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

Tag manufacturing

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. 

Food & Beverage Industry Demonstrates How “Business Success” Can’t be Achieved Without Sustainability

The SSC Team January 14, 2016 Tags: , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

The connections between increased revenue and investment in sustainability programs are complicated.

Even today, sustainability professionals continue to “make the business case” for sustainability.

It’s true that sustainability programs require an investment—in staff, in reporting, in communications, in change management—and the case for making smart investments for maximum results must continue to be made.

However, as we enter 2016, we should no longer need to make the case for sustainability itself.

Although directly linked financial benefits are sometimes difficult to identify, research suggests companies that fully integrate sustainability principles and practices into their strategic operations do outperform peers financially.

The counterargument is that these same companies are just more strategic overall, sustainability or not, so they will perform well simply because of a culture of innovation, risk mitigation, long-term planning, and thought-leadership.

Wrong.

The fact is, as we enter 2016, a company can’t even be considered a strong, strategic player without sustainability being one of its core principles. Sustainability has made it into the short list of core principles of true strategic leadership. In other words, you can’t have one without the other.

Case in Point: The Food & Beverage Industry

Pure Strategies, a sustainability consulting firm focused on the food and beverage industry, recently published results of a survey of major global food and beverage companies.

In the 2015 report, 18% more food and beverage companies, 100% of companies surveyed, are developing or implementing sustainability programs (from 82% in 2013), and 46% of the companies reported increased sales (up from 19% in 2013).

What the report tells us is:

  • More than ever before, food and beverage companies are implementing sustainability programs based on best practices of the companies that have already implemented sustainability programs
  • As the best-practice modeling increases throughout the industry, more food and beverage companies are reporting increased sales
  • The leaders of these food and beverage companies are tying industry-wide sustainability best practices directly to their increased sales

The food and beverage survey shows how sustainability, as a core strategic focus, is permeating the very operating principles of an entire industry – and a significant percentage of companies are making more money in the process.

Using food and beverage as an example, any company looking to become a long-term leader in any sector should look seriously at its approach to sustainability.

Sustainability must truly be integrated into a company’s core strategic plans, or it will likely get left behind.

If your company looking to integrate industry best practice planning into its sustainability strategy, a great place to start is with a sustainability assessment and peer benchmarking report.

 

 

 

Parent company of Puma provides detailed look at its Environmental Profit & Loss methodology

The SSC Team December 17, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

This summer, Kering, the parent company of the clothing and footwear manufacturer, Puma, not only published its EP&L, the environmental footprint of the company’s operations translated into monetary values, it published the entire methodology as an open-source tool for others to use.

The EP&L analyses the impact of Kering’s supply chain from raw materials to retail outlets and reports the impact in monetary terms.

In an article about Kering’s decision to open-source the methodology, the company’s CEO said, “Our EP&L has already served as an effective internal catalyst to drive us towards a more sustainable business model. I am convinced that an EP&L, and corporate natural capital accounting more broadly, are essential to enable companies to acknowledge the true cost on nature of doing business.”

From making the business case for sustainability to assessing carbon asset risk in monetary terms, and finally to reporting environmental results using natural capital accounting, more and more companies are moving toward currency as a way to plan, assess, and evaluate environmental performance.

This move makes sense, considering we live in the age of global capitalism.

Kering’s EP&L, along with World Bank’s WAVES initiative, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Valuation Guide, the Natural Capital Coalition, and others, provide strategies to implement natural capital accounting into the sustainability reporting process.

If your company is interested in producing a sustainability report using principles of natural capital accounting, let us know! And check out our analysis of how Puma stacks up to other athletic apparel companies.

Will the UK Modern Slavery Act do any good?

The SSC Team November 5, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments

Late last week, the UK Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act, a bill designed to require UK companies to report any steps they are taking to address and prevent human trafficking and modern slavery in their supply chains.

According to the Global Slavery Index, modern slavery is estimated to include more than 36 million people who work in conditions completely controlled by others. Most of these people are found deep in the supply chains of global corporations.

To comply with the Modern Slavery Act, it doesn’t mean a company will have to actually address human trafficking and modern slavery. A company simply has to report whether it has taken any steps to do so.

Therefore, if a corporation files a report indicating that it has taken no steps, it will still be in compliance with the law.

So, does this do us any good?

Overall, yes.

This act pushes corporations one step closer to connecting the process of reporting to the concrete steps of taking action.

We've seen this cause/effect hundreds of times as external pressure – supplier scorecards, stakeholder pressure, or legislation – pushes companies to report. The first report can be humbling, but the process of reporting opens up action steps, focus areas, and progress.

As companies file their first reports, some saying “no action taken.” We believe that their stakeholders will ask “why?” It is then that they will realize it is time to do an initial Social Audit, Supply Chain Analysis and/or Life Cycle Analysis.

A recent article in Huffington Post written by two CEOs speak to the effect of data:

"The vulnerability in our supply chains was in labour hire, specifically the recruitment of migrant workers from disadvantaged backgrounds. Social audits revealed that recruiters were stealing wages from workers through excessive recruitment fees and high interest loans, creating a situation of debt bondage. Upon learning of these terrible conditions, we took immediate action so that workers were paid back the fees they were owed, allowing them to earn a proper wage.”

The companies and the CEOs in question were performing social audits prior to the UK Modern Slavery Act, and were able to take action.

We believe that more companies will engage with auditors, and decisive action will be taken because of this new law.

So, yes, the Modern Slavery Act is going to do some good.  

Would stronger legislation and adoption in other countries, like the U.S., do even more good? Likely.

However, corporations can and should begin on this important work now. There is no need to wait for legislation to become a more socially and environmentally responsible organization.

Learn more about supply chain assessments and audits and how they can help your company create a system to uncover risks lurking in the supply chain. How have supply chain audits helped your organization uncover risk? Let us know in the comments!

 

Sustainable Supply Chains in Chinese Factories, Pt. 2

The SSC Team May 21, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
This is Part 2 of a two-part interview with Nate Sullivan of Efficiency Exchange, provider of sustainability software and services to manufacturers.  He highlights some of the challenges faced by Chinese factories in implementing their sustainable supply chain programs. On Tuesday, we posted a Part 1 of this interview from the SSC archives  - enjoy: SSC: How much time and effort should a supplier factory reasonably expect to spend on tracking and reporting sustainability information to their customers? Nate Sullivan: Given how hard customers are going to push them on price, we think the focus really needs to be on driving that time and effort down to zero. One of the things that really drove us to build Charge the way we did was seeing how all this compliance data was not being used to provide any value to factories -- all the time they theoretically spent gathering and vetting that information was essentially spent checking a box that didn't create any value for them. That's not the way it has to be, or should be. When factories meet sustainability requirements through Charge, they're doing it without spending any time solely on compliance -- they are spending that time figuring out how to run their factory more cost-effectively, and then as a secondary benefit that data is helping them show that they meet compliance standards. Everybody still gets what they want, but nobody is sitting there trying to figure out whether the time is well spent, because the benefits of spending it are much more direct. SSC: When done correctly, what are the bottom-line benefits that a supplier factory should see when implementing sustainability initiatives? (feel free to use EEX-specific examples!) NS: From the factory perspective, sustainability initiatives can have several possible benefits, if done right. First of all, there's reduced cost in the form of energy, water use, steam, natural gas, or whatever resource is being used less. There are some big benefits there, but obviously the "doing it right" part here is important, because factories need to be targeting the sustainability projects that make economic sense first and foremost. That's why Charge starts with energy -- we found energy costs and consumption to be something that factories could attack aggressively, reducing cost without slowing business growth. But there are opportunities in other fields, and Charge is going to add all of those to it's core capabilities. Other than cost reduction, the biggest benefit to any sustainability project is becoming more appealing to customers, and that's a big part of where we see Charge going in terms of it's relationship to buyers and brands. It's a top line benefit instead of bottom line, but the idea behind Charge's connection to retailers is ultimately to match the best suppliers to the best retailers. Charge looks at your operational data, and tells you "hey, you are currently meeting the requirements for the following potential customers", and vice versa. That introduces you to new customers who are excited to work with you, and it ties successful sustainability projects to new business and more revenue, which really changes the motivational calculus for factories. Instead of seeing sustainability as this horrible paperwork/audit driven obstacle, it becomes something factories actively seek out, because the better they operate, the more customers they can find, and the better those customers will be for the business. I think that's already the somewhat cartoonishly-optimistic perception of sustainability, especially in the west, but until EEx came around, I don't think anyone was out there building the tools and relationships necessary for that to become reality at the factory level. That's something that we are really, really excited to do for them. How is sustainability saving Chinese textile mills money? Read about it here!

Sustainable Supply Chains in Chinese Factories

The SSC Team May 19, 2015 Tags: , , , , , , , , , Strategic Sustainability Consulting No comments
Enjoy this 2013 interview from the SSC archives: An increasing number of companies are implementing sustainable supply chain programs. These programs usually include requests to suppliers to fill out long surveys, track and report data, and develop internal management systems to improve factory-level sustainability performance. At Strategic Sustainability Consulting, we believe that effective supply chain engagement on sustainability is critical to manage risk and leverage opportunities, but we also know that suppliers are often overwhelmed at the requests they are getting from their customers. To get some insight into the challenges facing suppliers, we recently interviewed Nate Sullivan of Efficiency Exchange (EEx). We've worked with EEx, a provider of sustainability software and services to Chinese factories, for many years, and believe they have their finger on the pulse of the Chinese supply chain. SSC: You specialize in working with Chinese factories. What are you seeing in these factories with regard to supplier questionnaires? Nate Sullivan: Supplier questionnaires and worksheets are not a new thing -- factories have seen them for decades.  They've always had to fill out spreadsheets and word documents with tons of information about their facility -- from general company information, to detailed labor practices and customized quote sheets.  However, they complain that the only ones that seem to have a real impact are the quote sheets, because they're about price, and that's ultimately what customers care about in practice.  Now they are being asked to fill out sustainability questionnaires full of data, which requires a full time job to compile and document (around 40 hours a month).  Most of the time they don't even know why the customer is asking for the data, and they say that they rarely hear much back after submitting the information.  So basically it's another hoop to jump through that doesn't appear to influence purchasing decisions, and keeps factories from focusing on what they do well -- which is making stuff. SSC: What are the biggest obstacles to effectively measuring and managing sustainability impacts (like energy, waste, and water) at the supplier factory level? NS: The biggest problem, by far, is accuracy. People really need to realize that there's a tremendous amount of bad, inaccurate data out there that is useless no matter how you look at it, because it simply doesn't reflect reality. That's almost entirely due to how and why it's collected, which is usually through required self-reporting, without any incentive for suppliers that what they provide is true. Unless you're going to sit there in every facility, forever, and actively track what's happening -- which isn't practical for any retailer we've met, no matter how big -- you simply have to find a better reason for suppliers to track and truthfully report what's going on than "because I say so." And that doesn't even address the fact that suppliers have lots of customers who all have their own elaborate set of disclosure requirements, or that factories have no idea how to measure many of the things they're asked to report. SSC: Your company, Efficiency Exchange, has developed software and services that aim to overcome these challenges. Can you explain the 3-4 most important elements that supplier factories should be looking for in sustainability programs and tools? NS: The number one thing factories should be looking for is something that helps their business. Manufacturing is a tough gig; it's not like these guys have huge margins they can afford to cut into an order to look good for potential customers. So the most important characteristic of any kind of factory facing tool is that it provides direct business value to that factory. Any investment that is going to provide that kind of value to a factory needs to be easy to use, and inexpensive not only to buy, but to operate, understand, implement, etc. In our experience, what's missing from every tool we've looked at is simplicity and clarity. There are lots of systems that are really powerful and complex, but they're usually designed to be all things to all people -- utilities, retailers, manufacturers- and anybody who could conceivably buy it, really. With any kind of typical enterprise software, you end up buying this incredibly expensive, super-capable system, and then a bunch of consulting services, training, and support on top of that.  (Then you have to) whittle it down and customize it into something that's actually useful to you. Factories don't have the time or money or expertise to deal with any of that. So any tool that's going to make sense at the factory level has to strip away all of that extra nonsense, and focus on being something that's lightweight, useful, and solves a problem right out of the box. That means it can't necessarily be all things to all people -- it has to be built specifically for factories that need help with this kind of stuff, and it has to provide that help in a really direct way. If you're a factory looking at any kind of sustainability or operational improvement tool, just stop and think about how the tool is going to affect what you do all day. Are you going to get a dashboard or a weekly report? What are you actually going to do with that? Are you going to print it out once a month and put it in a file cabinet? If so, that tool doesn't make sense for you. Anything that's going to be useful needs to go from login, all the way to the part where you're saving money, or getting new business, or removing some obstacle that slows down your growth. Everyone talks about intelligence versus just data, but "actionable intelligence" versus just intelligence is just as important of a distinction, especially for factories. Whatever tool you're investing in needs to take you from software to actually doing something inside your facility that helps your business. How is sustainability saving Chinese textile mills money? Read about it here!