Tag <span class=LCA" src="/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cropped-office-building-secondary-1.jpg">

Tag LCA

Sustainability Consulting Round-Up: Best of the Blog for January 2017

The SSC Team January 31, 2017 Tags: , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Each month, we highlight some of our more popular content on the SSC blog!

In case you missed them, here's a round-up of our most popular blog posts from this past month. These are the articles that received the most attention from our online audience. Check them out!

  1. Incorporating 30 Elements of Consumer Value to Maximize Sustainability Returns
  2.  Integrate Total Cost of Ownership with Your LCA to Make Sustainable Choices
  3.  3 Ways to Engage Suppliers on Sustainability
  4.  Is Your Sustainability Strategy Too Complicated?
  5.  Future of the FSC: What Happens When Manufacturers Reject Certifications

 If you like an article, please consider sharing it online via your favorite social media platform. Helping us grow our audience is the #1 way you can show your support for the work that we do.

Sustainability Progress Check: Manufacturing Firms in the Architecture and Engineering Industry – Sustainability Lessons from ArchitectureBoston Expo (ABX)

The SSC Team January 5, 2017 Tags: , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

In November, we headed out to ArchitectureBoston Expo (ABX) to get the pulse on sustainability from the perspective of architects, engineers, builders, contractors, manufacturers, and other AEC professionals. We spoke to dozens of representatives from the more than 400 exhibitors about sustainability programs, sustainability strategy, and what they think of it all.

Our conversations resulted in two really great questions:

Additionally, we took extra time and conducted a survey specifically targeted at companies that manufacture products (as opposed to service providers and distributors) used in the AEC field to delve deeper into what types of companies are doing what types of sustainability programs and why.

We gathered survey results from 30 manufacturers ranging in size from 1-10 employees to 550+ employees to gauge their sustainability performance and pressure from stakeholders. Exactly ⅓ of the respondents are doing little to no work in sustainability - not tracking any metrics other than those required by law and, in most cases, offering LEED credits. On the flip side, ⅓ have completed full sustainability reports and many had done EPDs, HPDs, and/or LCAs or carbon footprints for their core business. The remaining ⅓ was - obviously - somewhere in the middle, having a largely uncoordinated sustainability program that has been pieced together based on stakeholder pressure - certifications, submitting energy or water or supply chain data based on customer requests.

Essentially, the industry seemed evenly split with regard to tracking sustainability information, but as predicted, the companies with the most employees and most visible global brands are doing the most work and completing more comprehensive analysis - and seeing financial returns on their sustainability efforts. The larger the company, the more resources to dedicate to sustainability, the more they benefit.

However, companies across the board reported that they were feeling pressure from stakeholders - whether architects or builders or developers - to report more thoroughly on sustainability. More than 42 percent of respondents said they have been asked for carbon footprint data, LCA, and/or HPDs/EPDs in the past year. Nearly 30 percent of respondents have been asked for specific data points - water use, supply chain certifications, energy use, and/or waste information. An additional 7 percent have been asked by shareholders or clients for a full sustainability report.

Although stakeholders are asking for information, very few draw hard lines when the information isn’t readily available, with companies noting that the frequency of being asked for the information is increasing, but they have yet to feel a negative effect for not having the information on hand.

The question is: When will the critical tipping point be reached when an LCA or EPD or HPD be required as a standard part of an RFP for a major construction project, and will the ⅔ of companies with little to no comprehensive data be ready in time to be competitive on the project?

The average GRI-compliant sustainability report, an HPD or EPD, or a comprehensive, third-party verified life-cycle assessment can take more than six months to complete, start to finish. And the investment in a sustainability project for a small to medium sized manufacturing firm can range from tens of thousands of dollars to 10-times that amount...

So what should your company do? 

We believe it’s time for companies to build a sustainability reporting strategy into the overall operating budget so all of the reporting mechanisms and comprehensive data are on-hand when that critical tipping point is reached.

The next questions are:

  • What type of reporting should your business be focused on?
  • What should you budget for sustainability?
  • How do you use the sustainability tools to your competitive advantage?

Luckily, with more than 10 years’ experience in the field, we can answer all of these questions for you in less than it cost to attend ABX in the first place.

We encourage all of our potential clients to invest in training for their employees so they understand the advantages of strategic sustainability implementation, the material issues for the industry segment you compete in, what your peers are doing, and how you can take a leadership role in sustainability through effective planning.

Instead of engaging us for a year-long life-cycle assessment project, when you really just need an EPD or to start your first annual sustainability report, take advantage of our 1-Day Sustainability Assessment and Rapid-Decision Making Workshop. For a fraction of the cost of your sustainability program, we will guide you and your team through

  • Sustainability 101
  • Give you our recommendations for the best-course for your company
  • Facilitate a rapid-decision making discussion to further narrow down a path forward that meets your company's needs, budget, resources, and goals. 

We'd love to hear from you! Check out our full service offerings and submit a contact form and we'll be happy to schedule a 15-minute phone call to help you clarify next steps on your sustainability journey.

 

 

Coordinating Across the Global Supply Chain is the Only Way to Truly Reduce Emissions

The SSC Team September 20, 2016 Tags: , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

If you look at the Sustainability Consortium’s Greening Global Supply Chains 2016 Impact Report one way, the current state of reducing environmental impact from global industry appears terrible, at best. 

The 2016 impact report includes some essential graphic depictions of the state of supply chain emissions in 12 consumer industries, and if you flip straight to page 26, you might feel discouraged to see all of the red and yellow hues.

Glancing at some of the statistics – more than 60% of emissions are related to consumer goods, with the demand for consumer goods expected to increase by 2.5 billion people in the next few decades, and emerging economies still relying on forced and child labor to compete in the global marketplace –things look dire. 

But, if you really dig deeper into this fairly remarkable effort at comprehensively assessing global industry, there is hope.

With such a clear and direct look at exactly what is happening along each supply chain, no industry can hide behind a lack of data or claim that their own impact is insignificant.

Shining a harsh light on the true state of environmental and social responsibility progress, it becomes clear that every step along the supply chain is important, and every small move to reduce impact will add up.

Suppliers, manufacturers, and retailers, and consumers must work together move the bar – and this report demonstrates that everyone has a role and everyone should start to move their own piece.

The Sustainability Consortium recommends that suppliers offer a universal reporting tool to deliver to all customers. Both the purchasing party asking for a top-down report, and the supplier itself delivering a bottom up report, should work together as a team for the ultimate goals of reducing environmental and social impact and delivering sustainable goods.

Companies today being pushed to report on sustainability metrics and make meaningful change because of stakeholder demand should accept this as the new normal. And it’s always better to take control of the process rather than be pushed around. Suppliers and small manufacturers need to get in the driver’s seat and do their part to contribute to a sustainable supply chain instead of resist the change.

Are you a manufacturer or supplier contributing to the supply chain of the consumer goods industry and ready to jump out ahead on sustainability? Contact us for an assessment on how we can put together your sustainability report, keeping your organization ahead of the pack. 

EPA and Waste Management Webinar Recap: Putting a Price Tag On Emissions Reduction

The SSC Team August 16, 2016 Tags: , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Last Tuesday, GreenBiz hosted the first in a two part webinar series on the emissions impact of recycling and Sustainable Materials Management (SMM).

SMM can be generally described as active management of a product’s life cycle to reach sustainability aims.

The webinar began with an overview of the EPA’s work on SMM/LCA advocacy. Essentially, the EPA sees its role as advancing LCA and SMM as integral business practices. Because LCA and supply-chain work is so crucial to truly moving the bar on reducing emissions, it’s heartening to know that the EPA has made this a priority in their policy, oversight, and research work.

From lifecycle to the trash

After the EPA presentation, the talk shifted from life-cycle studies directly to the end of the life cycle and the work of Waste Management, the American comprehensive waste and environmental services company. Waste Management has undertaken a massive effort calculate the actual dollar cost of reducing emissions waste by method of disposal.

As a side note, the presenters did not do a great job of clearly making this transition from LCA work to emissions reduction cost calculating. But, it seems that the overall point was two-fold:

1.     Most organizations look at their carbon footprint – which is business operations – and what comes up most commonly is that the largest emissions source for most businesses is energy use. So, companies focus on energy reductions initiatives, essentially passing their product emissions - natural resources, product use, and product disposal –  onto suppliers and consumers. This needs to stop. More organization need to look up and down a product’s life cycle to really engineer, source and plan in ways that reduce the overall impact of the entire product to move the bar on sustainability.

2.     As organizations begin to engineer products with a focus on SMM, it would be helpful to know the GHG emissions resulting in end of life (i.e. GHG emissions of landfilling versus single-stream recycling) and the cost in real dollars of each of the processing methods. That’s where Waste Management stepped in.

Waste Management’s work calculating the price of reducing GHGs in the waste management industry delivers a cost per ton of GHG emissions through various waste processing techniques. (The most reduction for the lowest cost goes to – residential and commercial single-stream recycling!)

The Waste Management process, prioritization, and graphical representation on how they calculated cost/benefit is pretty fantastic. Definitely consider downloading the slides.

But questions remain.

How can organizations and policymakers work to reduce the cost of the other types of GHG emissions reduction technologies (e.g. anaerobic digesters)? Is there talk about subsidizing them? How can businesses be incentivized to use materials that can be sent into the low-emissions/low-cost single-stream recycling category and/or eliminate materials that can’t? Is there talk about banning certain materials? Are there waste processing technologies that need research funding that provide low-cost emissions reduction?  

Calculating cost and cost benefit is important from an engineering standpoint, but only if your organization is somehow incentivized or driven to engineer with the life cycle in mind. Without pressure – regulatory or otherwise- companies are still largely driven by the biggest incentive of all: producing products for the lowest actual cost and passing any environmental costs onto the planet, via the consumer.

Listen to the recap here, and log in today at 1pm Eastern for the second webcast, Setting Goals: Have We Reached the Limits of Recycling?, where presenters look at SMM through waste reduction efforts and give guidance on how to set effective waste reduction and recycling goals.

Are you ready to take a more advanced approach to understanding and reducing impact through a product life-cycle assessment? Check out our LCA overview information and contact us for a brief discussion of the benefits and challenges. 

 

Welcoming the New ASTM Standards for Manufacturing Processes

The SSC Team July 5, 2016 Tags: , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

At SSC, we have been calculating environmental impact in manufacturing processes using process flow diagramming for years. When conducting life-cycle assessments, process-flow diagramming provides a visual and a data-based representation of every input and output in a manufacturing process to achieve the most accurate results. 

But mapping manufacturing processes becomes difficult because of the wide variety of technologies, inputs, outflows, variations inside of a single facility or lack of information from upstream or downstream. Additionally, the standards and software tools used to calculate processes can vary in their accuracy and be limited in their flexibility, unable to adapt to a wide variety of industries.

Complexity is par for the course when determining environmental impact of a manufacturing process.

The newly released ASTM International standard for calculating the environmental aspects of manufacturing processes (ASTM E3012-16), developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), promises to be a step forward in guiding sustainability professionals through a systematic and more comprehensive, yet flexible, way to calculate environmental impacts based on a graphical process-flow modeling.

NIST systems engineer Kevin Lyons, who chaired the ASTM committee that developed the manufacturing sustainability standard, describes it as similar as tracking financials. “You have to gather income and expenditure data, run the numbers and then use the results to make smart process changes — savings, cutbacks, streamlining, etc. — that will optimize your monthly budget,” he said. “We designed ASTM E3012-16 to let manufacturers virtually characterize their production processes as computer models, and then, using a standardized method, “plug and play” the environmental data for each process step to visualize impacts and identify areas for improving overall sustainability of the system.”

The updated database will help standardize terminology and structure of mapping and reporting manufacturing process impact, reducing complexity in mapping manufacturing processes, and thereby helping companies fully and accurately understand environmental impacts and work toward reducing them.

Are you ready to begin your product life-cycle assessment? Contact us for a quick briefing on whether your company would benefit most from a highly detailed analysis to broad-strokes, baseline assessment. Understanding your impact may not be as big of an investment as you might think.

 

 

 

Welcoming the New ASTM Standards for Manufacturing Processes

The SSC Team July 5, 2016 Tags: , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

At SSC, we have been calculating environmental impact in manufacturing processes using process flow diagramming for years. When conducting life-cycle assessments, process-flow diagramming provides a visual and a data-based representation of every input and output in a manufacturing process to achieve the most accurate results. 

But mapping manufacturing processes becomes difficult because of the wide variety of technologies, inputs, outflows, variations inside of a single facility or lack of information from upstream or downstream. Additionally, the standards and software tools used to calculate processes can vary in their accuracy and be limited in their flexibility, unable to adapt to a wide variety of industries.

Complexity is par for the course when determining environmental impact of a manufacturing process.

The newly released ASTM International standard for calculating the environmental aspects of manufacturing processes (ASTM E3012-16), developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), promises to be a step forward in guiding sustainability professionals through a systematic and more comprehensive, yet flexible, way to calculate environmental impacts based on a graphical process-flow modeling.

NIST systems engineer Kevin Lyons, who chaired the ASTM committee that developed the manufacturing sustainability standard, describes it as similar as tracking financials. “You have to gather income and expenditure data, run the numbers and then use the results to make smart process changes — savings, cutbacks, streamlining, etc. — that will optimize your monthly budget,” he said. “We designed ASTM E3012-16 to let manufacturers virtually characterize their production processes as computer models, and then, using a standardized method, “plug and play” the environmental data for each process step to visualize impacts and identify areas for improving overall sustainability of the system.”

The updated database will help standardize terminology and structure of mapping and reporting manufacturing process impact, reducing complexity in mapping manufacturing processes, and thereby helping companies fully and accurately understand environmental impacts and work toward reducing them.

Are you ready to begin your product life-cycle assessment? Contact us for a quick briefing on whether your company would benefit most from a highly detailed analysis to broad-strokes, baseline assessment. Understanding your impact may not be as big of an investment as you might think.

 

 

 

White Paper Profile: Shifting the Focus from End-of-Life Recycling to Continuous Product Lifecycles

The SSC Team June 21, 2016 Tags: , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Just because a product is recyclable, doesn't mean it is going to be recycled by the end user, nor does it mean that the organization can write off any responsibility of the management of products at their end-of-life. 

End-of-life issues present an important challenge to organizations, from facilitation of recycling and measuring effectiveness of recycling programs, to shifting to continuous use models. 

"Recycling should not be looked at in a vacuum but as part of a larger system where costs and the release of greenhouse gases and toxics, among others, inhabit."

Learn more about the challenges of product lifecycle management at product end-of-life in this white paper by Call2Recycle.

Life cycle assessments are an important way to view the full impact of your product's sourcing, production, distribution, and disposal, often leading to the discovery of hidden opportunities to reduce waste or mitigate risk as a result the process. Contact us to get started on your LCA. 

 

White Paper Profile: Shifting the Focus from End-of-Life Recycling to Continuous Product Lifecycles

The SSC Team June 21, 2016 Tags: , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Just because a product is recyclable, doesn't mean it is going to be recycled by the end user, nor does it mean that the organization can write off any responsibility of the management of products at their end-of-life. 

End-of-life issues present an important challenge to organizations, from facilitation of recycling and measuring effectiveness of recycling programs, to shifting to continuous use models. 

"Recycling should not be looked at in a vacuum but as part of a larger system where costs and the release of greenhouse gases and toxics, among others, inhabit."

Learn more about the challenges of product lifecycle management at product end-of-life in this white paper by Call2Recycle.

Life cycle assessments are an important way to view the full impact of your product's sourcing, production, distribution, and disposal, often leading to the discovery of hidden opportunities to reduce waste or mitigate risk as a result the process. Contact us to get started on your LCA. 

 

SSC Releases Latest Case Study on Life Cycle Assessment for a Global Electronics Manufacturer

The SSC Team March 8, 2016 Tags: , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

SSC is working with Cabot Microelectronics, a top producer of a chemical slurry formulation and mechanical polishing process used to smooth silicon wafers to near-perfection, to gather data to complete the company's first product life-cycle assessment analysis. 

The reporting requirements for component manufacturers in the electronics industry continue to become more detailed as electronics companies demand environmental data from their suppliers to meet consumer demand for transparency and sustainability.

But many manufacturers do not have the in-house expertise to gather data used in carbon footprints, product life-cycle assessments, or even supplier scorecard checklists.

Read our latest case study to see how the SSC team was able to help the client with its baseline life-cycle assessment, help them fully understand the product’s environmental impact, and prepare them for success in reporting accurate, transparent data to their customers.

Contact us to talk about taking the first step toward navigating your industry-specific reporting requirements. 

 

SSC Releases Latest Case Study on Health Product Declarations for a Global Commercial Interiors Manufacturer

The SSC Team February 2, 2016 Tags: , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

SSC is working with Stonhard/Liquid Elements, a global leader in the manufacturing and installation of commercial interior floor, wall and lining systems, to gather data to complete the company's Health Products Declaration (HPD). 

The reporting requirements for manufacturers in the building industry continue to demand more detailed information, as architects, engineers, and builders continue to design structures to meet the high standards of green design and gain LEED, USGBC, and other certifications. 

But many manufacturers do not have the in-house expertise to gather data used in HPD and/or EPD reports, use the industry tools required to submit and report data, and also ensure their proprietary information is protected.

Read our latest case study to see how the SSC team was able to help the client with its HPD and help them navigate the path toward accurate, secure and transparent product reporting. 

Contact us to talk about taking the first step toward navigating your industry-specific reporting requirements.