Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business

The Greening of the Office Lease

Ellen Sinreich, President Green Edge, LLC reporting

 

In order for a commercial office building to achieve the most in terms of sustainability, the landlord and its tenants must partner in working toward that goal. In the case of the landlord and tenant relationship, the governing document is the lease. If the landlord and the tenant agree that the property subject to the lease should be constructed, operated and occupied in a sustainable fashion, that should be reflected in the lease.

.

What Should a Green Lease Cover?

.

A “green” commercial office lease should incorporate the agreed upon sustainability goals for the building and the rights and responsibilities of each party necessary in order to achieve those goals.  Typically, sustainability goals for a commercial office building would include one or more of the following:

 

- Goals for reduced consumption of energy, water, and other natural resources;

- Goals for minimizing waste and diverting both construction and operational waste from landfill – in other words, recycling goals;

- Goals for creation and facilitation of superior indoor and exterior environmental quality; and 

- Data collection, sharing and use as between landlord and tenant.

.

After these goals have been agreed to, the lease should be clear about the level of commitment on the part of the parties to achieve them.  One suggestion is that landlord and tenant agree in the lease to make good faith, reasonable efforts to achieve the stated sustainability goals and to reevaluate each of the goals periodically during the lease term.

.

Reduced Energy and Water Consumption

.

In order to make the goals of reduced energy and water consumption realistic and achievable, the parties must be able to measure their consumption.  After all, if you can’t measure it, you can’t fix it.  Thus, the green lease should provide for metering or submetering the tenant’s consumption of energy and water in its premises and should address the cost and responsibility of installing and periodically reading the meters.  The party responsible for reading the meters periodically should also be responsible for promptly communicating the information gleaned from the meter readings to the other party to the lease. 

.

Equally important in a green office lease, the economic costs and benefits of reduced resource consumption should be allocated between landlord and tenant in a manner that both facilitates the goal of reduced consumption and compensates the appropriate party(s) for the cost(s) (if any) incurred to get to that goal.  Thus the traditional office lease arrangement whereby the cost of the energy and water consumed by the tenant in its premises is included in the base rent, with the tenant possibly paying its share of building wide cost increases over base year costs, needs to be examined and modified.  In the traditional scenario, the tenant typically has no knowledge of what it is consuming and it has no economic incentive to minimize that consumption.

.

Finally, the green office lease should set forth milestone dates around which the parties agree to discuss how actual consumption compares to the sustainability goals set forth in the lease and to use reasonable efforts to correct any discrepancies. 

.

Diverting Waste from Landfills

.

It is hard to imagine a “green” office building that does not have a recycling program, including a reasonably convenient space for the collection and separation of materials to be recycled, and arrangements with third parties to pick up the materials to be recycled.   Thus, a “green” office lease should obligate the landlord and tenant to recycle both construction and operational waste and to keep track of and share with one another the percentage of that waste that is recycled and the percentage that goes to landfills.   Ideally the landlord’s recycling program will be a profit center and entitlement to those profits as between landlord and tenant should be spelled out in the lease. 

.

Indoor Environmental Quality

.

The “green” office lease should also cover indoor environmental quality.  Both landlord and tenants should be “obligated” in the lease to use low or no VOC materials in the construction of the interior of the building, as well as materials that are rapidly renewable, regionally extracted and manufactured, contain recycled content and are themselves recyclable at the end of their useful life within the building.  In order to facilitate this and make “going green” easy - especially if the tenant is doing any construction or fit-out work in the premises - a green lease should include an exhibit or be accompanied by guidelines that will educate the tenant about the green options for materials, mechanical and utility systems and contractors in the geographic location of the building.      

.

There is not much precedent in creating a “green” office lease. Therefore it is an opportunity to be creative and responsive to the goals and realities of the situation at hand, rather than an opportunity to follow a pre-determined formula.  In other words, this is a chance for landlords and tenants and their real estate attorneys to break new ground and really make a difference.    

 

Ellen Sinrich, LEED AP

President/ CEO Green Edge, LLC

1755 York Ave., Suite 18C

New York, NY 10128

212-828-3840

Ellen@greenedgellc.com 

www.greenedgellc.com    

 

 

 

Unanimously Approved Consensus Green Building Investment Underwriting Standards

Dan Winters , Evolution Partners reporting...

.

Members from the Capital Markets Partnership, overwhelmingly cast affirmative votes in support of the the Green Building Underwriting Standards.  These Standards were approved in four months which is record time and demonstrates the strong market need.

.

In conjunction with this voting process, it was agreed that the following activities will be initiated – please let us know if you are interested in participating:

 

§  A Subcommittee will be set up to develop guidance on the use of the Green House Gas Protocol (GHGP) to track climate pollution reductions using the Underwriting Standard, and facilitate building owners monetizing these reductions through carbon or other credits including White Tags, with appropriate market trading institutions. 

 

§  A Subcommittee will be set up on Equivalency Applications pursuant to Section 5.0 of the Standard, along with any normalization activities that the Subcommittee / Full Standards Committee decide to initiate for the purpose of incorporating other approved industry standards into the Green Building Underwriting Standards.

 

Further, we are working with two leading financial institutions on their adoption of the Underwriting Standards, and on using the Standards for new financial product creation including Sustainable Building Securities (SBS) that will be discussed at an October 8, 2008 meeting at TIAA-CREF in NYC.  Please let us know of your interest in adopting them for your investment and/or other activities.

 

Dan Winters, Managing Principal

Evolution Partners

202.997.3922 - p

Dan@EvolutionPartners.com

EvolutionPartners.com

Stirring it Up: How to Make Money and Save the World, by Gary Hirshberg

If every CEO behaved like Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Yogurt, then we wouldn't need eco-groups or standards to help business take a sustainable direction line. Stonyfield Yogurt is the definition of a Sustainable triple bottom line - it's profitable, respectful of the environment and its suppliers and employees. That all adds up to something that their biggest customer base (women) appreciate, applaud and buy even during these shaky economic times.

*****

Gary believes in putting capitalism to work. As he notes in his new book "Stirring it Up: How to Make Money and Save the World", "I'm here to tell you that nature and business are born allies—potentially the richest partnership in the history of capitalism."

*****

Sustainability thrives when you open your mind to doing things most businesspeople would consider plain nutty. Examples:

• We pay some of our organic suppliers as much as twice the going rate for conventionally grown materials. [emphasis mine]

• We do hardly any advertising, and we use our packaging to promote other organizations.

• We actually push for more government oversight and regulation of our industry.

• We give our customers and investors detailed reports on how much pollution and waste we generate—even when those figures are rising.

*****

Stonyfield is doing everything that I want to see in a corporation:  It values organically produced raw materials (and the local farmers), it does well by promoting others over self, appreciates the need for common rules of fair play, and above all is transparent. 

******

It passes the small town test.Stonyfield can stand up to the scrutiny of talk in the local bar, church parking lot or little league stands and that’s why it also gets such high word-of-mouth advertising from its customers. All small businesses pass this test initially or else they don’t stay in business. The amazing part is that Stonyfield managed to keep its integrity in tact as it grew and even after it sold 85% of the company to the French company, Groupe Danone. That’s leadership we can all learn from.

*****

The bottom line is personal and financial.

Gary switched careers from non-profit to profit to give his ideas a larger stage for social impact and change. He started out in 1970 as the Executive Director of the New Alchemy Institute, but changed into an entrepreneur yogurt maker when he saw how much attention Kraft was getting at a Disney Event. The Institute’s ideas may have been more Sustainable, but Kraft had a bigger world stage all because it had a profitable product line, one which wasn’t sustainable. That hit home for Gary and he went into the for profit business along with Samuel Kaymen. If their ideas were to have a world stage, he had to become a capitalist.

*****

What were the results of Gary’s decision?

"Some twenty-five years later, Stonyfield is the world's largest organic-yogurt maker, and I am its CE-Yo. Better yet, our U.S. yogurt sales surpassed those of Kraft's Breyers brand nearly a decade ago. Stonyfield has grown by more than 27 percent a year for the past eighteen straight years, compared with 5 to 7 percent for the yogurt industry as a whole. In 2006, our sales topped $260 million; in 2007, we're on track to exceed $300 million. It's largely due to our focus on sustainability—the art of replacing myopic efficiency with sensible methods that boost profits while benefiting nature rather than destroying it."

*****

You can't argue success. Stonyfield isn't the only one that's seeing success. Check out this report on

Companies That Report Sustainability Data Enjoy Higher Gross Margins

*****

Gary’s book is hopefully the first in a series of books by CEO’s proving similar case studies. As you read, look beyond operations and the product production and into the consumer engagement side as well. Gary’s ideas didn’t fly without profits and those profits came from engaged consumers. Stonyfield’s website is a reflection of the culture (no pun intended) that is serves - it’s inclusive, fun, interactive and respectful of its female consumers. In a letter to the site’s readers, Gary invites them to participate in co-creating the world of business that they want to see.

*****

Yet at some point both sides of the buyer/seller equation know that even the best of co-created intentions need rules and guidelines that match up to the rules and guidelines of other companies. Baseball is inclusive, fun, interactive, but without rules, it’s just a street game with sticks and a lot of running around. Standards are the laws of a free market. Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) bring transparent information to the table and third party audits ensure the information is accurate and honest. Stonyfield has the USDA Organic Label and also the QAI label (Quality Assurance International).

 

Gary is at the helm now. Someday another face will lead Stonyfield, but it's brand and integrity will stay intact due to the their Sustainable business model that proves that good guys can finish first.

Corey Brinkema, taking the Forest Stewardship Council to the Next Level

The following is an E-terview with Corey Brinkema, President of the FSC-US - ed: Mary Hunt

Corey, before you took the position of President of FSC, you were the Executive Director of the Green Institute in Minneapolis and worked with FSC chain-of-custody certification. What did you learn during that experience that taught you that FSC was the best process to follow, enough that you would want to become the President of FSC?

COREY: My home state of Minnesota is a leader in the FSC marketplace with more than 6 million acres certified and strong industry and grass roots support. Like many in my state, I was drawn to FSC's high integrity and genuine commitment to social, environmental and economic achievement. No other program comes close to FSC's rigorous forest management standards and mandatory chain of custody (CoC) system tracking wood from well managed forests to the market.

Key among the reasons for accepting the FSC President position are my lifelong passion for pursuing environmentally and socially sound market-based solutions and the opportunity to work on a national and international level. I'm thoroughly enjoying the challenge as well as the opportunity to work with exceptional and very passionate people!

Another reason to be enthusiastic about the FSC is the critical importance of forest stewardship in combating global climate change. FSC certification keeps forest ecosystems intact, protects habitat, and is the best defense to illegal logging and deforestation - which is responsible for approximately 25% of the world's greenhouse gas pollution annually.

FSC is one of the certifications that SMaRT and the Sustainable Furniture Council relies on for its documentation. For readers who don't know the difference, why is FSC certification so much better than other wood management programs for the furniture industry?

COREY: Ultimately it's about impacts in the forest and managing risk. FSC's standards are by far the most rigorous in guaranteeing social and environmental stewardship. In Addition, FSC's highly respected chain-of-custody system, the diversity of our membership, and truly balanced governance are what give FSC its unsurpassed credibility. Competing systems have tried hard to blur the real distinctions but they can't run away from lower standards and persistent industry biases. While the competition has served to strengthen the market competitiveness of the FSC, it sometimes distracts from our asserting the positive life cycle value of FSC-certified wood over many other types of materials.

FSC's Environmental and Social members play an instrumental role in the development of our forest management standards, which is exemplary of our open, democratic consensus-based process. There is no other process in the world that could bring environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation and forest industry producers and retailers such as Tembec, Domtar, and The Home Depot, together in agreement on what constitutes well-managed forestry.

FSC does not allow large-scale conversions of natural forests to plantations. This common industry practice can change a vibrant and diverse natural forest system to a monoculture ecosystem adversely affecting biodiversity, soil & water quality, water storage, and other ecosystem functions.

The environmental and social improvements fostered by FSC certification have been widely documented in reports including those by FERN, Rainforest Alliance and Forest Ethics. [These reports are contained in the background documents at the SMaRT Standards Process.]

FSC is recognized as having driven substantial environmental improvement in the forest industry over the past fifteen years. For this and all the reasons I've described, FSC is the only forest products certification specified by the LEED green building certification standard, SMaRT, Home Depot's EcoOptions program, the Capital Markets Partnership, the Green Press Initiative, Fireman's Fund, and the Sustainable Furniture Council.

Not having enough certified wood seems to be a common concern. I see that FSC currently certifies over 240 million acres globally. What are the future plans for FSC? How many acres are enough? What is hold back progress, politics or money?

COREY: The amount of acres under FSC certification has grown at an average rate of 25% over each of the past five years. As of December 2007, we had more than 80 million acres certified in the US and Canada alone. This means that supply of FSC-certified wood has increased substantially along with demand, so that folks wanting FSC are getting the wood they need. Home Depot alone sold more than $213 million of FSC-certified products in 2006! Our explosive growth in the US paper marketplace may cause some geographically isolated supply constraints this year, but we are seeing an incredible response from landowners large and small, public and private, seeking certification to meet this demand. And of course this call to improved forest stewardship is just the response we were set up to deliver.

Increased demand is the best way to attract new supply so our top priorities are continued focus on high leverage activities including green building and green products programs, education (like participating in your Blog!) and the capital markets.

We are also committed to working with our many corporate purchasers of FSC-certified products who are the real sustainable market leaders. We'll work hard to add value for this continued support in combating deforestation and climate change, and promoting forest practices that are environmentally appropriate, socially equitable and economically viable.

Anyone who is looking for FSC-certified lumber or other types of building materials can use the product inquiry function on our website www.findfsc.org. In addition, suppliers of FSC-certified paper can be found at : www.fscus.org/paper.

Thank you for this important opportunity to share with your readers the collective success of thousands of FSC-certified land owners producers, members, independent certifiers, and purchasers.

Corey Brinkema, President, FSC-US

cbrinkema@fscus.org

         612-812-1500      

We Welcome Your Comments

Philips Halogena offers energy efficient alternative to CFLs

Randy Moorhead, Vice President, Government Affairs, Philips Electronics North America

Philips, the world's largest lighting company has already brought to market an energy efficient light technology that meets new federal energy efficiency standards for lighting scheduled  to be phased in starting January 1, 2012.   Using a highly efficient halogen technology the new Philips lights are approximately 33% more efficient than the incandescent light bulb. Unlike compact fluorescent lights the Philips Energy Saver Halogena lights are always dimmable and contain no substances that might require special handling, if they break, or recycling at end of life.  The light quality is bright, white light that is excellent for decorating.

*****

The energy efficiency standards, which will be completely phased in by January, 2014 require that the common incandescent light be replaced with light that provides similar light  output using less energy. Today, only compact fluorescent lights and Philips Energy Saver Halogena are available products that meet those standards. These can be found at Home Depot. 

*****

Philips actively supported the legislation, signed into law last December, that set new federal energy efficiency standards.  In December, 2006  Philips called upon governments around the globe to phase out the inefficient incandescent light by 2016.  The incandescent light, invented 129 years ago is highly inefficient, using about 95 % of its energy to produce heat and only about 5% to create light.  In the next few years many new, highly efficient products will become available to replace the inefficient incandescent lights.  Consumers will have many efficient choices to obtain the lighting atmosphere they desire.

Jacquelyn Ottman Predicts the Perils of Greenwash Marketing in the Coming Year

Jacquelyn Ottman has been doing this green marketing "thing" LONG before it was trendy. In Ad Age this week she focuses on the pitfalls of greenwash. We asked her if we could repost her commentary here as well. It comes on the heels on Triple Pundit's article covering Greenwash, Green Certification and Consumer Responsibility, a subject near to my heart over on In Women We Trust.   ed: Mary Hunt

Don't Greenwash Your Marketing

I expect we'll see some tectonic shifts this year in the world of green marketing. Well-intentioned marketers should heed these shifts if they want to stay off "greenwashing lists" and legal-department memos. Some marketers are influenced by the Federal Trade Commission's recent hearings on green-marketing claims and eco-labels, others on the outcome of large retailers' efforts to persuade suppliers to come up with trimmed-down products and packages.

*****

Here, then, my top four predictions:

*****

1. Discredited Green Claims Lose Traction
Expect some now-meaningless marketing terms to fall by the wayside. For instance, expect to see fewer claims of biodegradability, especially with regard to some types of corn-based plastics, which have been found not to degrade in backyard compost heaps or even municipal systems.

*****

There will be a virtual shutdown on claims of carbon offsetting until standards can be set and the for-profits and non-gevernmental organizations that sell the offsets can be verified. This year will also see the seeds planted to severely curb the use of self-imposed eco-labels such as Home Depot's "Eco-Options" and Canon's "Clean Earth." Please folks, let's stick with only those labels, such as Energy Star, FSC and organic, that have been issued by trusted third parties.

*****

Finally, I hope and pray that standards will finally be set for terms such as "natural," so that consumer confidence can be restored in this most basic of green attributes.

*****

2. Electronics Suppliers Tout Eco-Performance
Expect electronics companies to start marketing their green bona fides, earned by creating programs to take back their products at end of useful life, and by reducing the use of toxic chemicals in response to two directives from the European Commission, the Waste for Electric and Electronic Equipment and the Restriction of Hazardous Substances. We've already been approached for help in crafting green strategies by no less than three of the big electronics firms (perhaps Wal-Mart has something to do with it?).

*****

3. Companies Make More Green Products ...
Many more green products will hit the shelves in 2008 as the industry takes additional, more confident steps to satisfy retailer demands for products with less packaging, less energy use and reduced toxicity -- no PVC or heavy metals, for example. Many of these products will put primary benefits -- higher performance levels, aesthetics and cost effectiveness -- front and center in marketing materials, while green claims will recede, reflecting reticence from potential greenwashing backlash, and a simple growing awareness in good green marketing practice.

*****

4. ... and Companies Sell More Green Products
Green products sales will soar, boosted by the marketing heft of major consumer products firms that have been on a green-brand shopping spree of late. Examples include Clorox, which snapped up Burt's Bees in 2007 and launched its own GreenWorks brand; Colgate (Tom's of Maine); Procter & Gamble (Crest Naturals and Tide Coldwater); and Danone (Stonyfield Farm). Expect continued growth for deep green stand-alones, like Method and Seventh Generation, as they continue to grow behind mass-market distribution. A myriad of green product trade shows -- Coop America's "Green Festivals" in Chicago, Washington and San Francisco; the "Go Green Expo" in New York -- will introduce more consumers to greener alternatives.

*****

If you're ready to do away with greenwash, be sure to check out her book on green marketing. She has graciously put much of it's content on her site for you to test drive.

Using SMaRT's Sustainable Standard Criteria to Underwrite Policies

There is no argument that money drives the world's decisions. To that end we asked Bob Bailey, the Chief Underwriting Officer for Commercial Business at Fireman's Fund to comment on how the SMaRT Sustainable Standard fits into the insurance world. Bob is also on the MTS board.

Fireman's Fund elected to use the SMaRT criteria to underwrite their policies. Why did it make that decision?

BOB BAILEY: SMaRT standards help objectively define the best-in-class for an Industry. Critical to our thought process was the fact that SMaRT standards recognize not just important environmental components, but have the overall objective of a favorable social impact, thereby including the value of safe working conditions and products. We see the SMaRT standards as a better holistic benchmark that speak to areas of control and concern beyond just the environmental impact of the product itself. Since our coverage extends well beyond these boundaries why not seek a standard that does so as well.

Most people don't know anything about insurance risk assessment, could you tell the readers about the increasing challenge for the insurance industry and business at large?

BOB BAILEY: Whether you are an insurance company or not, any business should spend some time thinking about the future both in terms of opportunity as well as challenges. A Risk Assessment is simply a thorough understanding of those challeges. From an insurance company, clearly our fortunes follow those (to the extent that are covered by a contract) of our customers. These are very challenging times for our customers as the domestic economy continues to change, shifts in global markets bring new opportunities as well as new competitors, but perhaps the single largest challenge is the issue of variables to consider. From the standpoint of an insurer, storm patterns and severity are less predictable, rate structures for huge parts of the country may no longer be adequate. Building codes may not afford protection to the occupants, the legal climate could change radically as a new wave of environmental litigation overwhelms the legal system and certain business-agricultural concerns may not longer be sustainable due to shifts in the climate.

We need to react to these new risks in three ways; the first as a risk bearer (which I won't bore you with) in as much as we need to look for better forecasting models and watch our aggregations in places that we did not see as a challenge before; second, we should continue to help identify these trends for our customers and be able to provide solutions for them to help manage their risk, and lastly we need to understand our own role as a leading corporate citizen in helping reverse the change. Fireman's Fund as part of Allianz community, understands the global impact of climate change and our role in achieving sustainability.

Climate Change is being quoted as the reason for the increased number of forest fires we are experiencing in Southern California. I read a news release that Fireman's Fund offered to rebuild homes lost in those fires, "green." How is that going?

BOB BAILEY: Yes, we have offered our Southern California Fire victims "green" coverage. This includes:

1. Energy Star appliance
2. Energy Star structural envelope sealing (insulation, windows, doors, roofing, etc.)
3. Energy Star heating and cooling systems
4. Low Volatile Organic Compounds in paints, adhesives and sealants.
5. Energy Star light fixtures
6. Federal Emergency Management Program designated plumbing fixtures.
7. Low emissions carpet
8. Forest Stewardship Certified wood

In addition, we are offering replacement of landscape plants with native, fire resistive plants up to $10K per item, with a limit of 10% of personal property or $50K whichever is greater. We have received enough positive feedback from our California insureds on these options to begin exploration of "green" coverage on a more nationwide approach. This would complete our efforts to the extend the green rebuild option across our entire portfolio (both Commercial as well as Personal lines customers).

Interviewed by Mary Hunt.

We welcome your comments and emails.

Navigating Organic Standards: Part 1 of 2

The terms “eco, green, sustainable and organic” are being used openly and interchangeably in the market with the term ‘certified organic.’ Inappropriate use of environmental labels has caused confusion in the apparel market. To be sold in the US as certified organic cotton, all textile fiber must be certified organic in accordance with the USDA NOP (National Organic Program) program (or) for Europe the EU organic certifications EU 2092/91. Currently that is the legal requirement for certified organic cotton.

*****

This is NOT business as usual, nor is this a trend, this is an entirely new business model, one where you need to know your supply chain clear back to the farm or fiber production facility. Where does your fiber come from? What is the country of origin? Bottom line: There needs to be Supply Chain Transparency back to the farmer and to the seed.

*****

One reason that there is confusion in the apparel market is that the NOP Organic Standards were originally created for food.

*****

So why is cotton included? The USDA considers cotton a food product until it leaves the gin. Upon completion of the ginning process, where the seed and fiber are separated, cotton consists of 60% seed and 40% fiber. Cotton seed enters the food chain. Cottonseed oil is found in many processed snack foods, among them chips, cookies, crackers and salad dressings. Cotton seed is fed to livestock, dairy cattle and poultry as a high protein supplement. The remaining fiber is baled and shipped to textile mills to be spun into yarn for fabric.

*****

The Global Organic Textile Standards (GOTS)is premiering the new GOTS Logo at BioFach in Nurenberg, Germany this week.GOTS has offered the world the first globally accepted standard for certified organic fibers. (As early as Fall 2008, we may see the USDA NOP adopt GOTS as the USDA NOP official standard for fiber. )

*****

The GOTS standard for organic textiles covers the production, processing, manufacturing, packaging, labelling, exportation, importation and distribution of all natural fibres. The final products may include, but are not limited to fibre products, yarns, fabrics and clothes.

*****

“The aim of the standard is to define requirements to ensure organic status of textiles, from harvesting of the raw materials, through environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing up to labelling in order to provide a credible assurance to the end consumer.” The standard provides for a subdivision into two label-grades. “ according to GOTS.

*****

a) "organic" or "organic in conversion" 95% or more of the fibres must be of certified organic (or in conversion) origin. The remaining balance up to 5% may be made of non-organic fibres including defined regenerated and synthetic fibres. Blending (= mixing the same fibre in organic and conventional quality in one product) is not permitted.

*****

b) "made with x % organic materials" or " made with x % organic in conversion materials" 70% - 95% or more of the fibres must be of certified organic (or in conversion) origin. The remaining balance up to 30% may be made of non-organic fibres. Regenerated and synthetic fibres are limited to 10% (resp. 25% in the US). Again blending is not permitted.

*****

There is concern in the organic food and apparel market with standards that seek to certify blends and or low percentages of organic fiber content. If USDA/NOP recognizes GOTS as the US Standard for apparel, these minimal standards could go away as quickly as they appeared.

*****

Your label claims CANNOT be deceptive according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Environmental Marketing Guides.

*****

“It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or service offers a general environmental benefit.” Additionally, claims should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception.

*****

FTC is an Independent Agency, appointed by the President. Its goal is to enforce consumer protection and antitrust laws AND the FTC has jurisdiction over environmental claims and Textile Labeling.

*****

FTC’s GREEN GUIDES ( http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm)

*****

The Green Guides do not set performance standards or grant eco-labels but require that labels and communications:

• Tell the truth
• Have substantiation
• Are based on consumer perceptions and require claims controls so they are not misleading
• Have clear qualifications & disclosures
• Specify whether claims apply to the produt, the package, or both
• Do no overstate the product attributes

General Environmental Claims:

• Qualify: identify specific "green" attribute
• Third Party Certifications must be independent from advertiser
• Certifiecaiton does not insulate advertiser - Avoid broad claims unless it is based on LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) and sustainable product standard addressing multiple environmental impacts across the supply chain and social equity.

Symbols

• Avoid unqualified symbol, e.g. generic receclable
• Use disclosures to qualify claims. Recyclable e.g. for this bottle may not exist in your area.

NEXT: Part 2 of 2 - How do single industry standards, integrate with SMaRT?

We welcome your emails and comments

*****

CONTACT: Coral@eco-textiles.com

ABOUT: Coral Rose

Sustainable Standards, the Backbone for Greenwash Free Marketing

Are you new to the whole concept of Sustainable Standards? Here's a quickie course in what they are and how SMaRT fits into the mix. You can also download the PDF at: Download smart_sustainable_standards_101_2.15.08.pdf

| View | Upload your own

Corporate/Product Sustainability, Can you Prove it?

Over on Sustainable Life Media, Matt Heinz has a great post on Best Practices for Successful Eco-Labeling.

He boils it down to what we've been saying here and here, to be perceived as the genuine green article at some point you have to prove it. In Matt's words:

"What are you claiming on your green labels, and how can you prove it? Can you summarize those proof points on the label itself? Has a credible third-party endorsed your sustainability practices? Could their logo be placed within your label to add credibility?

Think carefully about not just the claim you make on the label, but how that label’s contents help prove or validate the claim. Think as well as about how the label could be a starting point for that proof. For example, include a short, user-friendly URL on the label inviting customers (and prospective customers) to learn more about your sustainability claims. That URL destination can have all kinds of one-way and two-way information – updates on progressive sustainability initiatives, collective customer impact on reducing a carbon footprint (based on sales and pass-along, for example), etc."

What he is suggesting is exactly what Forbo has done. Forbo's proof runs through the entire company and out through their product line. For an inside look and case study to follow, feel free to download yourself a copy. You'll find it on the top left hand corner of the is blog.