Which is greener? Sending an e-mail or direct mail? An e-brochure or a printed one? The answers to those questions are not simple ones. Let’s take the example of an e-brochure versus a printed hard copy.  In order to distribute the e-brochure, it either needs to be featured on a web site where it can be viewed or downloaded, or distributed on a disc or USB drive. One of the issues with viewing or distributing it electronically is that doing so takes energy, and the majority of electricity in the United States comes from non-renewable resources, primarily from coal. Another problem, from a sustainability point-of-view, is that the electronics in use in this country are generally not made from renewable resources (at least not yet), their creation is energy intensive, and many are not recycled properly at the end of their lifetimes. Currently in the US, only about 18% of electronics are recycled at the end of their useful lives.

So then a printed brochure is better, right? Not exactly. Yes, most brochures are printed on paper, which usually comes from trees or plants. Trees are a renewable resource when the forests they come from are properly managed. Those forests also act as carbon sinks. But in the process of making paper, an enormous amount of energy is consumed (though about 60% of that energy is generated from biomass). Then comes the fun part, printing.  Inks, varnish, UV, laminate, wax, foil, staples or glues are added to the paper. Depending on how much is added to the sheet, it may or may not be recyclable.  If it is recycled, and about 57.4% of it is in the US, the process will still have some byproduct, lovingly referred to as sludge. Sludge is the waste that cannot be recycled, i.e. inks, coatings, or paper fibers that have been too weakened to be recycled further. Since it is essentially a chemical stew, it’s not exactly the kind of stuff you want to grow your vegetables in.

Of course, the analysis for both kinds of media could go on and on. Neither digital nor print media are flawless as they currently exist, and it is pretty difficult right now to compare apples to apples. However, as consumers are demanding further accountability, more and more businesses are starting to consider Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) that will make comparing different products easier. LCA’s consider the inputs that go into making a product, the way the product is used, the transportation of the product throughout its life, and how the products are treated at the end of their lives. Of course, they are rather costly and complex to perform. Imagine how much effort would go into tracking a USB drive made in China for an apartment community in California that is given to a prospect, or a log in Wisconsin that ended up in a business card for an executive in Dulles that was recycled five years later by a contact in New York. Until more LCA’s are available for a wider variety of products, it is important to think about how to use resources wisely, and to be honest about how the various inputs into a job can make it greener, if not necessarily perfect.  As more accountability is demanded of stakeholders in supply chains, it is only a matter time before products and services in all media channels become better and greener.

By Christine Smerker, Production Specialist csmerker@merricktowle.com