This website uses cookies to track and improve your visitor experience. These do not hold any personal data. By using the site you accept their use. Learn more.

x

Interface

Blog

1/2

Posts tagged 'Green Marketing'

The elephant in the room is managing the portfolio

By | | No Comments

How far have we come when thinking about sustainability strategically?

It used to be about finding one or two feel-good activities like recycling the paper in the office. Then reporting a biased account of a few issues with some cherry picked case studies. Then it became the time of the public commitments: carbon neutrality, zero waste factories. Now we are entering into the territory of product sustainability, since most of the impacts of products are outside companies’ boundaries, in many cases 90%.

The key lies in product re-design.

You can redesign a car or a vacuum cleaner so that it uses less energy, and you can redesign cement or carpet so that it uses less embodied energy. Both are design challenges. Now if you come up with a product with super low impact, you still need to convince your customers to switch to that product.

In many cases, a technical product innovation does not solve the problem if it does not get accompanied with a commercial strategy for wide adoption of the new green product. Similarly, companies can identify the products with the highest impact products and try to either come with alternative products that provide the same function or convincing customers to buy products with less footprint. In both scenarios, they will be commercial opportunities for those companies that crack this code.

Managing portfolios will become a huge issue on the sustainability agenda.

Many companies will deny this at first and a few leaders will look for opportunities but Government interventions will push for greener (genuinely greener) products. So if you are a retailer this will be your biggest issue. And yes, it will be difficult to face but it is likely to be your biggest issue by far. So understanding the footprint of your products and moving consumers towards the more environmentally friendly ones will be seen as vital.

This expectation of retail will happen faster than we think.

In this post
, , , , , , , , , ,

Sustainability is not part of a company’s DNA until it is embedded in its products

By | | 2 Comments

 

Many CEOs claim that sustainability is part of their company’s DNA.

What a cliché, what an easy thing to say, impossible to prove or dispute. But how can sustainability be in a company’s DNA until the core product or service of the company has significantly less impact?

The real DNA of companies are their products or services, what they offer to customers, what they sell. The first thing is to understand the true impact of your products.

Product sustainability questions get you to that elephant in the room.

We discovered that around 70% of the overall environmental impacts of their carpet tiles were related to the raw materials used to make them.

Of these, the oil-based nylon yarn, just one single raw material, had the single biggest environmental impact. In fact, nylon production accounts for almost half of the impacts across the full lifecycle of a carpet tile, a hard pill to swallow for a carpet manufacturer (the fibre is what makes carpet a carpet).

Rather than neglecting the elephant in the room, Interface re-focused its efforts where it could make the biggest difference: reducing the amount of yarn used, finding ways to recycle old yarn into new, and looking for bio-based alternatives to nylon. Today the company has products made out of 100% recycled nylon using half the amount of yarn, cutting the overall environmental impact by half.

As a side note, some other carpet manufacturers were marketing wool carpet as a natural and sustainable option but wool has between four and six times more embodied carbon than virgin nylon.

For more on this subject, read ‘Full Product Transparency‘. This book outlines a path towards a more practical era for ‘corporate responsibility’, where companies make real environmental gains based on hard facts, using lifecycle assessment (LCA) and environmental product declarations (EPDs). 

In this post
, , , , , , , , , ,

5. What is an epd?

By | | 2 Comments

Full Product Transparency bookExcerpt 5 from the book ‘Full Product Transparency

‘What is an EPD?’

An environmental product declaration (EPD) is a statement of a product’s ‘ingredients’ and environmental impacts across its lifecycle. In the same way that nutritional labels help consumers compare the health benefits of food items, an EPD enables them to compare the environmental impacts of products.

Why an EPD is not just another eco-label

An EPD is not another eco-label. It is a statement of fact about the environmental impacts of a product. There are no ratings, claims or judgement calls to be made, as there are with eco-labels: an EPD itself doesn’t tell you whether a product is good or bad, green or polluting; it just provides the facts to enable better informed decisions.

In the same way that a chocolate bar with a nutritional label is not necessarily any healthier than a chocolate bar without one, having an EPD does not mean a product is ‘better’ or more sustainable. It does, however, enable customers to compare products and choose the ones that have least impact.

EPDs give you the full picture: for example, data on several environmental impact categories. Your product might be good on global warming potential (e.g. low CO2) but have a high acidification potential (e.g. high SO2) and both parameters have to be reported and not cherry-picked by the company.

How are EPDs created?
The methodology used to obtain an EPD is robust, and the assumptions used in the LCA calculations behind it are standardised. This means that manufacturers cannot manipulate assumptions to favour their own product (by calculating an artificially long life-span, for example). The methodology uses internationally recognised standards; an LCA must be conducted in accordance with ISO 14040 and the EPD must be produced in accordance with ISO 14025. All of this must be verified by an independent third party.

What does an EPD tell you?
A good EPD declaration would disclose the following:

• A list of raw materials and their origin
• A list of chemicals and their origin
• A description of raw material processing and production
• Specifications on the manufacturing of the product, including a breakdown of energy consumption and embodied energy, emissions released, treatment of waste, and packaging and transport
• Information on product use and end of life processing, including treatment of any waste and emissions released
• A table with the LCA results per impact category per lifecycle stage
• Evidence and verification for the calculations. All EPDs need to provide a report showing evidence for verification of the calculations and statements in the EPD

Once all these data about the environmental footprint of the product have been verified by an independent third party auditor, they then need to be captured in a clear and concise declaration.

How EPDs provide full product transparency and why that matters

FPT disclosure based on EPDs empowers and enables all customers, whether they are governments, businesses or consumers, to gain a clear understanding of the total environmental and social impact of a product, including at its end of life.
Providing customers with accurate, impartial third party-certified information about the total footprint of a product allows them to vote through their purchasing decision and to buy the right sustainable product. This will not only have a positive impact on the environment and society but also on competition and innovation. It creates a clearly visible level playing field for companies offering similar products within a sector, and it forces them to compete not only on price and quality but on all aspects that go into the making of a product.

EPDs are inexpensive, contrary to the urban myth

Some people argue that EPDs are very expensive and, especially if you have too many product categories, that it becomes unmanageable. This is like arguing that Unilever or Kraft would find it impossible and very expensive to provide the nutrition facts for all their products, given their product range. Yet they manage.

EPDs are expensive if you don’t do the internal work and you ask a consultant to do all the work for you. You would end up paying from €10,000 to €15,000, which is still much less that what many companies pay for some green labels. To put this into perspective, I have seen companies in the building products sector pay more than €50,000 for various types of green labels and certification schemes of dubious independence and robustness.

Once you invest internally and a small part of your corporate social responsibility (CSR) or sustainability team have the ability to perform LCAs, it becomes very inexpensive and EPDs can be done for less than €1000, sometimes even €500. And the information collected is not only of great use externally but for internal purposes and decision-making, mostly substituting for redundant internal reporting.

Example of information contained in a real EPD

Result of the LCA for Microtuft modular PA 6.6 carpet from InterfaceFlor

 

Next time ‘The Magic Metric That Changed The Car Industry’

… please revisit regularly for more excerpts from the book ‘Full Product Transparency‘ – or rent/buy by clicking here

In this post
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2. It’s All About Products, Not companies

By | | No Comments

Full Product Transparency bookExcerpt 2 from the book ‘Full Product Transparency

If you read corporate sustainability reports, you’ll find that most companies still focus primarily on the environmental performance of their own operations. Yet for many businesses this focus is mismatched with their true impacts, which lie outside their operations and fall instead within the lifecycle of their products.

When you view a company in terms of the products it makes – as opposed to its offices and employees – you soon discover that the vast majority of environmental impacts occur outside its operational boundaries. In many cases the impacts associated with raw materials extraction and processing, product use and end life far outstrip any ‘in-house’ impacts.

Most of the impacts are outside companies’ boundaries

For Interface’s carpet tiles, for example, around 68% of the impact is associated with the production of raw materials, while only around 10% can be attributed to in-house operations. For companies that make energy-guzzling machines, by far the biggest impact is during the product use phase. This is counterintuitive for many people, because the most visible parts of a company’s operations are either their glitzy office headquarters or their smoke-belching factories.

Sometimes the figures can be quite spectacular. For a consumer goods company such as Unilever, around 95% of a product’s impacts typically come from outside the company’s own operations (see figure below).

Unilver Product Impacts

Tesco, a UK supermarket, says its direct carbon footprint in the UK is 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Yet the impact of its supply chain, which makes the products that go into its shops, is 26 million tonnes of CO2 – ten times Tesco’s own footprint. And the footprint of its customers using Tesco’s products is even greater: 228 million tonnes of CO2, which is not far off 100 times the supermarket chain’s own footprint.

Apple Environmental Footprint

Only 2% of Apple’s carbon footprint comes directly from its offices and facilities, while around 61% comes from outsourced manufacturing and raw materials, and 30% from the product when it is being used by the consumer.

The impact of ‘stuff’ is usually in the supply chain

When a lifecycle assessment is carried out on a physical product such as a carpet, or a t-shirt, or some ready-mixed concrete, it usually shows that the biggest impacts are in the supply chain, and are therefore already embedded in the product before they get to the company for the final manufacturing process. The biggest environmental impacts up to this point are usually associated with the types of raw materials being used, as well as the types of chemicals used to process these raw materials.

Outsourcing has made things worse

With the advent of outsourcing over the past 20 years, we now have many brands that consist essentially of a marketing department, some finance people, HR and legal units, and a product design team. The actual manufacturing of the product happens halfway across the world in nations such as China, India, Turkey or Brazil, because it’s cheaper to manufacture in such places rather than in Europe or the US. This explains why so many lifecycle analyses of products show an increasing percentage of the impacts taking place outside the operations of a company.

The mismatch in management: 80% of management on direct impacts

So the bottom line is that the seemingly impressive corporate responsibility programmes and targets of many companies are in fact generally confined to minor issues, often down to the paltry level of office paper or electricity. These misinformed programmes take the attention and focus away from major issues such as raw materials use, in life product energy usage, toxic chemicals use and end of life disposal/reuse. These are the main impacts of a company that makes products, not their office lighting. The legendary green advocate Jim Fava, from Five Winds/PE International, made this crude point in a Green Mondays event in June 2011: he pointed out that 80% of sustainability management tools focus upon only 20% of the actual environmental impacts.

The key to sustainability lies in product design

The key to radical change, then, is through product design. If the impact is mainly in the raw materials, then by redesigning its products a company can use fewer raw materials, or use alternatives to them. If a product is a machine that consumes energy such as a car or a vacuum cleaner, then the key is in designing a product that is more energy efficient. And it’s not just physical design that can make a difference: the business model and commercialisation strategy can have a significant influence too.

People buy products, not companies!

One of the things we need to do is to get away from comparing companies so much. After all, people buy products, not companies. It is products and services that have an impact on our lives, so that’s what we should be measuring and trying to make more sustainable. Who cares whether Renault or BMW have more factories with ISO 14001, better corporate greenhouse gas reductions or have more environmental policies? We should be thinking about the impact of the cars they produce.

It’s worth stating again: people buy products, not companies. We need information to decide which product is better. Buyers need that information at point of sale, and in advertisements, so that we can make an informed choice. So why are companies so busy producing corporate reports instead of product information?

Leading companies are embracing LCA as a central design strategy

Unilever is measuring the impact of all its products and brands in all countries on a ‘per consumer use’ basis. So 70% of its products worldwide are now analysed from this detailed perspective, with the focus being on a single serving – a portion, or the typical use of a product such as tea, ice cream, shampoo or washing detergent by the end customer. The metrics it uses are greenhouse gas per consumer use, water, packing and waste per consumer use, as well as sustainably sourced materials. You can argue whether maintaining the impact while doubling sales is ambitious enough (Unilever’s sustainable living plan) but at least they are focusing on the right metrics and right scope: products.

Likewise, Boots, a pharmacy-led retailer, has developed a product sustainability assessment model that analyses 23 critical areas across the lifecycle of the product. These areas focus on the design, creation, transport, use and disposal or recycling of its products. Targets are set to drive innovation and improve the footprint per product and brand.

But still these strategies are far away from FPT

None of these examples are truly the FPT I’m about to advocate in later chapters but we can see some companies are getting closer and closer. For example, Unilever has a target to double sales and maintain its combined product carbon footprint. Yes, it’s just a factor 2 target which is not very ambitious, though they are starting to look at the right scope: full lifecycle products. Also, the Unilever target is combined product, and up to now they haven’t committed to publish Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) by each product (or product categories). The FPT that I’m advocating requires you to disclose the true, full impacts of all your products.

… please revisit regularly for more excerpts from the book ‘Full Product Transparency‘ – or rent/buy by clicking here

In this post
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 – The Case for Refocusing on Product (Rather than Corporate) Sustainability

By | | No Comments

Full Product Transparency bookExcerpt from the book ‘Full Product Transparency

1. The corporate responsibility beauty contest hasn’t taken us that far

WE ARE AT LEAST TEN YEARS ALONG the corporate sustainability journey now, so what really significant changes have we achieved?

Perhaps the business world has focused on the wrong tasks? Could it be that, despite all the carbon neutrality claims, hundreds of Global Reporting Initiative A+ reports and sustainability teams of ten or more people, companies have still not radically redesigned their core products and business models? The answer is that there has been far too much focus on companies wanting to look good, and not nearly enough attention paid to actually performing well. The beauty contest It’s in the blood of companies to compete, to strive to be better than their peers.

That has been the reason for the success of corporate sustainability, because businesses like to vie with each other to be the best in this area. But the end result of all the competition has been to encourage companies to give the impression of looking good while barely changing their ‘business as usual’ model. It’s hard to change the direction of a business, especially in the short term, but the corporate sustainability beauty contest has nonetheless been characterised by a disappointingly low level of achievement.

An entire industry has been created around this beauty contest, including thousands of labels, corporate responsibility (CR) report design agencies, boutique assurance providers, hundreds of awards with infinite categories, materiality matrix mavericks, investor questionnaires consultants, professional stakeholders looking to ‘engage’ with companies and all manner of membership organisations offering support networks for a hefty fee. Service-provider directories in the field typically feature more than 500 such organisations offering to help businesses look more virtuous than their peers – what the marketing guys call ‘differentiation’.

The problem with all this activity is that looking more virtuous doesn’t have anything to do with being more sustainable.

We in the sustainability movement need to ask ourselves honestly whether we are pushing for actual change or whether we are merely helping companies to gloss over big issues by making them compete in irrelevant contests? We offer companies the prospect of being able to make ‘100% natural’ products or to be the first company in their sector to become ‘carbon neutral’. In short, we have been tremendously innovative in coming up with fairly meaningless stuff that is easy and quick to implement, or that can deliver nice stories and marketing claims, but frighteningly ineffective at producing anything that will affect actual performance.

And astonishingly, CEOs are quite happy about their performance.

A 2010 Accenture survey of global CEOs put the last nail in the coffin of CR as it stands. It found that 81% thought sustainability issues were fully embedded into the strategy and operations of their company. Yes, FULLY EMBEDDED! It’s not a joke. It’s actually quite sad that the most senior people don’t get it.

Please someone explain to them that having a CR team reporting to public affairs with a nicely designed 150k report with some cherry-picked case studies and a set of qualitative targets plus a few quantitative targets on quick wins is not ‘fully embedded’! Fully embedded means sustainability is fully taken account of in all the products of the company. You are redesigning your products, your business models, your entire value chain. Yet there is no company in the world that has achieved this. The sustainability movement should brutally tell CEOs that making wishy- washy claims such as ‘Sustainability is part of our DNA’ is just wrong.

Seventy-two percent of CEOs in the same survey felt the strongest motivator for taking action on sustainability issues was ‘strengthening brand, trust and reputation’. Well, here we have the reason we are trapped in this rather useless beauty contest.

Prepare yourself for the next sustainability phase: Full product transparency.

Somebody needs to speak out if we are to move towards something more meaningful. We need a proper comparative benchmark, so that companies can compete on what really matters – and so that the sustainability consultancy industry can sell properly useful transformative services to these companies. This book is aimed at providing this benchmark: products instead of companies.

So the next phase in sustainability has to be truly embedded by being focused on the product. We need to understand clearly the total footprint of a product throughout its lifecycle – that must be the starting point.

There has been some focus at product level but wrongly headed: Green labels.

You may well be asking, ‘Why does it have to be this complicated to choose the most sustainable product? Can’t I just look for a product with a green label?’

It’s not surprising people look for shortcuts to help them decide. After all, few of us have the time to study every purchase we make. That’s why there have been so many people, from gurus, to NGOs, to certification sharks, to industry associations inventing so many lucrative labels that offer ‘quick assurance’ about product sustainability credentials.

But when you look carefully at how some labels are administered, you realise how flawed they are. Most are too easy to obtain, which is obvious because the easier your label is to get, the bigger your market becomes. Most labels are very narrow in scope, measuring the easiest things to measure rather than the big issues. Many lack independent certification or may even be administered by the manufacturers themselves. Many labels duplicate each other, confusing clients and obliging manufacturers to certify the same product several times. Unfortunately, some of the best marketed labels are the least robust.

Today nobody certifies whether a yoghurt or a burger is good for your health. You just get the calories and the nutrition facts and you judge.

This is what this book is arguing for: the environmental impacts of products – Full Product Transparency.

… please revisit for more excerpts from the book ‘Full Product Transparency‘ – or rent/buy by clicking here

In this post
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Book ‘Full Product Transparency’ – Author Profile

By | | 1 Comment

Ramon Arratia - Sustainability DirectorOver the next few months I will publish excerpts from my book ‘Full Product Transparency’ on this blog to encourage the use of its content, and spread the message that we need to ‘cut the fluff’ out of sustainability communications, dispel partial truths, and constantly push for stronger corporate responsibility through education and regulation.

You can rent or buy ‘Full Product Transparency’ via this link

Here is my Author profile should you not know who I am or what I do. Thank you so much for taking the time to come to this blog and read the book. We would obviously appreciate your support by spreading the word, and all feedback gratefully received.

 

” RAMON ARRATIA is a sustainability director with 13 years of practical experience in corporate positions at multinational companies such as Interface, Vodafone and Ericsson.

He was named by The Guardian newspaper as one of the world’s top sustainable business tweeters. He is a strong advocate of product sustainability through his popular blog (you’re here!) and gives 50 speeches a year on the subject. He campaigns for stronger and more efficient European regulation based on product standards, for revisiting corporate sustainability reporting and for many years he led the ‘Cut the Fluff’ campaign against labels, certificates, partial truths, marketing claims and all the components of the old sustainability beauty contest.

Ramon has an MBA from Warwick Business School, a MSC in Quality and Environment from Spain and a degree in chemistry. This mixture of business and technical education has given him a privileged perspective to understand both the geeks (LCA practitioners, academics, engineers) and the geezers (marketing, PR, sales, sustainability consultants). This book has been clearly written with a hybrid ‘geekzer’ mindset. “

 

‘Full Product Transparency’

In this post
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sustainability Goes Positive- But What’s New?

By | | No Comments

A new wave of sustainability strategies has emerged: the net positives. 2012 saw the launch of BT’s Net GoodIKEA’s People & Planet PositiveKingfisher’s Net PositiveO2’s Think Big Blueprint and Pepsi’s Positive Water Impact. Ahead of the curve, Rio Tinto launched its Net Positive Impact biodiversity strategy in 2008. These promises of positive environmental and social impact sound quite different from previous aims of “zero negative impact” (Interface, Mission Zero, 1994), “carbon neutrality” (M&S, Plan A, 2007) and “decoupling” (Unilever, Sustainable Living Plan, 2010).

But do these positively-framed strategies actually represent a change in sustainability management? BT’s Net Good centres around creating more energy efficient products – not an approach that will necessarily mandate radical change at BT, which has been doing sustainability since 1990. But when framed in terms of helping customers to save emissions equivalent to three times the firm’s own impact, the goal sounds ambitious and exciting. Similarly, Kingfisher aims for all its products to enable an “ultimately net positive lifestyle” by 2050 – language that makes our ears prick up but arguably not a timeframe that will require change by current management.

These ambitious, positively packaged strategies reflect a shift in how firms communicate sustainability, rather than how they tackle it. Positive speaking helps to sell the concept of sustainability but the challenges around delivering results are the same as those faced by firms with strategies to reduce, neutralise and decouple impacts. The saying ‘old wine in new bottles’ comes to mind and corporates need to ensure that they can refute this with positive results.

In this post
, , , , , , , ,

The corporate responsibility beauty contest hasn’t taken us that far

By | | No Comments

We are at least 10 years on the corporate sustainability journey now, so what really significant changes have we achieved? Perhaps the business world has focused on the wrong tasks?

Could it be that, despite all the carbon neutrality claims, hundreds of Global Reporting Initiative A+ reports and sustainability teams of ten or more people, companies have still not radically redesigned their core products and business models?

The answer is that there has been far too much focus on companies wanting to look good, and not nearly enough attention paid to actually performing well.

Focussing on Product rather than Corporate Sustainability is a core theme in my book below. All feedback gratefully received.

Full Product Transparency book

In this post
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The green investment bank – update

By | | No Comments

An important update on the Green Investment Bank.

The UK government published a ‘Progress Report’ on the Green Investment Bank.

BIS press release: http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/topstories/2011/May/green-investment-bank
The full progress report  here.
Nick Clegg’s speech here
UK Green Building Council’s comments here.

The mandate is very promising : “to accelerate private sector investment in the UK’s transition to a green economy”

The priority areas of focus will be offshore wind, non-domestic energy efficiency and waste, which again seem very promising. I wonder if accompanying regulations will be done to further help investments in those areas. A ban on certain types of waste for example (dont dream about it with this government). But perhaps in others (eg accelerating permits for offshore wind)

The fact that it will be able to borrow from the market and that it will be ‘operationally independent’ are also every good news, celebrated by all the environment groups.

In this post
,

True sustainability needs transparency – Article in The Guardian

By | | No Comments

This is my article written for The Guardian. In it I explain that a ‘green’ label is often an inaccurate guide to the environmental impact of a product

The rise in ‘greenwash’, the practice of making misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of a product, service or company, is damaging the environment and industry.

The problem is made worse by the variations of green labels and claims. Some ‘green’ claims are clear and accurate, but others such as ‘low carbon’, ‘natural’ and ‘recyclable’ are designed to create a good impression without explaining the environmental benefit in enough detail.

Labels are popular as they provide quick assurance on a product’s sustainability credentials; after all, few consumers have the time to study every purchase they make. But the methods of obtaining these labels are often unreliable, involving schemes that aim of attract wide participation (and payment) from manufacturers and therefore set a low bar for qualification. Instead of differentiating between good and bad products, most labels tend to lump them into one category. From all the ‘A’ rated washing machines available, which is the best?

There is also duplication among labels, confusing customers and forcing manufacturers to certify the same product several times. Several certifications lack independent validation or may even be administered by the manufacturers themselves.

In order to make genuine progress towards sustainable manufacturing and wipe out greenwash, ‘labelling’ schemes must use transparent criteria and be based on scientific facts. Indeed, this seems to be the way things are going, with some industries already disclosing the environmental impacts of their products, either in full or at least emphasising the most important. For example, you wouldn’t expect a car manufacturer to sell you a ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘recyclable’ car, but it is mandatory for them to display grams of CO2 emissions per kilometre in car advertisements. Also, a website set up by the EU now publishes power consumption data for all electronic equipment sold in Europe.

Companies and regulators now recognise that the biggest environmental impacts are outside of the manufacturers’ control and usually occur in the supply of raw materials or when the product is being used. Therefore, basing a judgement solely on manufacturing impacts can be misleading. By using a life cycle assessment (LCA) you can identify all the significant environmental impacts of with the product, including those on water, air and land, throughout its manufacture, use and disposal.

The accepted method is defined by the International Standards Organisation (ISO14040 and ISO14044), and conducting an LCA can show a manufacturer which areas of production need the most attention to reduce the environmental impact. For example, for physical products such as a carpet tile, the main impacts occur in the extraction and processing of raw materials. For machines that consume energy such as a car or a washing machine, the major impacts usually occur when the product is in use. You may find that the best product is one that doesn’t make claims such as ’100% natural’, but is carefully sourced, manufactured and shipped to minimise its environmental footprint at all stages of its life.

An assessment method that supports this is the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD). To achieve an EPD, companies must be committed to full disclosure of what is typically considered confidential information about how their products are made. In addition to publishing product “ingredients”, manufacturing locations and raw materials, companies must perform a comprehensive LCA, using industry-wide Product Category Rules (PCRs).

Rather than being a claim or promise, an EPD requires information on products to be shared in a standardised format, certified to a public standard and verified by a credible third party. Developed from ISO 14025 compliant lifecycle information, it allows customers to compare different products and assess which has the lowest environmental impacts. An EPD does not pass judgement; it simply presents the facts so that customers can draw their own conclusions. In simple terms it is the equivalent of the nutrition information on, say, a range of sandwiches which can help guide your lunchtime choice; you won’t necessarily go for the lowest calorie option but perhaps the one with the lowest fat content, depending on what is important to you.

To make true progress towards a more sustainable future, businesses need to be transparent about their environmental impacts. This means reporting not only on corporate impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, waste and water usage, but also on the environmental impact of their products, throughout their lifecycle. This will encourage healthy competition within industry to produce better, more genuinely sustainable products, rather than competing over clever claims or the best designed labels.

To see the article in The Guardian click here

In this post