a bottle that is 25% recycled plastic and 100% recyclable’ is still needlessly bad for environment, we need to reduce use of plastic that needs recycling in the first place. There is just no need for this. As for ‘at end of day Huel is a business’ - but it is already highly profitable, no need for constant increase in profitability. Its hypocritical to have marketed Huel under the sustainability banner in the first place. Same goes for the xmas goods/clothes- unsustainabile and motive just to increase profit. Very disillusioned re Huel now and will seek alternative
Is there a Huel santa hat?
Tell that to its investors…
There are plenty of people who would be willing to invest in products that are truly environmentally sustainable. It’s like people with principles will want electricity and gas from suppliers that are genuinely more green than the big six, despite their prices being a bit higher. Huel doesn’t need to keep increasing its profits
The only people who could argue with this, Tim, are people who have never run and international business. Selling in 80 countries is not 80 times more complex than just selling in the UK. It’s way, waaaayyyy more complex than that!!
You’re making a very simplified point here around pricing, but you’ll have similar complications for labelling, food regulations, packaging, import taxes, shipping, warehousing, customer support, and on and on and on.
I’ve got no strong views either way on the RTD. I’ve not tried it, and I don’t really need it. While I’m here, though, I will say that those questioning your sustainable credentials just don’t get it - and, again, have likely never run a growing company. Here’s the key…
It’s the Intention That is Front and Centre
Your intentions are spot-on - that’s obvious to anyone who cares to look. You’re not green-washing, and I doubt you ever will. Indeed, I doubt you ever could! So if you suddenly add a load of food miles by expanding, or suddenly add a load of part-recycled plastic on RTD launch, so what? Because your intentions are good, you’ll find a way to offset that harm in other ways. Planting trees, for example. The planet always needs more trees.
On the wider picture, though (while I’m still here…) I’m starting to give up on all this, to be honest. Listening (as we all should) to Sir David Attenborough - who, by the way, is far and away the most widely travelled human in human history - and reading well researched reports like this, I’m starting to think we’ve let this slide too far now. Human extinction seems like a very real possibility now, in the next 50-100 years. I don’t relish the prospect - I have a 13-year-old son - but I could rattle off 6-8 possible causes off the top of my head. We’ve had ample warnings since at least the 1970s, and we still think that signing treaties and shaking hands will be enough.
I never worry about the planet - its classic human arrogance to talk about ‘saving the planet’. The planet will be fine long, long after we’re just a distant memory. The concern I’ve always had is the implications of Gaia theory - if we cause too much upset for the planet as an organism, it’ll just shrug us off, much as it shrugged off the dinosaurs, and that’ll create the space for another evolutionary dead-end to show up, eventually, and give it it’s best shot.
Fun Fact: we’re a bit down on dinosaurs - “Oh, ignore him - he’s a bit of a dinosaur” - but dinosaurs were around for some 140,000,000 years. Humans, on the other hand, in homo sapien form, have been around for, ahem, 200,000 years, maybe a bit more. Sobering thought, huh?
I’ll continue to do my bit, of course, but I’m past the point now where I believe my rinsing-and-recycling routine and my Lidl Bag-For-Life is going to make the slightest bit of difference.
It’'s no laughing matter I’ll have you know. Nevertheless, I have given up making bad jokes - only because my arse has haemorrhoids from sitting on the cold naughty step. But as long as I’m still here and keeping the slower members of the forum off the streets, I am happy. Praise the Baby Jesus (and Tim).