Stanley vs. Yeti: Making Hydration Cool
Some people are so attached to their Stanley Cups that they equate them to part of their personality. I was quick to judge until I realized that I add personalized stickers to my water bottle, so...
If you have been online lately, you’ve either seen discourse about the rise of Stanley Cups, TikToks of people using a Stanley Cup, or news about people stealing Stanley Cups. And if you haven’t seen them online, I’m sure you’re seeing them in real life.
Because they are such a trending topic, I wanted to compare their ESG report against the last brand to hold the reusable bottle craze top spot - Yeti.
While I am a sustainability communicator, I am also a marketing and communications specialist, and I can’t help but be impressed by Stanley’s branding and rise to success.
Stanley is not the first “it” water bottle, but it might be the first that can point to influencers and TikTok for their successful rise.
To me, a reusable water bottle is something that needs to be purchased once and reused. But buying a new water bottle for every trend, or even more than one reusable water bottle to match various aesthetics, is what many people are using them for.
To some - maintaining consistent revenue is part of ESG, and is indeed the goal of a business, meaning selling as many cups as possible. So those buying new colors to match their outfits are helping this revenue grow.
To help deal with the sell sell sell mentality, there are ways to incorporate circularity and sustainability into good business practices, and I believe Yeti does this very well, while Stanley is lagging.
I use neither Stanley nor Yeti. I’ve never been cool, and I guess that translates into my insulated drinkware because my bottle brand - Klean Kanteen - isn’t even on the trend list.
Also, as you can gauge from my stickers, I am a proud millennial.
**For those keeping track, you are correct. This is not the last Friday of the month, but I think we can all agree that January lasted for an eternity so let’s pretend that February 2nd is also lumped in there.**
A brief interlude about marketing
Stanley rose to success for a few reasons, but mostly by creating a sleek tumbler with colors to match any aesthetic and outfit, marketing via influencers, and following similar viral strategies that elevated Crocs.
Stanley also benefited from viral TikTok crazes, like WaterTok, where people add flavorings to their water to, I don’t know, keep their sugar intake high. I’d attach some videos, but I will not be ruining my algorithm.
Add another tally in my not cool box, because I drink my water plain.
I also never thought that owning 47 Stanley Quencher’s was environmentally friendly, even if you are foregoing plastic bottles, and after reading Stanley’s ESG report, I’d recommend going with a Yeti.
The 2023 Stanley Impact Report
This was the first report done entirely by Stanley, all prior ones were generated by their parent company, PMI Worldwide. This is an instance where holding off for a year to gather better data would have played in their favor.
The entire report essentially was just words — especially where they say that they follow SASB, GRI, CDP, TCFD, and SGC standards. Probably best to pick one, master it, and then try to incorporate other standard metrics rather than saying you follow them all.
This line also elicited quite an eye roll from me: “Since then, Stanley has been delivering superior food and drinkware meant to last a lifetime.” Because of recent scenes of people fighting to buy limited edition Stanley Cups to add to their likely already full collection, that lifetime could very well be a landfill when the next trendy bottle replaces these.
[This is not necessarily their fault, this is one of the many issues with consumerism in general.]
Here is what stood out:
There is a sentence that states that the leadership team is incentivized and measured by Sustainability KPIs, but it doesn’t say which metrics or how.
Stanley did upgrade their product packaging to be paper instead of plastic and is incorporating recycled stainless steel into their drinkware, and they plan to convert all product lines to stainless steel within 2 years.
Here is what was not ideal:
They have information on their GHG emissions for 2022, but nothing about how they plan to reach their target of 50% reductions by 2030 or a comparison of their progress, or lack thereof.
They use “Ocean-bound plastic" which to me is a form of greenwashing. Unless you can prove to me that people waited at a tributary to collect water bottles drifting toward the sea, I think this is a made-up term used to make buyers feel better. There is a non-profit that can certify claims, but Stanley does not note that they work with them. This non-profit also labels plastics as “likely to end up in the ocean…” so again, not traceable.
Because Stanley claimed to have followed SASB standards, I’m breaking out my chart to compare the metrics found in each report based on what should appear in the Toys & Sporting Goods category.
As you can see, I’m about to lay a lot of praise on Yeti.
Yeti ESG Report
First off, this report has gorgeous imagery. But it also hits every single SASB metric and includes an appendix detailing all these numbers.
This report also showcases that Yeti understands double materiality and the importance of an outdoor-centric brand to value nature and natural resources.
What stood out:
Yeti builds its products to last but recognizes that people might not want them forever. Because of this, they have a buy-back program, a repair option, and the option to sell your gently used item back for resale of pre-used goods.
And if all else fails, you can send products back to Yeti for them to recycle. This is what I mean about Yeti adding circularity to their business practices.
Importantly, Yeti has already exceeded their emissions reduction goals for Scope 1 and 2 emissions compared to their 2020 fiscal year baseline - meaning, emissions from their own offices and warehouses all decreased faster than they planned for. Which, sounds like their goals can be increased.
Yeti uses all recycled polyester in its short and long-sleeve shirts and is working towards using recycled material across many of its products
PFAs are a hot topic these days - and honestly have permeated the entire environment, but Yeti at least steers clear from actively adding PFAs as a chemical in their products — they specifically say they do not “intentionally add,” because despite most people’s best efforts, not having PFAs might be impossible.
What could be improved:
Yeti’s Scope 3 emissions increased by 96% compared to the 2020 baseline, but Scope 3 emissions are inherently outside of the company’s control so this one is always the most challenging to achieve.
This is the first time that my improvement suggestions end after one bullet point, so either Yeti is on top of it, or they have a great team helping them avoid any areas where they can be accused of greenwashing.
Yeti is sold in Europe, so they will likely need to get ready for CSRD reporting requirements. They do work with Watershed for reporting already, so they should be able to do this seamlessly.
A note on forward-looking statements
Most ESG reports have a “forward-looking” statement section, and this is essentially included to safeguard a company from being legally liable for not hitting metrics that are laid out in the report.
I understand why these exist, and why companies use terms in reports that leave room for ambiguity so that if goals are not met, companies can say it’s fine since we did not legally commit to them.
But, not legally committing to anything is kind of what leaves the world in a bit of an endless loop. COP statements are not legally binding, the Paris Climate Accord is not legally binding, and ESG statements are not legally binding.
Everyone is just doing their best with their targets to strive for that they won’t be faulted on for not reaching. So it is a little bit defeating. We can say that the effort is there, and many companies do want to succeed, if for no other reason than being seen as a sustainable company.
Breakdown of each business
Stanley:
Founded in 1913 in the United States, Stanley is now sold in the U.S., Brazil, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, the U.K., and Japan. Their newfound surge in sales will likely make them subject to European reporting standards, so they will need to enhance their reporting significantly.
Aside from the cup everyone you know has, you can get many types of camping gear like coolers and food storage jars from Stanley.
Stanley is not yet publicly traded
Yeti:
Yeti is much younger, it was founded in 2006, to create durable coolers.
Since then, Yeti has expanded to sell apparel, drinkware, bags, and other outdoor necessities.
Yeti is publicly traded and that could be why they stick so closely to their SASB standards.
If you want to reduce your plastic use by using a reusable water bottle, that’s great. The best option is to buy nothing and use what you already have.
But if you want a new bottle, maybe give yourself permission to not be on trend and get a Yeti. This way, when you have the urge to get the next cool water bottle, you can at least send your used one back to Yeti for recycling or resale.
Or, if you are like me, you can stick to using your Klean Kanteen until you lose it.
Happy February!
Ana
ESG Reports