An excerpt from our December 2009 mailing:
(to join our contact list and receive our mailings - usually every 6-8 weeks - send an email to contact@carbonostics.com)
Guideline: PAS2050
Published by/date: BSI, DEFRA & Carbon Trust, Oct 2008
Industry recognition: UK, Europe. The only completed PCF standard. Considered in the UK and Europe to be the starting point for the international debate. Expected to publish an update aligned with GHG and ISO in 2010/11.
Scope: Product-level
First Step: Initial Lifecycle Screening
Guideline: GHG Protocol
Published by/date: World Resources Insititue & World Business Council for Sustainable Development, draft Sep 2009, final end 2010
Industry recognition: International. Provides an international business perspective. Used PAS2050 as a guide, although re-examining areas for wider stakeholder input. Expected to be aligned with PAS2050 and ISO when final version published in 2010.
Scope: Corporate, Scope 1/2/3, product-level
First Step: Initial Lifecycle Screening
Guideline: ISO
Published by/date: International Organization for Standardization (NGO comprising 162 countries), ISO14067 expected in 2012
Industry recognition: Globally recognized industry standards. international. Expected to be the future certification standard for PCF, ecolabeling and LCA.
Scope: PCF = ISO14060 - 14069 LCA= ISO14040 - 14049 Ecolabels = ISO14020-14025
First Step: Initial Lifecycle Screening
Carbonostics delivers initial life-cycle screening for the food industry consistent with these global standards. www.carbonostics.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Ecolabeling Revisited
I was recently at a conference in London where many consumer businesses were represented and were bemoaning the fact that there is a distinct possibility that they will be soon required to post ecolabels on their products. And while even the term "ecolabel" is contraversial, there is a common belief among these businesses that consumers don't want any more labeling.
As an early-adopter consumer of most eco-friendly products and a participant in this debate, this argument rings rather hollow to me. While it's true that many products have many different kinds of labels, as far as I'm concerned it's all good information. And I'm quite skeptical that businesses who resist legislation to force them to measure and publish their environmental footprint are doing it out of a concern for the poor confused consumer.
The three major arguments against consumer ecolabeling are:
(1) measurements are unreliable and standards are not yet in place
(2) consumers are already confused by conflicting labels
(3) there are too many labels and they are hard to read and understand
It's definately true that today - the 7th of December 2009 - defining the "measurement and publishing" of an environmental label is still up for debate. Should the ecolabel be just a carbon footprint, GHG + water, what about toxicity, biodiversity, and nitrogen? There are many options still open and many decisions to be made, but the ultimate goal of providing a consumer with information to help them make a purchasing decision should be pursued. Measurement standards are coming and I'd estimate that by the end of 2010, most of these questions will be answered and consensus will have been reached.
The argument that uses consumer confusion as a basis for opposing labels is, I think, a very weak one, and getting weaker all the time. Consider thirty years ago - can you remember any nutritional labels on any of the products at your family's breakfast table? Today, it's unlikely you'll find many boxes of cereal without full nutritional disclosure. Nutritional information is required, often contradictory, and only a portion of consumers even bother to read it. But, it lifts the veil of the unknown and empowers the consumer to make their buying decisions based on this information - if they want to.
The same goes for environmental labeling. It's quite likely, even probable, that many consumers will ignore the information. But, it levels the playing field and gives those consumer who want, the option to influence their buying decisions.
Consider this - a woman buying breakfast cereal for her family might examine the fat and salt content of the major brand cereals to help make her buying decision. She might choose the cereal with a slightly higher fat content than the lowest option because that particular brand has a high fiber content. If the environmental information was also listed on the box, she might completely ignore it, or consider the carbon footprint of the cereal in her decision and choose a brand with a lower environmental footprint but with a slightly lower fiber content. The point is, that the information will be available and she will use all of it (even perhaps the cute cartoon character on the box and the free gift inside the box) to make her final buying decision.
Lastly, the argument that by adding an environmental label on top of what's already there and at the same time make smaller and smaller packages with less and less packaging material is just too hard...is a little hard to swallow. With today's technological resources it's rather beyond the realm of credibility to think that some creative designer couldn't come up with a palatable, sexy, and informative way to display the relevant information. (I can personally recommend Edward Tufte's books on the graphical display of statistical information to any skeptics).
The French debate on what the ecolabel for January 2011 will include and will look like rages on. I personally hope that the definition of "ecolabel" that they end up with is one that empowers the consumer, even if a little bit of creative design and education is called for at the same time. And companies that embrace, even participate in experimenting with different measurement trials, design options, and consumer research, will come out ahead when the legislation is enacted and enforced.
As an early-adopter consumer of most eco-friendly products and a participant in this debate, this argument rings rather hollow to me. While it's true that many products have many different kinds of labels, as far as I'm concerned it's all good information. And I'm quite skeptical that businesses who resist legislation to force them to measure and publish their environmental footprint are doing it out of a concern for the poor confused consumer.
The three major arguments against consumer ecolabeling are:
(1) measurements are unreliable and standards are not yet in place
(2) consumers are already confused by conflicting labels
(3) there are too many labels and they are hard to read and understand
It's definately true that today - the 7th of December 2009 - defining the "measurement and publishing" of an environmental label is still up for debate. Should the ecolabel be just a carbon footprint, GHG + water, what about toxicity, biodiversity, and nitrogen? There are many options still open and many decisions to be made, but the ultimate goal of providing a consumer with information to help them make a purchasing decision should be pursued. Measurement standards are coming and I'd estimate that by the end of 2010, most of these questions will be answered and consensus will have been reached.
The argument that uses consumer confusion as a basis for opposing labels is, I think, a very weak one, and getting weaker all the time. Consider thirty years ago - can you remember any nutritional labels on any of the products at your family's breakfast table? Today, it's unlikely you'll find many boxes of cereal without full nutritional disclosure. Nutritional information is required, often contradictory, and only a portion of consumers even bother to read it. But, it lifts the veil of the unknown and empowers the consumer to make their buying decisions based on this information - if they want to.
The same goes for environmental labeling. It's quite likely, even probable, that many consumers will ignore the information. But, it levels the playing field and gives those consumer who want, the option to influence their buying decisions.
Consider this - a woman buying breakfast cereal for her family might examine the fat and salt content of the major brand cereals to help make her buying decision. She might choose the cereal with a slightly higher fat content than the lowest option because that particular brand has a high fiber content. If the environmental information was also listed on the box, she might completely ignore it, or consider the carbon footprint of the cereal in her decision and choose a brand with a lower environmental footprint but with a slightly lower fiber content. The point is, that the information will be available and she will use all of it (even perhaps the cute cartoon character on the box and the free gift inside the box) to make her final buying decision.
Lastly, the argument that by adding an environmental label on top of what's already there and at the same time make smaller and smaller packages with less and less packaging material is just too hard...is a little hard to swallow. With today's technological resources it's rather beyond the realm of credibility to think that some creative designer couldn't come up with a palatable, sexy, and informative way to display the relevant information. (I can personally recommend Edward Tufte's books on the graphical display of statistical information to any skeptics).
The French debate on what the ecolabel for January 2011 will include and will look like rages on. I personally hope that the definition of "ecolabel" that they end up with is one that empowers the consumer, even if a little bit of creative design and education is called for at the same time. And companies that embrace, even participate in experimenting with different measurement trials, design options, and consumer research, will come out ahead when the legislation is enacted and enforced.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A Thousand Words
One of the challenges that we are facing with Carbonostics, is the very-quickly-evolving terminology that is emerging out of the sustainability metrics field. In one conversation I had with a Director of Environment, I had to explain the acronym "LCA" while in another a Director of Environment had to explain to me the term "Scope 3".
It seems however, that as we come to the end of 2009, some consensus seems to be rising to the surface on which terms are most useful, and perhaps we can start to guess which ones will endure. Some of the key ones that I've come across are:
- "LCA" aka "life-cycle analysis" - looking at a product or a process from the very start to the very finish
- "Cradle to Grave" - aka life-cycle
- "Cradle to Cradle" - a design term that refers to the hope that the materials left at the end of a product's life may find a new life in another product (think plastic bottles being made into sweatshirts)
- "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" aka "GHG" - a term that actually refers to several different gases that damage our atmosphere. Click here to go to Wikipedia to learn more about the technical terms behind "greenhouse gas".
- "Carbon" - although simple-sounding, the term carbon has come to mean a lot more than just the element carbon this year. "Carbon" is being used as a substitute for "greenhouse gas emissions". There are some who believe (as I am starting to) that "carbon" is going to be a substitute for anything to do with environmental emissions. And as such terms as "hoover" and "kleenex" have become synonyms for a product rather than just a brand name, so "carbon" will become a synonym for all the complex terminology around that make up "greenhouse gas emissions" and possibly a wider environmental impact too.
- "Carbon Footprint" - the "greenhouse gas emissions" for a process, a building, a factory, or a product. "Carbon Footprint" measurement is still quite contraversial because the standards of what should go into a footprint measurement are still being debated. However the boundaries are slowly becoming clearer and it's likely that we'll see more and more published, verified, and audited "carbon footprints" in the coming year.
- "PCF" aka "product carbon footprint" - a term that implies (even if it does not explicitly say) that the "greenhouse gas emissions" from "cradle to grave" have been measured for this product.
- "Scope 3 emissions" - this term comes from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, an NGO established by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The GHG Protocol is one of the leading bodies that are establishing standards on how "greenhouse gas emissions" are measured and reported. In their terminology "Scope 1 emissions" are any emissions resulting from activity that you control in your building or your factory. "Scope 2 emissions" are emissions resulting from the energy you buy. And "Scope 3 emissions" are emissions that result anywhere else along your supply chain or the "life-cycle" of your products or services. It is the "Scope 3 emissions" that are now starting to be measured by businesses. (If you're producing toasters, your "Scope 3 emissions" are emissions from all your suppliers, all the transport and storage along your supply chain, including at your customer's warehouse, distribution, and retail outlet, and all the emissions from the electricity that the consumer uses after they purchase your toaster and use it in their home.)
With Carbonostics, we are working hard to keep on top of all the developments in terminology and standards so we can deliver smart, sophisticated, and valuable metrics to our customers. I have no doubt that in 12 months or so, the world of sustainability metrics will look a lot clearer and we will be spending a lot more time looking at ways that we can develop metrics tool that predict and correlate sustainability across businesses.
Until then, we will continue to provide as much educational support as necessary to help our colleagues and customers feel comfortable within this brave new world of sustainability metrics.
It seems however, that as we come to the end of 2009, some consensus seems to be rising to the surface on which terms are most useful, and perhaps we can start to guess which ones will endure. Some of the key ones that I've come across are:
- "LCA" aka "life-cycle analysis" - looking at a product or a process from the very start to the very finish
- "Cradle to Grave" - aka life-cycle
- "Cradle to Cradle" - a design term that refers to the hope that the materials left at the end of a product's life may find a new life in another product (think plastic bottles being made into sweatshirts)
- "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" aka "GHG" - a term that actually refers to several different gases that damage our atmosphere. Click here to go to Wikipedia to learn more about the technical terms behind "greenhouse gas".
- "Carbon" - although simple-sounding, the term carbon has come to mean a lot more than just the element carbon this year. "Carbon" is being used as a substitute for "greenhouse gas emissions". There are some who believe (as I am starting to) that "carbon" is going to be a substitute for anything to do with environmental emissions. And as such terms as "hoover" and "kleenex" have become synonyms for a product rather than just a brand name, so "carbon" will become a synonym for all the complex terminology around that make up "greenhouse gas emissions" and possibly a wider environmental impact too.
- "Carbon Footprint" - the "greenhouse gas emissions" for a process, a building, a factory, or a product. "Carbon Footprint" measurement is still quite contraversial because the standards of what should go into a footprint measurement are still being debated. However the boundaries are slowly becoming clearer and it's likely that we'll see more and more published, verified, and audited "carbon footprints" in the coming year.
- "PCF" aka "product carbon footprint" - a term that implies (even if it does not explicitly say) that the "greenhouse gas emissions" from "cradle to grave" have been measured for this product.
- "Scope 3 emissions" - this term comes from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, an NGO established by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The GHG Protocol is one of the leading bodies that are establishing standards on how "greenhouse gas emissions" are measured and reported. In their terminology "Scope 1 emissions" are any emissions resulting from activity that you control in your building or your factory. "Scope 2 emissions" are emissions resulting from the energy you buy. And "Scope 3 emissions" are emissions that result anywhere else along your supply chain or the "life-cycle" of your products or services. It is the "Scope 3 emissions" that are now starting to be measured by businesses. (If you're producing toasters, your "Scope 3 emissions" are emissions from all your suppliers, all the transport and storage along your supply chain, including at your customer's warehouse, distribution, and retail outlet, and all the emissions from the electricity that the consumer uses after they purchase your toaster and use it in their home.)
With Carbonostics, we are working hard to keep on top of all the developments in terminology and standards so we can deliver smart, sophisticated, and valuable metrics to our customers. I have no doubt that in 12 months or so, the world of sustainability metrics will look a lot clearer and we will be spending a lot more time looking at ways that we can develop metrics tool that predict and correlate sustainability across businesses.
Until then, we will continue to provide as much educational support as necessary to help our colleagues and customers feel comfortable within this brave new world of sustainability metrics.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Welcome
Welcome to my blog about Carbonostics and Sustainability Metrics for the Carbon Neutral future.
I have written several tag lines on this blog, which will probably evolve over time. Carbonostics is different things to different people and I find it difficult to pigeon-hole it into just one category. I will explain all three tag lines in this introductory post:
Balancing Sustainability with Success
We use this sub-title in most of our materials because I believe strongly that a sustainable company must also be successful and profitable. You cannot have a passionate and philanthropic business without a strong and reliable revenue stream. Therefore, there is no point in promoting wonderful concepts of sustainability - like fair trade and biowaste fuel - without proving how these initiatives will make money and keep the business thriving. If your sustainability initiative runs the business into the ground, or damages your brand, then obviously, it is not sustainable. I think that NGOs who talk about sustainability without talking about the financial health of the business are doing a disservice to themselves. Likewise, companies and consultancies who preach sustainability without addressing issues like environmental impact and the wellbeing of employees, are simply operating the nasty practice of "greenwashing". Sustainability must be in concert with Success!
Sustainability Metrics for the Carbon Neutral Future
This is a wonderfully sexy tag line suggested by a friend who has a wildly success brand marketing company. Sustainability Metrics simply means forms of measurement to address sustainability. So, how does a company measure its success in its sustainability initiatives - through metrics. And how does a government impose an environmental mandate to businesses and consumers - through easy-to-understand and easy-to-measure standards. "Easy-to-understand" and "easy-to-measure" are the key phrases here...and much easier said than done. Carbonostics is the very first easy-to-understand, easy-to-use, and affordable metrics tool for the food industry. It is a practical alternative to expensive and time consuming life cycle assessment (LCA) that many larger food companies have been doing for the past year or two. LCA is a wonderful mechanism for defining and measuring environmental impact, but it is extremely complex and expensive, and therefore unattainable and impractical as a long-term measurement tool. Carbonostics solves this problem, and I am proud and excited to say that we are providing a practical solution for the Carbon Neutral future.
Practical Measurement for the Food Industry
This takes us naturally into the next and final tag line. Carbonostics is designed for the food industry - an industry that is responsible for a large part of our environmental footprint, one that is struggling with pressure from consumers, from governments and NGOs, one that is directly affected every time commodity and oil prices fluctuate, one where profit margins tend to be hard won, one that has tremendously complex and long supply chains, and one that is completely at sea when coming to terms with life cycle assessment and environmental impact measurement. LCAs that cost hundreds of thousands of euros and take two or more years are not a practical solution to small or large food companies alike. While the large companies are the ones that are typically doing the LCA work at the moment, they are realizing the tremendous costs and resources needed for this effort and are looking for practical alternatives. Carbonostics is that alternative.
The Tip of the Iceberg
Carbonostics is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the possibility of Sustainability Metrics. Consider a tool that could correlate the reduction in your environmental footprint with employee loyalty. Or measuring the change in consumer satisfaction as you reduce your water footprint. There are endless possibilities that good metrics can achieve from measuring the success of sustainability initiatives, to measuring the strength of your brand in the face of fluctuating commodity prices, to measuring the satisfaction of your farmers against their production outputs.
I hope you'll join me on this fascinating and incredibly evolving journey of Sustainability Metrics. I can be reached directly at sara@carbonostics.com. You can also visit the Carbonostics website at http://www.carbonostics.com/. Read about The Tool, About Us, and what's going on in the Reporting field for the food industry. Enjoy!
I have written several tag lines on this blog, which will probably evolve over time. Carbonostics is different things to different people and I find it difficult to pigeon-hole it into just one category. I will explain all three tag lines in this introductory post:
Balancing Sustainability with Success
We use this sub-title in most of our materials because I believe strongly that a sustainable company must also be successful and profitable. You cannot have a passionate and philanthropic business without a strong and reliable revenue stream. Therefore, there is no point in promoting wonderful concepts of sustainability - like fair trade and biowaste fuel - without proving how these initiatives will make money and keep the business thriving. If your sustainability initiative runs the business into the ground, or damages your brand, then obviously, it is not sustainable. I think that NGOs who talk about sustainability without talking about the financial health of the business are doing a disservice to themselves. Likewise, companies and consultancies who preach sustainability without addressing issues like environmental impact and the wellbeing of employees, are simply operating the nasty practice of "greenwashing". Sustainability must be in concert with Success!
Sustainability Metrics for the Carbon Neutral Future
This is a wonderfully sexy tag line suggested by a friend who has a wildly success brand marketing company. Sustainability Metrics simply means forms of measurement to address sustainability. So, how does a company measure its success in its sustainability initiatives - through metrics. And how does a government impose an environmental mandate to businesses and consumers - through easy-to-understand and easy-to-measure standards. "Easy-to-understand" and "easy-to-measure" are the key phrases here...and much easier said than done. Carbonostics is the very first easy-to-understand, easy-to-use, and affordable metrics tool for the food industry. It is a practical alternative to expensive and time consuming life cycle assessment (LCA) that many larger food companies have been doing for the past year or two. LCA is a wonderful mechanism for defining and measuring environmental impact, but it is extremely complex and expensive, and therefore unattainable and impractical as a long-term measurement tool. Carbonostics solves this problem, and I am proud and excited to say that we are providing a practical solution for the Carbon Neutral future.
Practical Measurement for the Food Industry
This takes us naturally into the next and final tag line. Carbonostics is designed for the food industry - an industry that is responsible for a large part of our environmental footprint, one that is struggling with pressure from consumers, from governments and NGOs, one that is directly affected every time commodity and oil prices fluctuate, one where profit margins tend to be hard won, one that has tremendously complex and long supply chains, and one that is completely at sea when coming to terms with life cycle assessment and environmental impact measurement. LCAs that cost hundreds of thousands of euros and take two or more years are not a practical solution to small or large food companies alike. While the large companies are the ones that are typically doing the LCA work at the moment, they are realizing the tremendous costs and resources needed for this effort and are looking for practical alternatives. Carbonostics is that alternative.
The Tip of the Iceberg
Carbonostics is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the possibility of Sustainability Metrics. Consider a tool that could correlate the reduction in your environmental footprint with employee loyalty. Or measuring the change in consumer satisfaction as you reduce your water footprint. There are endless possibilities that good metrics can achieve from measuring the success of sustainability initiatives, to measuring the strength of your brand in the face of fluctuating commodity prices, to measuring the satisfaction of your farmers against their production outputs.
I hope you'll join me on this fascinating and incredibly evolving journey of Sustainability Metrics. I can be reached directly at sara@carbonostics.com. You can also visit the Carbonostics website at http://www.carbonostics.com/. Read about The Tool, About Us, and what's going on in the Reporting field for the food industry. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
