Packaging Laid Bare

Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics are known for their anti-packaging campaigning. Walk into any outlet and the lack of packaging means the strong scent of soaps engulfs you straight away. This is only one of the advantages (though some may argue a disadvantage) of less packaging, though at the end of August, the produce wasn’t the only bare thing in store.

In a handful of stores across the US, employees stripped off to emphasise the negative effect of packaging on the environment. “Ask Me Why I’m Naked” was printed on their aprons, though one wonders what their response would have been if you actually asked. I would imagine an answer along the lines of “packaging is bad for the environment, our products have minimal packaging – 66% of them come with no packaging at all – and so by buying them, you’re doing your bit for the planet”.
This is all well and good, but is this a long term possibility?

Sustainability is the latest buzzword, with ABI introducing their Sustainability Driver program earlier this week, but is a complete lack of packaging a way to promote sustainability and also be environmentally friendly? It is well known that packaging creates a unique selling point for many products, and perhaps it is more the case that Lush foregoes packaging to form a USP rather than to save the planet. Removing the “packaging” of their employees is not sustainable. Packaging, like clothing, is often a necessity – though I’ll leave out the reasons why.

Read the story here: Link

Advertisement