Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business

Why SMaRT vs. C2C you ask?

[The following is in response to questions posted on the TreeHugger Forum. What's the difference between SMaRT and C2C?]

Dear Alan

I am a specifier and joined the SMaRT team in 2001 to “fight” greenwashing and streamline product searches for truly sustainable products.  Rather than compare the two [it’s impossible since C2C is not transparent] let me describe attributes that have kept me and my passion on the development committee of SMaRT all these years.

1.    The biggest difference is that SMaRT is a Consensus-based.  MTS developed SMaRT using an ANSI process which incorporates a wide array of stakeholder participation.  Using this process is a conscious effort that requires all-day, every-day effort to achieve.  MTS sought and got the participation of manufacturers, environmental NGOs, local government, national government with different areas of authority, specifiers, and academic institutions.  You can’t have the “fox watching the henhouse”; and you can’t have a leadership standard watered down by the lowest common denominator; and you and your cronies can’t develop a “sustainable product standard” and unleash it to the world, no matter what credentials you’ve established.

*****

2.    Perhaps even more important is that SMaRT is transparent.  That means that if you want to, you can see what attributes make up SMaRT.  It’s criteria is public and because its evolution includes all stakeholders, even YOU can comment on its’ attributes and be part of the transformation of SMaRT [but it’s pretty great now].  Once the specifying community can learn to trust a standard and its parent organization [whether it’s USGBC’s LEED or an ASHRAE standard or an ASTM standard] then we can simply look to see if a product has been certified to it.  As a designer and specifier, I want to look at an MSDS sheet or the back of a fabric memo and see what I trust and move on.

*****

3.    SMaRT is “the best of the triple bottom line”.  That means that it incorporates social-justice components that offer a living wage and other fair components.  This supports US-business policies [something we supposedly believe in as a Nation] and as a consumer it’s something that I want to support.  Do other “sustainable product standards” have social-justice components?  We won’t know if they are not transparent.

*****

4.    SMaRT addresses bio-based elements that make up a large part of products in the marketplace.  Can you have a “sustainable product standard” that doesn’t address lumber and the serious chain-of-custody issues surrounding best practices for growth and harvesting?  Can you have a “sustainable product standard” that doesn’t address and reward organic farming practices – the “best practices” of agriculture?  Do all “sustainable product standards” address best practices for bio-based components?  We don’t know if they are not transparent.  Do they need to include and address bio-based elements?  What do you think?

*****

5.    SMaRT uses third-party verification of all reported claims to certify products.  A manufacturer cannot self-certify.  Smart global certification and auditing is done by Ernst & Young sustainable auditing group.  Worried about the work environment of that ball-bearing manufacturer in China that is being used on filing cabinets?  Someone can check on it and validate claims.  This is a very strategic component of SMaRT and gives world-wide coverage to our world-wide economy.

*****

6.    Finally, SMaRT is LCA-based.  LCAs are pre-requisites for SMaRT certification. I’m so glad that designers and specifiers aren’t going to be asked to perform LCAs or evaluate LCAs.  What we really want to do is design…sustainably of course.

We welcome your comments and emails

CONTACT: Virginia.Dyson@dmjmhn.aecom.com

ABOUT: Ginny Dyson

Sustainability in the Corporate Culture

Companies need to have Sustainable practices, and with that you will get Sustainable products. The vice versa is not true - just because a company makes a Sustainable product or two does not make it a Sustainable company. I could list several examples where companies that are considered "leaders" in the green movement are directly or indirectly some of the largest polluters in their region or state. One of the key issues is "how" Sustainability is viewed in the corporate culture. I would like to offer a couple of simple questions to ask to really determine whether a company is sustainable or not, but first we must define Sustainability.

What is "Sustainability"?

"Sustainable Development" is a term first used in the UN-Chartered Brundtland Commission Report on Environment and Development. It is the practice of responsible use of limited space, scarce natural resources, and respecting the fragility of eco-systems while minimizing the environmental consequences of human activities.

How is "Sustainability" viewed by a business?

Questions to ask:

• Does it start in the marketing department or the boardroom?
• Is it a "cost of doing business" or "key contributor to the bottom line"?
• What are the scientific principals that drive decision making in product design & manufacture?
• Are the benchmarks and measurements internally set or independent and externally defined?
• Is it culturally ingrained and holistic or segmented and specific in application?
• Does being environmentally responsible mean "meeting all applicable standards and regulations" or does it mean "compliance plus" where the bar is continually raised driving improved performance"
• How is it controlled, monitored, and reported?

Let's look at each one individually and briefly talk about why it's important.

Does it start in the marketing department or the boardroom?

If the drive for "Sustainability" comes from the market's desire for "green" products, then it will never penetrate deeply into an organization's culture to become a long term, consistent practice in the business. I can assure you short term focus on EB IT (Operating Result) and EVA (Economic Value Added) will drown out concerns over IQ (Indoor Air Quality) and LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) performance. You can easily tell when this occurs because the company offers a green product (or product platform) in the middle of a whole bunch of other stuff they sell. You can also easily tell because, when it comes from the marketing department, it usually is a perfect little environmental story rather than an open presentation of environmental impacts. Price, value, product quality, brand - these are reasons to buy products. We have to get to the point where Sustainable is a GIVEN.

Is Sustainability a "cost of doing business" or "key contributor to the bottom line"?

When a company understands the positive impacts of integrating sustainable practices into the entire business model, the direct impacts on the bottom line are substantial. These are investments with solid ROI and create EVA for a company - they are not "costs."

What are the scientific principals that drive decision making in the product design & manufacture?

Without clear, scientific principles to guide decision making, directions can be taken on a more single issue, often emotional, basis. A clear science makes objectives, and the subsequent decisions to reach those objectives, clear-cut and unable to be compromised. There is no "easy way out." LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) is a NON-ARBITRARY methodology used by the leading companies in Sustainability today to drive their decision making.

Are the benchmarks and measurements internally set or independent and externally defined?

Benchmarks and measurements must be set independent and external to the organization. This inherently sets a higher, more challenging, standard and eliminates potential conflicts of interest. Third party review is an absolute necessity.

It should be noted here that clear, scientific principles developed in an ANSI accredited consensus process combined with 3rd party auditing is at the core of the SMaRT standard (Sustainable Materials Rating Technology) as opposed to many of the alternatives that are currently in the market.

Is it culturally ingrained and holistic or segmented and specific in the application?

If only one or two segments of a business has a dedicated effort in sustainable practices, why not the whole business? It's the difficult areas that really need to be attacked first.

Does being environmentally responsible mean "meeting all applicable standards and regulations" or does it mean "compliance plus" where the bar is continually raised driving improved performance"

Meeting all applicable standard and regulations is a good start, but it is the minimum acceptable position. At this level Sustainability is still a "cost of doing business." Compliance Plus, or doing more and better every year, is where the economic and performance benefits truly begin.

How is it controlled, monitored and reported?

Repeatability is critical for the long term success of embedding Sustainability in the Corporate Culture. If a company doesn't measure it and report on it, they aren't going to fix it.

For more information on Denny, go here.

We welcome your comments and solutions for sustainable buisness.