Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur C Clarke
There is a common understanding that the major obstacle to widespread adoption of lifecycle measurement is the lack of quality primary data. And some sustainability consultants and academics over the past 5 to 15 years have sought to perpetuate this thinking for one overwhelming reason – it helps maintain the mystery and magic of lifecycle measurement that keeps the customers calling and the revenue flowing. (It needs to be said, that not all consultancies or academics are so single-minded and many are seeking more practical and affordable ways of doing lifecycle analysis by using tools like Carbonostics).
Primary data – data that is measured and gathered in-person and on-site – is often considered the holy grail of good quality lifecycle data. The argument is easy to understand - how can a company truly know their environmental footprint if they don’t measure the impacts of every material and process in their lifecycle? However, the accuracy of primary data is a closely guarded myth that some consultancies and academics have conspired to prolong. And, like all good myths, this one is born out of - and fed by – fear. In this case fear of saying something not quite accurate that could damage your company or brand reputation. Unfortunately, companies have inadvertently perpetuated the myth by handing over their business to these experts in exchange for dozens of impressive-looking spreadsheets with hidden formulae and pages of data in teeny tiny fonts that are very intimidating and can be fiercely defended by empirical evidence - just in case anyone ever asks.
The truth, however, is much easier to understand and much less costly. The majority of lifecycle analyses and carbon footprints being measured and published contain a large amount of secondary data – i.e. data that has been derived from averages, statistical projections, and spot-checked primary sources. For example – if one of your raw materials is delivered on a train from Germany, do you need to go to find that train and measure its environmental impacts or can you use data published about the average impacts of trains in Western Europe (or specifically Germany if that data is available). And consider, for example, the water footprint of a wheat field. Is it more accurate to measure the rainfall and irrigation needs of the wheat grown at the top of the hill or the bottom of the hill? Or, is it more accurate to take an industry average of wheat production in that region/climate/agricultural type.
All consultants and academics in the LCA field know that secondary data is relatively abundant and can be of very high quality. Additionally, a few of the larger established lifecycle consultancies and universities have done enough primary data gathering (getting their unsuspecting clients to pay for their time and effort) to develop proprietary databases of their own so that they can now combine with other private and public data sources to derive solid data models that can be applied to new lifecycle measurement studies. And as many will tell you, realistically less than 10% of data needs to be gathered firsthand to calculate accurate and defendable environmental impact measurements if the goal is to publish the data. (If the goal is for internal business knowledge and resource allocation decisions, primary data becomes even less relevant).
And let’s not forget, that there is no doubt that the biggest benefit of doing lifecycle analysis for any company is not in the PR of publishing a number on a product label or in a press release – it is much more often the big ah-ha moments that occur when examining the entire lifecycle of a product, process or business. Why are we buying and storing so much of this raw material? Because of the deal worked out 5 years ago when commodity prices were a lot lower? Why are we spending so much time and resources trying to reinvent the nature of plastic? Because we’ve been assuming that packaging is our biggest environmental impact. It is the inherent examination of the lifecycle that often yields the most illuminating results – and cost and waste savings too. Remember, more often than not, lifecycle analysis is a revenue-generating activity!
So, let’s bust the myth and confidently espouse the value and accuracy of peer-reviewed and audited secondary data in our lifecycle analyses. Let’s demystify the process of lifecycle measurement by choosing methods and tools that are transparent, intuitive, and flexible. Let’s boldly embrace practical and affordable lifecycle analysis as a smart business practice. And let’s require all our consultants and tool providers to meet these standards and not act as if lifecycle measurement is simply magic.
Onward and Upward!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Seeking Experienced Sales Executive
Carbonostics has been up and running now for almost 18 months. It's been an incredible experience and we've evolved so quickly that our heads are spinning. We've built a strong network of supporters and clients and have established our credibility as a pioneering leader in the sustainability metrics field.
Now we are ready to grow even further. We are seeking an experienced sales professional, passionate about sustainable business and eager to hitch his or her wagon to ours. We need a collaborator, a self-starter, someone with the passion, energy, and leadership to help us get to the next exciting level of our growth.
If this describes you, or you know someone who fits this description, please contact me.
Now we are ready to grow even further. We are seeking an experienced sales professional, passionate about sustainable business and eager to hitch his or her wagon to ours. We need a collaborator, a self-starter, someone with the passion, energy, and leadership to help us get to the next exciting level of our growth.
If this describes you, or you know someone who fits this description, please contact me.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The View from the USA
I've been in the US for a week now, in an area of the country that I would consider earth-friendly, left-leaning and eco-aware, and yet I see very little of the grass roots mobilization towards more sustainable living that I would expect. And while it's true that out here there are already a larger than normal percentage of people who are already mobilized and living a more sustainable lifestyle than most, the rest of the populous seem to still be miles behind. And while it's also true that there are quite a few Priuses on the road, and Target now gives you 5cents back for every reusable bag you bring in and use, they still sell hotdogs and icees in their snack bar with very few healthy options (organic, fairtrade) even for the kids.
Compared to the loud and abundant messaging you see in the UK, and the quietly insistent legislative approach you see in France, the US feels decidedly behind the curve. And while I sort of knew this before I came, it's quite startling to see the lack of action here, especially considering the contrast with the UK and France where I was just a few short weeks ago.
There is consensus that in a year or two the US market will have caught up to Europe. And I have no doubt that this is true. The level of interest in carbon footprinting, lifecycle assessment, and sustainability measurement overall coming from the US, especially the giant food manufacturers, is picking up considerably and we're excited about the opportunities for real and measurable changes in US food manufacturing. However, it's a big country and there's a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to convince before that level is reached. And politically there are many other pressing issues at stake here that could easily delay and derail these activities. Let's hope things stay on track.
Compared to the loud and abundant messaging you see in the UK, and the quietly insistent legislative approach you see in France, the US feels decidedly behind the curve. And while I sort of knew this before I came, it's quite startling to see the lack of action here, especially considering the contrast with the UK and France where I was just a few short weeks ago.
There is consensus that in a year or two the US market will have caught up to Europe. And I have no doubt that this is true. The level of interest in carbon footprinting, lifecycle assessment, and sustainability measurement overall coming from the US, especially the giant food manufacturers, is picking up considerably and we're excited about the opportunities for real and measurable changes in US food manufacturing. However, it's a big country and there's a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to convince before that level is reached. And politically there are many other pressing issues at stake here that could easily delay and derail these activities. Let's hope things stay on track.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Our Sharp New Look
Welcome to the sharp, new Carbonostics universe.
Carbonostics remains the innovative and practical lifecycle management tool that has become the standard in the food industry, we've just given it a fresh new look!
The website http://www.carbonostics.com/ has been repackaged to provide more information on how to put Carbonostics to work for your company and its brands, to connect you with pertinent industry resources, and to keep you updated on evolving sustainability issues.
Don't forget to check out our new movie at the Discover the Tool link.
Enjoy
-Sara
Carbonostics remains the innovative and practical lifecycle management tool that has become the standard in the food industry, we've just given it a fresh new look!
The website http://www.carbonostics.com/ has been repackaged to provide more information on how to put Carbonostics to work for your company and its brands, to connect you with pertinent industry resources, and to keep you updated on evolving sustainability issues.
Don't forget to check out our new movie at the Discover the Tool link.
Enjoy
-Sara
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Thrill of the Chase
Welcome to the new Carbonostics look. It's new, it's modern, it's sexy, and it's all ours. It took a lot of people a lot of hours to make this happen and I just want to say thank you to all!
It feels like we're on a racetrack, sometimes chasing our tails, but more often chasing the latest standards, debate, and trends in sustainable measurement.
And at the same time, people are chasing us, to find out what we are delivering, how we are pioneering new solutions, what we think about the latest standards and debate, and whether we can provide value for their business.
More often than not, the answer is a resounding YES, and we are happy to say that we are once again breaking another mould by launching this new, slicker, more sophisticated and guided website to help our clients and visitors navigate the weath of information they need to know to make sustainable measurement a reality in their business.
So, enjoy! And don't hesitate to let me know what you think!
-Sara
It feels like we're on a racetrack, sometimes chasing our tails, but more often chasing the latest standards, debate, and trends in sustainable measurement.
And at the same time, people are chasing us, to find out what we are delivering, how we are pioneering new solutions, what we think about the latest standards and debate, and whether we can provide value for their business.
More often than not, the answer is a resounding YES, and we are happy to say that we are once again breaking another mould by launching this new, slicker, more sophisticated and guided website to help our clients and visitors navigate the weath of information they need to know to make sustainable measurement a reality in their business.
So, enjoy! And don't hesitate to let me know what you think!
-Sara
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Road Ahead
The road ahead for Carbonostics is strewn with so many different opportunities that it often has my brain active with ideas, late into the night.
On one side we have a wide highway with several lanes, each representing a different industry that has expressed interest in a version of Carbonostics for their sector. On the other side, there's a narrower highway but with many more attractions along the way. This side represents a new tool, based on the Carbonostics model, that includes additional environmental impact measures such as water (use or quality), toxicity/pesticides, eutrophication, and more.
For us, the challenges are not complicated. If we take Carbonostics into other industry sectors, we need to build a relevant and comprehensive database for each sector. If we develop a multi-criteria tool, we need to take a wider view of the "science" of LCA, but still take into account the needs of different industry sectors as not all criteria are relevant for all.
While there is no shortage of opportunities here, the challenge is to decide which will provide us with the most stability and growth, which brings the most value to the market (and which market segments are we talking about here), and ultimately which will have the most impact on reducing negative environmental impacts.
So, the roads ahead are beckoning...your thoughts?
On one side we have a wide highway with several lanes, each representing a different industry that has expressed interest in a version of Carbonostics for their sector. On the other side, there's a narrower highway but with many more attractions along the way. This side represents a new tool, based on the Carbonostics model, that includes additional environmental impact measures such as water (use or quality), toxicity/pesticides, eutrophication, and more.
For us, the challenges are not complicated. If we take Carbonostics into other industry sectors, we need to build a relevant and comprehensive database for each sector. If we develop a multi-criteria tool, we need to take a wider view of the "science" of LCA, but still take into account the needs of different industry sectors as not all criteria are relevant for all.
While there is no shortage of opportunities here, the challenge is to decide which will provide us with the most stability and growth, which brings the most value to the market (and which market segments are we talking about here), and ultimately which will have the most impact on reducing negative environmental impacts.
So, the roads ahead are beckoning...your thoughts?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thoughts from Berlin
Having just returned for 2 days of interesting discussions with leaders in the LCA (lifecycle assessment) and PCF (product carbon footprint) debate (http://www.pcf-world-forum.org/summit/), I have a few general take-aways.
1) Although the "science" behind LCA and PCF is still very young and still being shaped, there are already some very entrenched philosophies in the academic practice of both that threaten to impede their widespread adoption into standard business practice.
2) PCF and LCA is practiced around the world, with leading countries like France, UK, and Japan having surprisingly diverse approaches and motivations.
3) Secondary data (ie: data which reflects averages, published studies, or derived data) is more commonly accepted than it seems, and even "full LCAs" which take months, sometimes years, to run often use it...AND, most surprising, secondary data is sometimes considered MORE reliable than primary data because it often reflects the average, and is not subjected to local or seasonal bias.
4) Measurement of other environmental indicators, beyond carbon, is still extremely tenous and subject to wildly different approaches and viewpoints. The next 12 months will determine which indicators will be commonly accepted for environmental labeling projects.
5) IT solutions are proliferating - although GaBi, SimaPro, SAP, and Carbonostics are the leaders in their sectors - and perform very different tasks.
For me, the debate is intense and exciting, but also frustrating and intimidating. I am deeply commited to finding affordable solutions that businesses can adopt into their daily practices, as I believe that this is the only realistic solution to climate change and environmental impacts. The debate about PCF and consumer behaviour, is a good angle, but I think somewhat of a distraction from the main task at hand (think early fairtrade movement to now). However, changing business practices will have a much more profound impact and we need practical, easy-to-use, understandable, and profitable solutions for businesses large and small.
For more comments and reactions, check out the statements recorded at the event: http://www.pcf-world-forum.org/statements/ (I'm lucky number 13, down from the top). Enjoy!
1) Although the "science" behind LCA and PCF is still very young and still being shaped, there are already some very entrenched philosophies in the academic practice of both that threaten to impede their widespread adoption into standard business practice.
2) PCF and LCA is practiced around the world, with leading countries like France, UK, and Japan having surprisingly diverse approaches and motivations.
3) Secondary data (ie: data which reflects averages, published studies, or derived data) is more commonly accepted than it seems, and even "full LCAs" which take months, sometimes years, to run often use it...AND, most surprising, secondary data is sometimes considered MORE reliable than primary data because it often reflects the average, and is not subjected to local or seasonal bias.
4) Measurement of other environmental indicators, beyond carbon, is still extremely tenous and subject to wildly different approaches and viewpoints. The next 12 months will determine which indicators will be commonly accepted for environmental labeling projects.
5) IT solutions are proliferating - although GaBi, SimaPro, SAP, and Carbonostics are the leaders in their sectors - and perform very different tasks.
For me, the debate is intense and exciting, but also frustrating and intimidating. I am deeply commited to finding affordable solutions that businesses can adopt into their daily practices, as I believe that this is the only realistic solution to climate change and environmental impacts. The debate about PCF and consumer behaviour, is a good angle, but I think somewhat of a distraction from the main task at hand (think early fairtrade movement to now). However, changing business practices will have a much more profound impact and we need practical, easy-to-use, understandable, and profitable solutions for businesses large and small.
For more comments and reactions, check out the statements recorded at the event: http://www.pcf-world-forum.org/statements/ (I'm lucky number 13, down from the top). Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Now, The Data.
We've just launched Carbonostics 2.0 and now we're looking to the months and years ahead. Truly, the possibilities are endless. It's almost overwhelming to consider the different possibilities that we could be facing by the end of 2010. From strict legislation requiring specific labels detailing environmental impact on every consumer good on the shelves (imagine...everything from shampoo to spaghetti sauce to kleenex to ice cream!) all the way down the scale to wouldn't-it-be-nice if you measured and labeled your products, please.
What's a small metrics company to do? We can't put all our eggs in one basket and prepare only for mandatory labeling (and what does that mean exactly anyway?), but at the same time, we can't ignore the very real possibility that even if mandatory labeling doesn't happen this year, it's likely to happen soon...in France, then Europe, then the UK, then other countries (Sweden & Japan have already got voluntary measures in place), then...wait for it...perhaps even the USA.
We've taken the position that lifecycle screening is the most practical and affordable way for companies to measure and reduce their environmental impact. In other words, while full lifecycle assessments are interesting for researchers and academics, they are not a practical solution to measure the impacts of the tens of thousands of consumer products lining our supermarket shelves. And while LCA researchers spend a lot of time and resources measuring the impact of every gram of ingredient, packaging, energy and more, is it really going to make a huge difference to the decisions you make if your product generates 4.125kg of CO2e vs 4.325kg? It seems to me that the most important things to know about those two numbers are that (1) your product generates between 4kg and 4.5kg of CO2e, (2) the first number took 9 months and cost €65,000 to come up with, and (3) the second number took 3 days and cost €1,000.
It's possible, even probable, that in the years ahead environmental impact data will become standardized to the same point that we now have with nutritional data. i.e. 1kg of tomatoes has pretty much the same nutritional content in every country's national nutritional database. But, until then, we have to offer data that is credible, verified, and reliable for companies to do their analyses with. If not...if we insist that every company does a full and complete LCA on every product, then this effort will fail miserably. If, on the other hand, we provide only 1 data point for every category of ingredients, we will also fail. It's unlikely, to even the most novice analyst, that 1kg of tomatoes grown in a greenhouse in Denmark has the same environmental impact as 1kg of tomatoes grown in the full sun in southern Spain.
Our answer is to find the best possible middle ground and do it in the best possible way. We find data that is credible, verified and reliable, that measures environmental impact for as many different variances of the material as possible (greenhouse tomatoes vs full-sun tomatoes vs organic tomatoes), and then we give users a choice of selecting the best fit for their recipe. In fact, we give them even more than that. We give them the option of choosing every different variance and seeing what changes in their overall environmental impact. Does using greenhouse tomatoes grown locally really benefit the environment, or should I use full-sun tomatoes that I have to ship in from Spain? How does one know unless one measures?
We've gathered the best available environmental impact data for food ingredients, packaging materials, transport, storage, energy, consumer use, and now disposal methods. And now we're going to look even more closely at each and every data point to decide whether, in the big picture, and compared to other data from other sources, it makes sense and is clearly documented. At the same time we're going to expand our data from just CO2e to additional environmental impact data - such as water quality, biodiversity, and eutrophication. The challenge to gather quality data will continue for a lot longer, and we know we are only as good as the secondary data we can load into Carbonostics...however, we're sure that this approach strikes the perfect balance between accurate gram-by-gram details, and affordable and practical measurement solutions that businesses can use to make decisions and reduce their environmental impact.
And we hope you agree. Email me with your ideas about environmental impact databases and solutions - I'd be very interested in hearing the different opinions and approaches that people are trying - sara.pax@bluehorseassociates.com .
Onward and upward.
What's a small metrics company to do? We can't put all our eggs in one basket and prepare only for mandatory labeling (and what does that mean exactly anyway?), but at the same time, we can't ignore the very real possibility that even if mandatory labeling doesn't happen this year, it's likely to happen soon...in France, then Europe, then the UK, then other countries (Sweden & Japan have already got voluntary measures in place), then...wait for it...perhaps even the USA.
We've taken the position that lifecycle screening is the most practical and affordable way for companies to measure and reduce their environmental impact. In other words, while full lifecycle assessments are interesting for researchers and academics, they are not a practical solution to measure the impacts of the tens of thousands of consumer products lining our supermarket shelves. And while LCA researchers spend a lot of time and resources measuring the impact of every gram of ingredient, packaging, energy and more, is it really going to make a huge difference to the decisions you make if your product generates 4.125kg of CO2e vs 4.325kg? It seems to me that the most important things to know about those two numbers are that (1) your product generates between 4kg and 4.5kg of CO2e, (2) the first number took 9 months and cost €65,000 to come up with, and (3) the second number took 3 days and cost €1,000.
It's possible, even probable, that in the years ahead environmental impact data will become standardized to the same point that we now have with nutritional data. i.e. 1kg of tomatoes has pretty much the same nutritional content in every country's national nutritional database. But, until then, we have to offer data that is credible, verified, and reliable for companies to do their analyses with. If not...if we insist that every company does a full and complete LCA on every product, then this effort will fail miserably. If, on the other hand, we provide only 1 data point for every category of ingredients, we will also fail. It's unlikely, to even the most novice analyst, that 1kg of tomatoes grown in a greenhouse in Denmark has the same environmental impact as 1kg of tomatoes grown in the full sun in southern Spain.
Our answer is to find the best possible middle ground and do it in the best possible way. We find data that is credible, verified and reliable, that measures environmental impact for as many different variances of the material as possible (greenhouse tomatoes vs full-sun tomatoes vs organic tomatoes), and then we give users a choice of selecting the best fit for their recipe. In fact, we give them even more than that. We give them the option of choosing every different variance and seeing what changes in their overall environmental impact. Does using greenhouse tomatoes grown locally really benefit the environment, or should I use full-sun tomatoes that I have to ship in from Spain? How does one know unless one measures?
We've gathered the best available environmental impact data for food ingredients, packaging materials, transport, storage, energy, consumer use, and now disposal methods. And now we're going to look even more closely at each and every data point to decide whether, in the big picture, and compared to other data from other sources, it makes sense and is clearly documented. At the same time we're going to expand our data from just CO2e to additional environmental impact data - such as water quality, biodiversity, and eutrophication. The challenge to gather quality data will continue for a lot longer, and we know we are only as good as the secondary data we can load into Carbonostics...however, we're sure that this approach strikes the perfect balance between accurate gram-by-gram details, and affordable and practical measurement solutions that businesses can use to make decisions and reduce their environmental impact.
And we hope you agree. Email me with your ideas about environmental impact databases and solutions - I'd be very interested in hearing the different opinions and approaches that people are trying - sara.pax@bluehorseassociates.com .
Onward and upward.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Carbonostics 2.0
Upgrades and additional features abound in this new version of Carbonostics. Not only is it smarter and more complete with a really sophisticated and innovative end-of-life module, it is friendlier and even easier to use.
Carbonostics now includes:
- End-of-life calculation
o Includes all food and packaging materials
o Disposal data allocated by material and region
- Consumer waste calculation
o Allocated by region
- Updated math model
o Aligned to French agency ADEME’s BPX30-323 standard in anticipation of the ecolabelling legislation
o Consistent with international standards: PAS2050, GHG Protocol and ISO
- Emissions from multiple layers of packaging
o Now contains secondary and tertiary packaging data in addition to primary packaging data
- Waste Reuse & Sequestration options
o Now includes options to offset waste and emissions with reuse and sequestration inputs
- New Supply Chain graph
o Data is grouped by supply chain step, as well as nutrition and raw material categories.
- Re-organized Baseline/Scenario detail screen
o More information
o User-friendly
You can see a sample analysis for a Ready-Meal Lasagna here: https://www.carbonostics.com//cena.aspx?demo=1&k=-2147477449.
Enjoy!
Carbonostics now includes:
- End-of-life calculation
o Includes all food and packaging materials
o Disposal data allocated by material and region
- Consumer waste calculation
o Allocated by region
- Updated math model
o Aligned to French agency ADEME’s BPX30-323 standard in anticipation of the ecolabelling legislation
o Consistent with international standards: PAS2050, GHG Protocol and ISO
- Emissions from multiple layers of packaging
o Now contains secondary and tertiary packaging data in addition to primary packaging data
- Waste Reuse & Sequestration options
o Now includes options to offset waste and emissions with reuse and sequestration inputs
- New Supply Chain graph
o Data is grouped by supply chain step, as well as nutrition and raw material categories.
- Re-organized Baseline/Scenario detail screen
o More information
o User-friendly
You can see a sample analysis for a Ready-Meal Lasagna here: https://www.carbonostics.com//cena.aspx?demo=1&k=-2147477449.
Enjoy!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Getting on the predictions bandwagon
It's hard to resist. 2010 is set to be such a pivotal year for so many of us with a passionate stake in sustainable business. And of course, there are so many other things that could derail our momentum and prove us all wrong in 2010.
But here goes...I'm going to take the plunge and make a wild prediction!
In 2010 sustainability metrics will become more mainstream, with companies large and small adopting sustainability measurement activities as part of their day-to-day, and large software companies releasing measurement tools of their own. And normal operations will include sustainability metrics as a natural part of the company's reporting cycle.
What does that mean really? Well, it means that companies are going to get a very eye-opening series of reports (in whatever tool or format they choose to go with) that will measure, derive, or estimate their environmental impact across their supply chain. Discussions about methane-production in cows will go mainstream and derail talk of food miles and perhaps even convert some locavores (not that there's anything wrong with that!). CEOs who thought they'd be out there financing the reinvention of plastic, will in fact be financing the reinvention of healthy feed for industrial farms. And researchers around the world will rejoice that resources are being used efficiently to develop real solutions to wasteful and inefficient food chains.
And on that note...with that lovely vision dancing in my head...back to work (testing Carbonostics v2.0, scheduled for release on 1 Feb 2010. Just in the nick of time!)
But here goes...I'm going to take the plunge and make a wild prediction!
In 2010 sustainability metrics will become more mainstream, with companies large and small adopting sustainability measurement activities as part of their day-to-day, and large software companies releasing measurement tools of their own. And normal operations will include sustainability metrics as a natural part of the company's reporting cycle.
What does that mean really? Well, it means that companies are going to get a very eye-opening series of reports (in whatever tool or format they choose to go with) that will measure, derive, or estimate their environmental impact across their supply chain. Discussions about methane-production in cows will go mainstream and derail talk of food miles and perhaps even convert some locavores (not that there's anything wrong with that!). CEOs who thought they'd be out there financing the reinvention of plastic, will in fact be financing the reinvention of healthy feed for industrial farms. And researchers around the world will rejoice that resources are being used efficiently to develop real solutions to wasteful and inefficient food chains.
And on that note...with that lovely vision dancing in my head...back to work (testing Carbonostics v2.0, scheduled for release on 1 Feb 2010. Just in the nick of time!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
