs to consider when trying to reduce their carbon footprint.
Workers Green Alliance
Many environmental groups have advocated for Amazon to reform their practices harming the climate. Amazon Employees for Climate Justice is the largest organization of Amazon workers with climate at the focus of their movement. They have staged multiple walkouts from the company, demanding that Amazon commit to reaching zero carbon emissions by 2030. Additionally, they have demanded Amazon address the harms done to communities of color by setting up warehouses in poor neighborhoods, polluting them in the process. They asked Amazon to “offer detailed research about how its logistics and delivery operations pose disproportionate environmental and health hazards for communities of color and to prioritize those communities in its emissions reduction strategy.” Like their packaging, most of Amazon’s climate promises have been for publicity; in 2017, Jeff Bezos popped a bottle of champagne on top of his newly christened wind farm in Texas claiming to be committed to sustainable energy.
At the same time, according to a report from Gizmodo, “documents show that beginning in at least 2017, Amazon has begun a targeted campaign to win oil, gas, and coal business at a time that scientists say it is imperative most fossil fuels be left in the ground if we are to avoid severe climate disruption. All while the company was reneging on, or at best indefinitely idling, its own pledges to build more clean energy.”
While Amazon continues to invest in the fossil fuel industry, workers continue to fight and occasionally get a win. Partly in response to workers’ advocacy Jeff Bezos committed to making Amazon carbon neutral by 2040, a less aggressive commitment but a commitment nonetheless. However, pushing back against Amazon has consequences for workers; two leaders in the AECJ movement were fired for circulating a petition demanding more protections for workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Luckily, the two workers just reached a settlement with Amazon for the retaliation. Since workers face so many threats for speaking out, it seems like outside lobbyists and policymakers can push Amazon towards changing their policies that are harming the environment. Ultimately, though, Amazon is a for-profit company and seemingly only cares about maximizing earnings, putting people of color, workers, and the environment in harm’s way.
Climate Pledge
Screenshot from Amazon’s Climate Page
Is the Climate Pledge merely Virtue Signaling or is it a Game-Changer? Many would argue it’s a little bit of both. The Climate Pledge Arena was given its name at the same time that Amazon released its emissions report detailing a 15% rise in carbon from the previous year, in which the arena was founded. The arena was also named when several employees affiliated with Amazon Employees for Climate Justice were fired. These seemingly incongruent realities raise the important question of whether Amazon’s new arena is merely virtue-signaling or has been founded in the hopes of doing something more for our environment. Regardless of the intentions behind the arena’s naming, it’s important to consider what impact an arena like this will have for the environment in comparison with the strain that Amazon’s day-to-day operations place on our Earth. We need more data transparency surrounding Amazon’s carbon footprint to be sure that the company is indeed reducing its emissions, regardless of founding a net-zero rink.
Responses from a Duke survey of 37 students
Amazon is currently two years into the Climate Pledge. Many believe that since the U.S. lacks governmental leadership on the issue, big business is responsible for curbing carbon emissions; likewise, Amazon’s efforts to recruit other businesses in solving this global issue are admirable. However, it is interesting that Sally Fouts, the Director of the Climate Pledge, claims that Amazon’s decision to not further report its emissions is so that “…companies [will] take action on solving problems rather than doing a lot of additional reporting”. This quote seems well-intentioned but hides the reality that holding companies accountable through required reporting is necessary.
More Quotes from Amazon Employees for Climate Justice:
“If Amazon really cared about our planet, it would sever its contracts that help fossil fuel companies produce more oil, instead of executing this meaningless and costly PR stunt,” said Elizabeth Jardim, a senior corporate campaigner with Greenpeace USA. This quote is in reference to the Climate Pledge Arena.
Former Amazon employee and founding member of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice: “On one hand, Jeff is saying that the climate crisis is the biggest threat facing us, and on the other hand, Amazon is accelerating the climate crisis through Amazon Web Services, to not only find new oil but extract it more quickly.”
Lawsuits
Two employees who publicly pushed Amazon to reduce its impact on climate change were fired in 2020. These Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, got almost 9,000 colleagues to join their efforts. Over time, two leaders of the organization, Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Costa, broadened their protests. Amazon claimed the women had violated its external communications policy by speaking publicly about the business. However, U.S. labour officials found that Amazon’s firing of both women was illegal. In resolution, Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Costa have both been encouraged to settle with Amazon by the National Labor Relations Board.
