premise & vision
We envision a thriving, post-carbon economy.
We operate as though it's already here.
We value the energy and matter embodied in existing goods and materials.
We value character and integrity - of materials, and in people.
We value the power of data and scientific inquiry.
We value a habitable planet.
We value communication, community, and collaboration -- and the power of assuming positive intent.
We value accountability, and alignment between words and actions.
We value spiritual wellbeing, emotional maturity, human potential, and unfettered creativity.
We value the premise of social enterprise: operating with positive asset balances for not only profits, but also (and, perhaps, especially) for people and planet.
Our value proposition is simple.
We supply the most sustainable goods possible (the ones that already exist) using the most sustainable materials possible (the ones that already exist) in the most sustainable methods possible (fewest transit emissions possible per mile using existing infrastructure).
We have done the research and analysis to back up our sustainability claims, and we've eschewed market norms - and conventional market thinking - in order to do so.
As a result, we have a solid decade of creative problem solving competency developed around the practice of reuse at scale, and a healthier decision-making framework than any company whose decision-makers have ever said 'we can't make money doing that today, so we'll do this instead and figure out the better solution later.'
Our raison d'être is also simple.
We're here to raise consumer expectations about what sustainable commerce looks like.
We're here to model viable business practices built in service to a post-carbon economy. We believe showing that it's possible can inspire other businesses to adopt our practices for the greater good - and for their own viability.
We do this by modeling climate data-driven decision making to profitably supply products that humans like *better* than new or 100% recycled product.
Copycats welcome (paid consultancies preferred).
We've learned a few things.
During the past decade of swimming upstream against competition engaged in predatory market norms, we have come to the following conclusions:
We - as a general statement about those who live in the United States - are developmentally delayed when it comes to basic climate competency.
We don't understand how our choices impact and are impacted by the system in which we exist.
This gap plays out in infrastructure and economic policy. It also makes us bad at our jobs: as we engage in our work lives without having the context needed to make informed decisions, our knowledge gaps limit our ability to engage competitively in a post-carbon economy. If we don't understand the systemic impacts of our business decisions, we're likely making bad decisions at the scale of business.
Sustainability claims in advertising are unregulated, leading to widespread greenwashing and consumer confusion.
When we aren't making decisions in our work lives, we want to 'be sustainable' and buy sustainable products in our private lives. Unfortunately, most of us don't understand what this means: we want to avoid feeling bad for making choices about products when some of those products are necessary to support our lives in fundamental ways.
As a result, we willingly pay significantly more for products that are marketed as eco-friendly -- without proof or data of such claims -- because spending more for products that tell us we're good people is the closest we've come to soothing the cognitive dissonance of having to make responsible decisions without enough information.
Better choices are possible.
When we have the information we need to make good decisions – combined with easier, more satisfying access to the products and services underpinning these wiser decisions – we tend to feel good about our choices.
We deserve to feel good about our choices. We deserve options we can feel good about. We deserve transparency, not spin.
At Junket, we believe that if a business can not operate profitably without taking advantage of people or collective resources, that business is not just an abject failure, but an existential threat.
Most businesses currently fall into this category, because the systems that increase access to the most sustainable products possible at a scale to support corporate operations simply do not exist.
Better systems are possible.
If we (the market at large) were to put even a fraction of the energy and complexity of existing new product supply chains into systems that aggregate and redistribute high quality, highly specific existing goods, we would have world-class availability of products that, by their very availability, reduce adverse upstream impacts (land use, eutrophication, clean water, emissions generated in service to the manufacture of something that isn't actually needed).
Given the degree to which manufacturing emissions contribute to climate breakdown (not to mention those generated in the process of extracting, refining, and transporting both raw materials and finished goods), solving this problem at a systems level would enable the consumer market to quickly evolve to meet existing needs while solving for the market's role in exponentially complicating a global, existential threat.
If we build systems to leverage the embodied energy found in existing matter -- as it is already formed for any number of uses -- a social supply chain becomes not only possible, but highly profitable.
This is what market opportunity looks like!
Collective stewardship and asset management is how we thrive:
Our 'Refusal and Consent' framework explains how we - each and all - can interact with goods, materials, and each other in service to nurturing environmentally and socially sustainable norms.
We hope these thoughts will create the same clarity for you as it has for us:
Refusal & Consent
ONE: We are each responsible for the remaining product lifecycle of the things we allow into our lives – and for everything purchased new, we are directly accountable for the upstream production impacts, as well (resource depletion, carbon emissions, and labor violations included).
TWO: When we choose to divest of our stuff, we are 100% responsible for the outcome of each choice.
THREE: It takes work to find someone who can/will make use of things that we don’t need/no longer want. Choosing not to collaboratively transfer resources is an abdication of social responsibility: existing goods are, quite literally, embodied energy and should be treated accordingly.
FOUR: The transfer of stuff is an exchange between people. Communication is critical.
FIVE: Dumping stuff on other people is non-consensual. Just because you want to get rid of something doesn’t mean that someone else wants to receive it. This includes but is not limited to secondhand donations, family mementos, product packaging and in some cases, ‘gifts.’
SIX: Some people will say ‘no’ to your gift of stuff. This is their prerogative. If they say ‘no,’ listen to them. Respect their boundaries. Allow them agency. As in other realms of interpersonal conduct, consent is sexy!
WHOOPS! SEVEN: To avoid throwing away useful things, our responsibility rests upstream and in advance – with thoughtful, incremental decisions about whether to allow these things into our lives in the first place.
New addition to the manifesto as of 2022, with thanks to lessons gleaned from our neighborhood Buy Nothing group:
EIGHT: We exist within a complex ecological system, and it behooves us to operate within its known limits. Fueling a combustion engine to deliver or retrieve a single item is not an environmentally conscientious steward's best use of limited collective resources. Instead: bike, walk, or rely on existing transit infrastructure: it matters more than you know.