The winners of the Finland’s Most Responsible Product 2025 competition have been announced. The winners are Pääkaupunkiseudun Kierrätyskeskus (Metropolitan Area Recycling Center), Sievi’s Racer Ecotech safety shoes, and Norro’s Kalawursti sausage. Read more about the winners (in Finnish).
In this article, I will explore what makes a product responsible and why responsibility matters in business.
What Makes a Product Responsible?
Is a product responsible when its carbon footprint has been calculated and self-set targets are met? Or when its recycling material goals are achieved? Or when greenhouse gas emissions are measured according to the GHG protocol across all three scopes?
Determining what makes a product responsible is, to put it nicely, a complex matter. There isn’t really a “responsible” product, as the goalpost is constantly moving, as it should. There are only products that are more responsible than other similar products or solutions available for the same need.
The first innovation of the Responsibility Panel when they started three years ago was the concept of relative responsibility. That is, all choices are made based on need and a certain selection, whether it’s a consumer or a company. Even so-called unnecessary consumption and the production based on it shouldn’t be blamed: throughout history, people have adorned themselves, indulged, adventured, and done all sorts of seemingly unnecessary things. The world won’t be saved by prohibitions but by ensuring that among the consumption options, there are responsible choices.
But couldn’t there be a ready standard to strive for a “sufficiently responsible” product? Many manufacturers and retailers ask this. There isn’t one. But there are many sources from which, by combining information, we can get close to this. For example, EU regulations will set goals and limits; for instance, the deforestation regulation requires transparency about the countries of origin of raw materials.
Still, we lack a standard for a responsible product. That’s why the path we’ve chosen at Infine is sometimes challenging. We were convinced seven years ago that we could code an algorithm to handle the reasoning for us at scale. But since data models didn’t exist, we had to convene the Responsibility Panel to create them. This is also the main reason behind the Finland’s Most Responsible Product competition. Through discussion and positivity, we need to create these models. Of course, tools like the EU taxonomy, which has made significant progress in defining climate criteria, are helpful. Environmental and social responsibility will soon follow, along with legislation.
The Importance of Double Materiality Analysis
The double materiality analysis, familiar from CSRD reporting, is the most crucial aspect when starting to examine and develop a product’s responsibility. The more a product is sold and the more significant responsibility risks it contains, the more important it is to address them. And in general, the most important thing is to start—things won’t be fixed all at once in such a complex environment. Value chain responsibility is a broader issue than, say, a company’s finances and much more challenging to measure.
A materiality analysis defines what is essential in the product and its responsibility and what can or should be focused on first. For example, one can examine whether the product’s packaging, transportation, or storage uses a lot of materials and energy, or whether their use is significant at all during the product’s entire lifecycle. Does the product’s manufacturing consume significant amounts of water, energy, or biodiversity? Or if the entire product comes from a country with risks of corruption and child labor, have these risks been mitigated?
A materiality analysis can, of course, also consider consumer preferences, but currently, I believe that the criteria of retail groups, both current and future, are most significant. Shelf space must first be secured to be available for consumer evaluation.
Assessing Product Responsibility in the Market Context
In any case, a product’s responsibility should be examined in relation to the market situation and production alternatives. If renewable energy, recycled materials, and bio-based packaging materials are available, and the product can be made with good quality, reasonable price, and close to the point of use, a product made otherwise could no longer be considered responsible. However, all these conditions are still very rarely met.
As a general rule for materiality analysis, here are a few universal points:
Climate
Due to the climate crisis, no carbon-based materials should be burned to make a product. Especially fossil fuels, which are extracted from outside the natural carbon cycle (i.e., from the ground), should no longer be used at all.
Climate responsibility is mainly examined through the energy used and measured with carbon dioxide indicators. Offsetting does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so the effectiveness of offsetting is only relevant for the development of the carbon market and thinking. As a marketing tool, it works for those products and services where all other means of carbon reduction have been used first.
Environment
Biodiversity loss is a key challenge in environmental responsibility. To measure habitat preservation, various environmental footprints are calculated, which define environmental impacts from different perspectives. There are more than a dozen of these indicators, and the calculation method that best describes the product’s environmental burden should be selected.
A common-sense general rule is to avoid unnecessary plantations, monoculture forests, open-pit mines, and other production methods that impoverish or destroy ecosystems.
For example, small-scale farmers who grow coffee in mixed cultivation compost the coffee cherries, the organic waste surrounding the coffee beans. In contrast, plantations often dump this organic waste into nature, polluting water bodies. For small farmers, coffee is also a cash crop, providing income for medicine and schoolbooks while allowing families to stay together rather than moving to plantations for temporary work. Around 70% of the world’s coffee is produced on small farms, meaning that plantations often aren’t even necessary for ensuring availability. Thus, the cultivation method alone supports biodiversity.
Social Responsibility
The previous coffee example also highlights dimensions of social responsibility, which are directly linked to a critical issue for the planet’s carrying capacity—population growth. The best ways to slow population growth are gender equality and girls’ education. Birth rates are directly correlated to women’s status in society. The situation is alarming: in developing countries, nearly half of women lack autonomy over their own bodies—and this trend is beginning to worsen even in Western societies.
Women, as equal participants in inheriting, owning wealth, and working, are the key to securing the planet’s carrying capacity. Without education and autonomy, this remains only a dream. For example, the textile industry plays a significant role in this challenge, as 70% of value chain workers are women. The textile industry alone accounts for 10% of global climate emissions. It is also responsible for environmental toxins, the destruction of water bodies, and human exploitation.
It is particularly ironic that women are also the primary buyers of ultra-fast fashion and fast fashion—industries built on unsustainable practices.
Domestic Production and Local Manufacturing
In Finland and nearby regions, companies and their production methods are well regulated and monitored. However, loopholes still exist that allow irresponsible practices for better profits. A common belief is that a product’s carbon footprint stays small because it travels a short distance to the customer. In reality, primary production accounts for the majority of a product’s carbon footprint, so this rule doesn’t universally apply.
Nevertheless, it’s important to support Finnish work. Even in a globalised economy, maintaining local production ensures security, even if production might be more efficient or cheaper elsewhere. Supporting domestic work boosts our collective well-being, as tax revenues fund essential public services and keep the economy moving. Let’s honour domestic production.
Adhering to Good Business Ethics
Finland has a robust general education system, and every Finnish business leader knows what’s right. I would argue that the biggest issue currently is that decision-makers lack accessible, understandable sustainability information. As a result, it’s often easier to do nothing or focus on flashy but superficial “sustainability actions,” which lead to sub-optimisation.
Business operations are, however, highly scalable and impactful. If company leaders integrate sustainability parameters into all decision-making, change can happen quickly. When consumer pressure moves from forecasts to actual purchase decisions, managing sustainability will become routine for all business leaders. Managing sustainability is no different from other management practices: it involves contracts, guidelines, plans, and a culture that ensures sustainability parameters are considered.
Evaluating Sustainability: No One-Size-Fits-All Solution
Providing simple thumb rules for assessing sustainability is impossible because the definition of sustainability is multifaceted. Ultimately, the situation must be evaluated on a product- or service-specific basis. Sustainability considerations must be weighed against one another and also balanced with other decision-making criteria – such as availability, price, convenience, preferences, and needs.
For consumers, navigating through the abundance of options to find sustainable choices can be challenging and sometimes overwhelming. A simple way to get started and assess the current state of product responsibility is to obtain an independent sustainability evaluation, curated by Finland’s leading sustainability experts. You can achieve this by applying to the Ostavastuullisesti.fi website and the Finland’s Most Responsible Product competition. Both the website and competition are key components of the national discussion about what defines essential product responsibility.
Join the 2025 Competition
Applications for the Finland’s Most Sustainable Product 2025 competition and website are now open. Early bird pricing is available until the end of January 2025, so this is the perfect time to apply.
If you’re interested in gaining a sustainability evaluation for your product and showcasing its responsibility in a new way, read more or contact Annukka Lehtonen at annukka@infine.fi.
As always, comments are welcome, and you can also get more information by contacting me.
Best regards,
Tiina
