No-Cost Carbon Neutrality: Insetting Mitigation Into Goods and Services Globally by CCC

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

The judges felt this proposal sounds like a most effective and impactful solution, but needs more of an understanding of retail business:
- No discussion of potential (perceived) loss of competitiveness by adding extra costs to the products. The share of revenue between shops, retailers and producers.
- No mention of PUMA's EP&L combined with price tag info on CO2 costs. The problem is exposed in this paragraph: 'The cost of a CNC integration across that many shoes comes out to anywhere from $0.05 - $0.25 per pair. If one can afford to pay $125 for a pair of shoes, one will likely will also be able to pay an extra $0.10-$0.15. This way NIKE spends $0 to eliminate $6-30m worth of GHGs, while the consumer hardly sees any financial cost. NIKE is but one of millions of businesses in the world. With CNC any company has the capability to achieve total emissions reductions at no cost.' In a shoe shop, (unless online shopping, or 100% owned by Nike) Nike shoes compete with other brands. 50% Consumers are well known to say (upfront) that they are willing to pay more for climate / enviro friendly products. But few follow-through on their intention while shopping. It might work with 0.15$ extra for the pair ('it should!') but this issue isn't discussed at all.
- What's the split of revenue for CNC offsets between shop/retailer and Nike?
- Some companies start operating with a 'shadow price' for carbon; but this is not mentioned or discussed in the proposal.
- Is there competition? Can you concentrate on 3 to 5 recognizable brands that would be willing to be involved from the beginning. Can you identify companies like Nike, Kelloggs, Unilever, etc., where the leadership is already deeply committed to cradle-to-cradle operations? It would be fantastic to partner with life-cycle brand champions that might find this appealing.
- The judges liked the mention of partnering with MIT's Alumni Club. Perhaps you can engage MITs Sloan sustainability program to help develop your inaugural roster of adopting companies. Terrific if you can launch with a nice segment of the 30,200 MIT companies you describe.
- Great infographic! **Who Will Take These Actions?** I like the segmentation of key participants, i.e. the Business Sector, Research Institutes, and Consumers. The judges suggest you refine this to Business, Research Institutes (or Academic) and Consumer. Why? Including NGOs is not necessary for the outset. For a young enterprise, in their experience established NGOs can be difficult to work with. Keep it simple. In addition, forgetting NGOs for the tine-being will accelerate your timeline.
- Supply side vs. Demand side: Again, this is a vast canvas. You might think about how to approach it strategically. Is there a way to launch in phases, allow segments to become established before you layer in another realm? You might launch with on-line consumer access only, for instance, or partner with a site like Zappos or Amazon to begin.
- Great example from Nike. Do they know about CNC yet? Are they involved at MIT/Sloan? MIT professors may have ideas on primary strategic partnerships in the corporate area.
- "Within 5 years, CNC will develop within small, medium, and large enterprises. Members will be spread across different sectors, including, but not limited to retail, hospitality, distribution service, and manufacturing." WHY? This sounds like a recipe for disaster and team burnout. Determine your low-hanging fruit, and create a strategy that engages them first. Offer a step-by-step process of who comes second, and who is next. They thought it would be a stretch to tackle small, medium, and large simultaneously; not to mention all these different sectors.
- The CNC program is appealing since a products full carbon footprint is for consumers (and businesses) to calculate and convey. The ability to forge such partnerships is the main obstacle.
- The proposal largely circumvents behavior change. This is not a behavior based intervention, except by adding the 'actual' price to the goods. (The most they say about behavior is 'Mass behavioral change has proven incredibly difficult over a span of several decades. It's not easy to get people to change their habits'). Great proposal, but perhaps not for this competition.