I have a fundamental conceptual question I wrestle with constantly- should we be trying to go big and bold or slow and steady? Specifically, in the realm of sustainability and circularity, where I am trying to make an impact and focusing a whole lot of time and effort.
Many times this becomes about the size and age of a company. Usually, the bigger and older they are, the less appetite they have for risk, and again, usually, they take an approach that is small steps towards a larger future goal. Smaller companies are more nimble; they have less employees and are many times founder-led which can mean that the vision of the company is still tied deeply and viscerally into the decision making. The bigger a company gets, the slower its decision making process. The bigger the company, the higher the stakes.
I personally am more inspired by smaller companies who stay true to a bold vision, but that is not to say I don’t shop from Target or Amazon- I do. Speaking of Target, I have noticed recently that they have been putting recycled polyester in almost… everything, at least of the stuff that I buy (mostly kids clothes). There is a larger debate about recycled poly, but I am thrilled to see a huge retailer like Target take a big stance on, honestly, any recycled material. If Target can do it, so can other huge companies. They can serve as a proof point that it’s possible. I also know that they have invested heavily in sustainability and circular economy teams and programs- yay.
Here’s a thought experiment to consider impact of small and large companies:
Think about the impact of a small clothing company that is 100% sustainable- they use fair trade labor, 100% organic cotton. They produce 130,000 t-shirts per year and their annual revenue is $5M. They employ 10 people and their supply chain touches (and positively effects) 100 people. Let’s assume that every item this company makes positively affects the land, farmers and factory workers who make the product.
Now, let’s think about the impact of a very large clothing company who uses ‘standard labor conditions’ (meaning the average of what you would expect from a huge company sourcing overseas- not terrible, not great) and sources cotton poly blends for most of their items. They produce 33 million t-shirts per year and their revenue is $500M. They employee 2,000 people and their supply chain touches 10,000 people. Let’s assume that every item this company makes reinforces the current status quo for land, farmers and factory workers. IF this company were to make a goal to become more sustainable and/or circular, let’s say to increase it’s use of organic cotton or recycled materials, how many people and how much of the environment would that effect (hopefully positively)?
For example, from a short Google search, Walmart has pledged to invest $600 billion in American-made goods from 2013-2030, or an average of $35 billion per year. Based on their 2024 US revenue of $441 billion, that’s about 8% of its products. I’m not mad at that, it’s actually a higher percentage than I would have expected. And they should keep pushing that number up.
Here are some big questions I ponder on this topic:
Should we be pushing to change the way companies make things? Or should we be creating downstream solutions for the stuff they make? (My answer is both.)
Should we be focusing our innovation and scientific resources on dealing with things the way they are and assuming that little will change in terms of big company behavior? Or do we try to create new processes and convince major players to transition to those processes with the hope of making greater impact? (Again, both.)
I see people trying to change the world, visionaries who want big companies to take giant leaps forward. I am both inspired by them, and I experience how much of an uphill battle they face.
I also see people trying to make tiny changes that will have little impact, so I wonder if that is also a good use of time and effort.
Little by little with large adoption or big leaps with spotty adoption ?
Having had the incredible fortune to work at a visionary company, EILEEN FISHER Inc., for almost 15 years, I am in favor of the big leap because I know it’s possible, I’ve lived it. I’ve seen a whole company be given permission to make the more sustainable choice, to actually work towards 100% sustainability as a company-wide goal. There were many factors that made the leap possible, and probably the biggest one was the fact that the company was/is still private and run by visionary leaders who can decide to do what they believe is right without the interference of those looking only to make financial gain (the reality of most public companies).
I guess I should try to tie a bow around this. Basically, if you can’t tell, I am for the big, scary leaps into the future, the companies who want to take a risk to try to do the right thing in a big way. I believe it’s those players who set the tone and inspire the biggest companies to make small changes too, which do actually have big impact over time. The risk takers are risking face plants, yes, and we see some of them publicly do so, but I would personally choose to take the leap and it’s inherent risks than take tiny steps forward.
Made it this far? Gold star. What do YOU think?
Circular Materials Cohort Coming Up!
If you want to join our member cohort on circular materials (textile-focus) please express interest here.
It’s an 8 week experience April-May, 1 hour/week, Wednesdays 12-1 ET. You will meet tons of interesting people working across the circular economy, and together we will explore 8 different topics re
lated to circular materials. If you source materials, make materials or want to learn more about circular materials, this is for you!
Cynthia Power
Founder, Molte Volte
Co-Founder, Untangling Circularity
Newsletter Podcast + Coalitions