Carbonostics

Signing Off

2011-12-12T15:40:00.000+01:00

Thank you to my loyal fans and followers. I've decided to discontinue this blog since we're contributing to so many other communication channels it just seems redundant and overly repetitive. To keep up with me and my writing, please search for me on the Environmental Leader website (www.environmentalleader.com). You can also follow us on Twitter @Carbonostics. If you'd like to reach me directly, my email is sara.pax@bluehorseassociates.com.

Thank you for reading and supporting.

The Future is Bright

2011-07-25T14:28:00.000+02:00

I cannot help but be optimistic - despite being bombarded with tons of evidence to the contrary. Last week's article in Time Magazine about how food demand is outstripping supply for the first time ever, and how food production is already extremely stressed by the effects of climate change, and how solutions like GMO are going to save food supplies, could be construed as the most depressing and negative of outlooks. And yet, I still feel optimistic.

A number of long-shot things must align in order for my optimistic predictions to come true --

(1) There must be an acknowledgement by politicians - especially American politicians - that climate change is real and is already effecting food production. And therefore climate change must be built into the forecasts and needs of food production.

(2) Farm subsidies must be re-aligned. Ironically, because of rising demand and tightening supply, some farmers are members of the one economic sector that is making money. Lots of money. But is it the right kind of money? Local, organic producers are still struggling. Small holders and substitence farming are still rare and economically difficult. Farm subsidies for large producers - especially of crops like corn and soy - must be capped (and by the way, so must oil subsidies). Why should the public support farmers (or oil companies) when their profits are supporting them very nicely, thank you very much!

(3) Food prices must be realigned with real value and real costs. This one is a biggie, I know. Why is it that local, organic food prices are so much higher than the big supermarkets charge. I understand about economies of scale, but they really go too far. Supermarket profit margins are so ridiculously tight anyway that only the largest and most powerful of producers and marketers can get on the shelves of the big chains. And this has to change. A consumer must experience some tough love in order for this point to be realized and help realign food production and distribution. No one wants to do this - not the manufacturers, not the retailers, and certainly not the politicians, but it's going to have to come sooner or later. There are signs of this already taking effect in the Chocolate industry. The amount of "gourmet" chocolate now on the market and competing (at much higher prices) with the mainstream products, belies the fact that cocoa production is currently one of the first industries that is having to face reality. Social and environmental factors are conspiring to force demand for cocoa to greatly outstrip supply, and there is no let up in sight. Consumers are going to have to face the harsh reality that what they're currently paying for food is not the real cost of food, and that they're going to have to change their purchasing habits to accomodate the new reality. The upside of this is that as the value of food increases in the eye of the consumer, food waste will likely go down significantly and social problems such as obesity could very well be positively affected too.

(4) Food companies are going to have to 'fess up. They're going to have to change their working relationships with their suppliers and eventually stop all the s**t from rolling downhill. This is also going to be painful, but actually some companies have started to take baby steps in this direction. There are decades of animosity and piles of s**t to overcome, but economic realities have necessitated some companies to start building bridges and collaborations that have a lot of longterm potential to help the situation.

(5) Global infrastructure is going to have to become a priority if food is to get to every corner of the world where it is needed. Today, the western world wastes tons and tons of food, during production, during transport, in the home, and at restaurants. Alone, that waste could feed hundreds of thousands in areas where food shortages are become more extreme. By forcing the value of food higher in the western world, consumption and waste will naturally decrease, thereby leaving more to be distributed elsewhere. Ironically, the manufacturers and retailers could do very well out of this. If they think ahead, build their global distribution infrastructure correctly, anticipate long term need in non-traditional markets, they could do very well indeed.

It will take a little vision, and a lot of optimism, but it is all possible. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but I'm hopeful that in my daughter's lifetime, food will have a very different place on the table.

What does Corporate Responsibility really mean? And why?

2011-05-24T17:07:00.001+02:00

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/05/23/what-does-corporate-responsibility-really-mean/

What's in a Title

2011-05-15T09:55:00.003+02:00

After dropping my daughter off at school the other morning, I got on my regular bus to come to the office. As it happened, another mum was on the bus too and we started talking about the normal things – kids, school activities, the weather, holidays, etc. Then she asked me what I did. I spewed out my usual 30-second pitch and she raised her eyebrows and said "Oh then, you must be really busy".

I smiled and took a couple of seconds to frame my response. My answer came out like this - "Well, yes, we are really busy talking to lots of companies and there is a lot of interest in the industry. However, there is also a lot of internal debate about which areas of the business are going to actually commit the resources to do the work and therefore it can be a little frustrating."

As I reflect on the way this came out of my mouth, I realize that this is where the next level of evolution in LCA is going to come from. The scientific work has been done (more or less - there are still standards to publish and studies to read, but most everyone is roughly on the same page), the tools have been created (at last count, we came up with half a dozen products that are now firmly in the business of producing LCAs), and the value has been proven (read any CSR report or Environmental Leader article to see the latest anecdote).

However, there is still an uncertainty - and perhaps even a real reluctance to decide - who should be responsible for measuring and reducing environmental impact. We speak to directors of Risk & Compliance, EHS, Marketing & Communications, Brands, Innovation, R&D, Environment, CEOs, COOs, and others, and there is no way to confidently predict who among these wieldy and impressive titles has the actual responsibility of running LCAs and reducing a company's environmental impact.

And it's ironic really, because there is really no doubt that measuring and reducing environmental impact saves money. Potentially, lots of money. And so shouldn't all these people be clamouring for the role of saving the company money. Maybe someday soon, but certainly not yet.

The Magic of Lifecycle Analysis

2011-04-12T20:00:00.001+02:00

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/04/12/lifecycle-analysis-moving-from-black-box-to-transparency/

EU and France - hand-in-hand?

2011-03-23T16:40:00.000+01:00

Disappointment in the slow-down in French momentum in environmental labeling was palpable last summer. The French legislature struck down attempts to force consumer goods companies to label all their products largely because the agencies in charge of deciding the tactical application of the mandate were so far behind their own milestones and deadlines. The process is so "democratic" that each meeting and each presentation often ends with a loud sigh with very little progress or resolutions being found.

The biggest obstacles are reliable data and an agreed-upon methodology. Should food companies be required to measure their water consumption, for example? Well, in principle it's a nice idea but in reality it's not easy to do and it's not even that reliable as a measure of environmental impact. Carbon is the easy one, or is it? And what about toxicity, eutrophication, land-use change, sequestration, and other more sophisticated and scientific measures that could have enormous impacts on how a product is measured.

Well, it turns out that the EU just couldn't wait any longer. The French are currently allowing 168 companies (or consortiums of companies) to "experiment" with measurement and labeling with very little guidance on how or what to measure. Meanwhile, the EU - who up until recently was saying that they were going to wait until France decided on a framework and then build on that - have decided to go ahead with their own experimentation. And while at first glance that might sound counterintuitive and even more confusing, in reading the EU's guidelines and stated goals, seems like it might actually result in a more concrete outcome that France's efforts in the same area.

The EU has restricted their project to only 10 participants. They also have stated their guidelines for measurement (the ILCD handbook and the JRC methodology), and whether we agree or not with their methodologies at least there is one to follow. Their results are due by the end of 2011 and even though France's project is due to be finished a few months earlier, my prediction is that the EU will actually lead France in the final accounting of this work, rather than the other way around.

LCA Practitioners Survey

2011-03-02T08:29:00.000+01:00

We've just completed a survey of LCA Practitioners worldwide. Here is a sampling of some of the most interesting results.

The largest majority of LCA practitioners are currently focused on process and product level LCA:

Surprisingly, not everyone is being asked to follow an LCA standard:

Among our survey participants, food & beverage and agriculture stand out as the leading industries among these LCA practitioners:

Carbon is still the only international standard and requirement for LCA measurement:

More than 1/3 of LCA Practitioners are still relying on Excel for their analyses:

Primary data gathering is still the biggest headache for LCA practitioners:

LCAs are being used for a wide range of needs, with R&D and innovation leading:

The Myth of Eco-labels

2011-02-04T18:34:00.000+01:00

The debate about consumer product labeling is full of very definite and passionate views about the value and reasons for and against labeling. The obstacles to labeling are not really up for debate – they are undisputedly complicated and challenging, but not insurmountable. In fact, there is little doubt that in 10 years labels describing some sort of lifecycle environmental impact of a chocolate bar, a mop, a bottle of shampoo, a pair of shoes, and all other consumer products will be as commonplace as nutritional labels are now. And just as ignored.

It is a very hard argument to make – that consumers care. Call me cynical, but can anyone really argue that labels influence a majority of consumer purchases. Statistically speaking, there are usually less than 10% of consumers – of which I am one – who are influenced by labels. Research shows that a typical customer spends 2-3 seconds looking at the labels. And, if labels really matter, how do you explain that McDonalds is still flourishing or that Fruit Loops regularly outsells All Bran. There is very little doubt that the only label that consumers consistently read and care about is the price label. And perhaps together with location on the store shelf, the newest sexy slogan, and the ability to appeal to kids, price is the bottom line influencer of most mainstream food purchasing decisions.

So, when the next conference on “sustainability communication” is announced, it’s important to understand that this is really the advertising and design industries trying to get in on the act. And be prepared for all the different labeling companies to be there in force talking about your brand’s green credentials and the consumer demand for labeling. Unfortunately, the research about changes in consumer behavior negates a lot of these arguments and make them ring consistently hollow.

Couple that with the fact that labeling requires very precise measurement which can be explained and defended (if challenged) and which is extremely expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming, the ROI of labeling gets smaller and smaller. And, the final nail in the coffin comes when you start to look at the all the label choices out there. There are dozens, if not tens of dozens of them out there clamoring for the consumer’s attention, your attention, your endorsement, and your money. Some from governments, some from NGOs, some more credible than others, some so obscure that they could may even prove to be of negative value.

So, which is best for your brand and your business? None of them.

This might be a surprising argument coming from a sustainability metrics advocate and someone who passionately believes in the value of lifecycle measurement. But if you follow the logic beyond what the designers and labeling companies are advocating, you’ll find that beyond the green credentials and PR ROI there is an incredibly valuable activity that is spurred by the ultimate goal of labeling.

Call it “beginner’s eyes” or “big picture” or even “lifecycle”. It is the activity of seeing the entire lifecycle of any product from a completely new point of view. One that illuminates waste and flaws in the process; one that inevitably leads to an examination of different business practices; and one that requires the cooperation and communication throughout each of the silos of the business - from logistics to operations to procurement to brand management to marketing to R&D and back.

I am a strong advocate of government mandates of labeling for consumer products, but not because labels have an influence on consumer behavior. Everywhere you turn you’ll find anecdotes about companies who, in the process of measuring their lifecycle (for whatever reason), discovered surprising and sometimes enormous cost and waste flaws in their operations. Wasted plastic in a standard operating procedure that was designed 8 years ago when that particular technology was first introduced. A location change that could revolutionize the way your raw materials are delivered and your final products are shipped. A new recipe that capitalizes on the success of the old recipe but reduces sodium, beef, and consumer energy use. So many opportunities to make small, often not expensive, adjustments to standard operating practices that ultimately have a lasting and positive effect on the environmental impacts of the business (not to mention profitability).

So, yeah! to countries who are instituting voluntary labeling (because it’s likely a precursor to mandatory labeling), and yeah! to retailers who are asking their suppliers to report on different aspects of their energy use and packaging materials, and yeah! to the consumers and consumer advocates who are pushing for labeling.

But let’s be clear – the real advantage to labeling is the not the label or the methodology or the metrics behind the label. The most tangible and sustainable value to the business of labeling products is the journey of discovery that must to be travelled from farm to fork, from cradle to grave, from R&D to procurement to logistics to operations to marketing to purchasing and then to consumption.

What about Waternostics?

2011-01-27T13:59:00.000+01:00

We have an ongoing debate at the office - when are we going to start capturing and analyzing other indicators in Carbonostics (or a sister tool) like biodiversity, toxicity, and most top-of-mind water. And not just in the office - we get calls from journalists, emails from prospects, and requests for conference presentations asking the same thing.

The short answer is that it's just too early to say. We could, very easily, just add an empty box for users to enter the water consumption in litres for each material in a recipe and just total it up for the report. But really, that's not the point of what we deliver with Carbonostics, and it defeats the purpose of being smarter than an Excel spreadsheet.

Carbonostics is smarter for two key reasons - (1) it contains a large reference database (the largest, as far as we can tell) of the carbon emissions over 1500 different ingredients, materials and processes that go into a food product's lifecycle; and (2) it has built-in intelligence so you don't have to be a fully-trained LCA specialist (or even come close to that) to analyze the lifecycle of your product.

But water works so differently. The carbon emissions from a cow who primarily eats commercial feed in the south of France is fairly similar to a cow who primarily eats commercial feed in Texas. However, the grains that go into that feed have vastly different water consumption depending on where they were grown - was it at the top of the hill or the bottom of the hill, was it a wet year or a dry year, was irrigation used, what was the source of the irrigation, etc etc etc.

So, while it's tempting to just put an empty box on the screen to capture their water consumption if they happen to know it, we're going to hold off until the international debate results in some measurable and repeatable consensus that we can build on to create practical and affordable solutions for all food companies.

Thank you for your patience.

2011: the year PLCA goes mainstream

2011-01-03T16:45:00.000+01:00

I hate predictions and am the first to admit that there's not much point in them. Either you end up with egg on your face because you predicted something that didn't even come close to being true. Or you hit on something (either by luck or by judgement) that does come true and you can rest on your laurels - at least for a short time.

However, it does seem to me that momentum in the product lifecycle measurement arena is picking up speed. Many companies have already tackled their energy footprint, their company wide carbon measurement, and some have even gone as far as installing carbon accounting software (which is springing up in every sector).

So it's not a very off-the-wall idea to think that these activities will continue in 2011 and the next logical step is product level lifecycle measurement. There are a variety of reasons for a company to go all the way to product level: 1) they have to report to their client or their government, (2) they want to communicate to the consumer (although frankly we should just call this what it really is - a PR effort), (3) they have or want to participate in academic research either for kudos or for a fuller understanding of their impacts, (4) they recognize that the cost benefits they've realized at the macro level will continue at the micro level - and it all adds up.

So, I'll meet you back here in January 2012 and we'll see if this predication had any legs. In the meantime, have a happy and healthy New Year and let's hope (for the planet's sake) that sustainability - as a business practice - continues to gain even more traction in the year ahead. Onward and upward!

The Myth of Primary Data

2010-11-04T18:22:00.001+01:00

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!

Seeking Experienced Sales Executive

2010-09-01T17:11:00.000+02:00

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.

The View from the USA

2010-07-14T19:50:00.000+02:00

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.

Our Sharp New Look

2010-06-28T09:53:00.002+02:00

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

The Thrill of the Chase

2010-05-22T19:00:00.000+02:00

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

The Road Ahead

2010-04-12T13:47:00.000+02:00

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?

Thoughts from Berlin

2010-03-22T07:16:00.000+01:00

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!

Now, The Data.

2010-02-10T09:56:00.000+01:00

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.

Carbonostics 2.0

2010-02-01T07:16:00.001+01:00

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!

Getting on the predictions bandwagon

2010-01-18T11:43:00.001+01:00

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!)

Guide to Global LCA Standards

2009-12-16T09:32:00.000+01:00

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

Ecolabeling Revisited

2009-12-07T10:32:00.000+01:00

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.

A Thousand Words

2009-11-11T09:32:00.000+01:00

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.

Welcome

2009-11-09T14:09:00.000+01:00

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!