The environmental journalism Sydney-(out)sider
Published in The Guardian on May 2nd, 2017 the article, “Nespresso bid to recycle coffee pods” written by Rebecca Smithers gives a brief overview of a pilot program Nespresso launched in London that week to increase the percentage of recycled coffee pods.
While not an advertisement and Nespresso did not pay The Guardian for this content, it sure seemed it.
Throughout the article, it is mentioned that unlike “many of their competitors’ pods” Nespresso pods are mainly aluminum. This gives way to a “recycling ‘capacity” of 100%. This article is written in a very positive light towards Nespresso. Even when the company did not say what proportion of its capsules are recycled that was not highlighted. It was overshadowed with the statement that “recycling capacity” is at 100%.
A strange comment was the mentioned of the Green Dot programme in Germany, France, and Canada. In Hamburg, Germany single pod “coffee capsules have been banned from state-run buildings as part of a drive to cut waste.” This statement is very subtle and brief but I read it as a way Smithers is trying to be more objective and cut into the Nespresso praise. It conveys the point that these single serve coffee pods even if recycles are still wasteful compared to traditional methods.
Smither’s article would have been greatly improved and more objective if more sources were included, in particular, participants of the recycling program and the “many competitors” of Nespresso. The article covers the recycling program and how it should be implemented and what outcomes should be but without statements from the participants themselves, it is hard to not have a jaded account of the program. In addition, to make the feature read less like an advertisement statements from Nespresso’s competitors or a development of the wastefulness of coffee pods would have made the article seem more objective.