Are bike businesses getting away with greenwashing?

Towards the end of 2021 Dr Bernhard Isopp authored an article in The Guardian on Why aren’t more bike firms tracking their environmental impact? This was in response to Trek’s publication of its 2021 Sustainability Report. Sean Meager asks this environmentalism expert, are bike companies greenwashing, or is progress now tangible?

Dr Isopp is a lecturer and researcher in the Department of Science, Technology, and Society at the Technical University of Munich. His work focuses on issues of sustainable mobility, in particular with regards to climate change and decarbonisation efforts. Interest piqued by Bernhard’s article, CI.N followed up to hear more about what he thought bike makers could be doing to increase their green credentials.

Our initial thought was that the piece in the press may be too hard on Trek who were among the first major bike manufacturer to declare sustainability intentions publicly. What sort of response did you receive?

I did acknowledge this in the piece and said they deserved to be credited for their report. Funnily enough, some of the comments I received online claimed that I was giving too much (and free advertising) to Trek. For my part, I think that any company that tries to leverage sustainability and climate change as part of their marketing approach demands close scrutiny. “Greenwashing” is a big problem, and a big company like Trek should be aware of this and not expect to get a free pass.

You suggest, quite rightly, that the footprint of a top-end bike, is not realistically comparable to a car someone commutes in. What do you think would be a more suitable way for manufacturers like Trek to present these comparisons?

While there might be a correlation between recreational and commuter cycling, it is not that tight, depending on jurisdiction. In most places in North America (and many places in Europe as well) recreational cycling is much more common than utilitarian cycling. But, even if there is a relationship, the point is that I wasn’t the one making the comparison; Trek was. They explicitly framed their carbon footprint analysis in relation to cars. Is this comparison fair? Or is it misleading? I think it’s misleading to compare those bike models to a car. They could have done a lifecycle analysis of a commuter model; that would have been a better comparison.

You’ve made comparisons between cars‘ and bikes‘ emissions. It seems the manufacturing of bikes will have benefits beyond simply the manufacturing process. Such as, a car off the road will mean less pollutants in a city. Is it valid to compare even an emission intensive e-Bike with a car?

Yes, you are right. I fully support the use of e-Bikes – including expensive, relatively emission intensive ones – as alternatives to cars. As I said in the Guardian piece, when compared as means of transportation, between even the most carbon intensive e-Bike (for example, a frontload cargo bike like Riese & Müller or Urban Arrow) and the least carbon intensive car, there’s no contest: an e-Bike always comes out on top. The piece does not call into question the importance of e-Bikes as a transportation mode, but rather, it looks at how that fact is used in marketing, especially in bike companies like Trek trying to sell themselves as “green” and “sustainable.” What I argue is that the question “Are bikes more environmentally friendly than cars?” is in many ways the wrong one (since, again, much of what the bike industry produces are not car replacements). Instead, we should ask: Is the bike industry greener than any other industry in terms of manufacturing practices?

Why do you think more big bike firms are yet to track their environmental impact?

I think it’s fairly simple: until now, there has been little scrutiny and pressure on bike companies to do such a thing – precisely because they have been able to get by on the assumption that they must be green and sustainable since they make bicycles. Conversely, car companies started doing environmental impact assessments years ago because of all the attention that automobiles receive as a driver of climate change.

We were left with the impression that you felt Trek hadn‘t gone far enough and that the systemic entrenchment of global manufacturing processes meant that this was a somewhat futile effort. Is that fair?  

I do not think it is futile; I say it is a critical first step. But whether they go far enough I think depends on how far one thinks we need to go towards sustainability. I think we need to go very far. On the more specific question of climate change, if the ultimate goal is full decarbonisation of all industries, then Trek has not yet gone far enough. Of course, virtually no companies are properly carbon neutral, since without bigger systemic changes to energy production and transportation this is so far impossible, so I don’t have any expectations that Trek would be so.

They have a list of laudable goals in their report, but what they omit is very relevant to my bigger point. For example, they aim to “Utilise 100% renewable energy for all owned facilities by 2023.” This is certainly to be commended, but it leaves out the fact that most of the manufacturing of their products, especially of the basic components – frames, wheels, tyres – happens overseas in countries with lax environmental standards.

The point is, taken as a whole, the bike industry, including Trek, is not very different than any other industry; they rely on unsustainable, carbon-intensive, environmentally impactful systems of (over)production and (over)consumption. There is rapid obsolescence just like in the tech industry. Of course, we say that technical progress is being made, that bikes are getting functionally better; but this always has an environmental cost, and – excuse the retro-grouchiness – we need to ask how much of this progress is really necessary.

So, this is the bigger question: can this kind of consumption ever be sustainable? If not, then trying to be sustainable by using less packaging and making bottle cages out of recycled materials makes little difference – and risks merely being greenwashing. The point of reflection for cyclists is to think about the ways that we might replicate unsustainable kinds of consumption, even if we think we’re being environmentally friendly because we’re buying bikes, not cars.

What would expect Trek and other bike makers to be doing, particularly given that in the grand scheme of things the bicycle industry is insignificant by comparison?

Maybe I should say first what I expect needs to happen in the grand scheme of things. I give a lot of weight to environmental risks – including climate change – and after reviewing a lot of research on these risks, I am unconvinced that a business-as-usual approach could offer a solution. I don’t think we can continue to consume more and more each year, especially if we hope to bring the quality of life in poor nations on par with our own. I think, simply, that there are environmental limits and we have gone far past them.

So, in concrete terms, industries and companies should move as quickly as possible towards circular economies. They should focus on longevity and quality of products, rather than novelty and quantity. They should do full environmental and labour audits, and lifecycle analyses of all their products.

There’s also an argument that they should become based more around local economies, as this increases transparency, both in terms of labour and environmental ethics. This could also reduce transportation impact for certain parts of the manufacturing process. But, I also believe that we need to support developing economies to become more than resource and extraction-based, so there are priorities that need to be balanced here.

You are right though; the bike industry is a relatively small player in these bigger problems. There are other industries, due to their size and impact, that have much greater responsibility in becoming sustainable. Consumers also have a responsibility here, because manufacturers are responding to demand. But in the bike industry, there is also an enormous opportunity. It is well-suited to meet these challenges quicker than others: for example, logistically, moving towards a circular economy would be relatively easier for the bike industry (products fundamentally made out of recyclable materials, except for carbon fibre, which are easily disassembled and reclaimed).

There are already many bike companies that offer consistent, high-quality, durable products that do not change from year to year. Various steel frame manufacturers produce the same models they did over a decade ago, and continue to be successful.

I understand that these are idealistic visions and many will critique them as being unrealistic. But that is also what people say of commitments to reach net zero emissions by mid-century. If we are serious about sustainability – and not least of all, climate change – then I think we need to radically re-think our systems of production and consumption, on a large scale.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• Since bikes have been perceived as ‘green‘, bike companies have until recently faced little scrutiny or pressure to examine their environmental impact.
• “Greenwashing” is a big problem among companies touting green initiatives and any company that tries to leverage sustainability and climate change as part of their marketing approach should be scrutinised.
• Without bigger systemic changes to energy production and transportation, no companies can truly claim to be carbon neutral.
• If we – as we should – look to bring the quality of life in poor nations on par with our own, we cannot continue to consume as we currently do.
• Industries and companies should move as quickly as possible towards circular economies. They should focus on longevity and quality of products, rather than novelty and quantity. They should do full environmental and labour audits, and lifecycle analyses of all their products.