Apple’s transition from leather to carbon-neutral fine woven (a fancy name for plastic) brings us face-to-face with the intricate maze of sustainability in global supply chains. As we grapple with production complexities, ecological lifecycles, and potential repercussions, it becomes evident that: understanding the long-term impact of such decisions is no small feat.

Leather, a staple byproduct of the meat industry, has served for centuries as an eco-friendly way to reduce waste. Yet, while “carbon-neutral” has a futuristic ring to it, at its core, polyester remains plastic. When considering its long-term environmental footprint, microplastic concerns, and disposal issues, one is left to ponder: are we genuinely advancing, or merely shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Then there’s the murky world of ESG ratings. Often positioned as the North Star for eco-conscious decisions, their reliability is up for debate, particularly with underlying conflicts of interest. It’s like that sketch where Apple pitches their strategy to Mother Nature. But instead of getting her genuine feedback, in reality, they bring along a rating agency to vouch for them. A humorous twist, but it echoes the role of rating agencies prior to the 2008 financial crisis, where conflicts of interest muddied the waters of trust.

This brings us back to the wisdom of Nassim Taleb: “Your grandmother vs. academic researcher: who should you trust? If you hear advice from a grandmother or elders, odds are that it works 90 per cent of the time…”

With our world’s intricate dynamics and potential biases in modern ESG ratings, perhaps we should look to the timeless insights of our grandmothers. As we weigh leather against polyester, maybe grandma’s penchant for the tried-and-true, like leather, could be the beacon of genuine sustainability we’ve been seeking. After all, who needs conflicted rating agencies when you have grandma’s unfiltered wisdom?