Posts filed under ‘Conservation’
Toward sustainability: Interface Inc.’s ‘Mission Zero’ journey
In 1994, Ray Anderson, founder of Interface, Inc., outlined an ambitious new vision for his company: to achieve sustainability by 2020. Lindsay Stoda, a Senior Business Analyst with the company, spoke at the recent EHS Management Forum about the metrics Interface uses to measure its sustainability progress. This week, we caught up with Lindsay to learn more about the company’s Mission Zero goals.
Lindsay Stoda
Q: Where did the Mission Zero goal come from?
LS: Sparked by questions from customers and the ideas he encountered in Paul Hawken’s book, “The Ecology of Commerce,” our founder Ray Anderson realized that business and industry were part of the larger system that was damaging the environment and that it was not going to be a sustainable future if business continued in that direction. And realizing that it was someone’s job to lead industry down that path, he decided to ask his company and his employees to be that leader.
Q: How do you measure success against your Mission Zero Goals?
LS: We’ve always followed the “What gets measured gets managed” philosophy, so our way of being able to track and ensure that we’re making progress is through four different measurement platforms:
- Eco Metrics: Measure environmental impact
- Socio Metrics: Measure social impacts
- Quest program: Measures waste elimination
- Ecosense: Measures the activities on a plant-level that contribute to our sustainability goals
Q: How did Mission Zero change the work of Interface’s EHS department?
LS: Prior to Ray’s epiphany, we had a more traditional manufacturing environment, health and safety (EHS) department focusing on safety and compliance. Today, it’s typically the same folks because the tracking of that kind of information all kind of overlaps with the sustainability roles, except that people’s EHS roles developed a sustainability-minded focus.
Q: Can you tell me about some of your efforts toward creating closed loop products?
LS: We have a strong push to create closed loop products using recycled and bio-based raw materials. This process basically involves returning the materials in used finished product back to raw materials.
For carpet tile, there are two main components: There’s the face fiber and the fluff — the surface that you walk on — and then there’s the backing, which is different from residential carpet in that it’s a vinyl backing and it’s heavier, to hold the tiles to the floor and give them dimensional stability.
We had previously been able to cut the fibers off the front, take the backing, crumble it up, melt it down and return it to backing. But now we’re able to take the nylon fibers from the face of the products, shave them off and return them to our fiber suppliers to create new face fiber with post consumer recycled content.
We bring back both our carpet as well as competitors’ products through ‘ReEntry’—our recycling program. We collect used product back from the marketplace, run it through our process, and return backing to backing and fiber to fiber. Since the program began, we have diverted more than 100,000 tons of material from landfills.
Q: One of the goals you’ve identified is providing Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for all of your InterfaceFLOR products by 2012. What does that entail?
LS: We have used life cycle assessment (LCA) for several years now as we’ve tried to evaluate different materials and processes for manufacturing our products. The Environmental Product Declaration is a 10-15 page summary of the life cycle assessment results, everything from global warming potential to toxicity to resource use throughout the entire life cycle of the product. There is a lot of different environmental information out there and we thought the most useful thing for our customers would just be to give them the facts they need to make the decisions about what type of products they’d like to purchase. So it’s really the good and the bad. It’s just the facts. We collect the data and have it third-party verified to ensure it is complete and accurate.
You can hear Lindsay talk more about using metrics during “Defining the Metrics that Matter,” part of NAEM’s Best of the 2010 Forum webinar series, on Tuesday, Nov. 16. To register, visit www.naem.org.
Waste Management for the 21st century
Mike Lloyd
If you stick around in any profession long enough you will notice the latest fad is very similar to something that you have worked on before. When I first started doing environmental work, waste minimization was the big thing. These days environmental teams are challenged to lead programs such as closed loop, cradle-to-cradle, LEAN, trash-to-cash, waste-to-gold and zero waste.
But what does it all mean, why do we care and how can we excite people about stuff that few see the value in, or that sometimes causes embarrassment when you start sharing data?
No matter what we call it, zero waste programs refer to designing and managing products and processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and material, as well as the recovery of otherwise unused material. Reduce, reuse, recycle is the foundation of many programs. The challenge is not in understanding the terms but reaching into the organization and collaborating with those able to drive change.
That change includes new approaches to product design, processes, systems and work method. It also means getting people to measure, segregate waste and start thinking about all material as having value rather than just the stuff we hide out back.
If your organization exists to sell stuff, then most likely your customers have asked about your waste. If not, then someone in the supply chain has sent you one of those questionnaires asking how much solid waste is generated and whether you have reduction targets in place?
Depending on where you operate, local governments and other stakeholders also may have an interest. And if someone outside the organization is paying attention, then we probably should too. If this is not reason enough, then handling, storing and moving stuff that is not part of your finished goods or has no value is a recipe to hemorrhage money. On a positive note, there are many companies that have embarked upon the “zero waste journey”, so there are many success stories and lessons learned out there for us.
At this year’s EHS Management Forum in Indianapolis I will join representatives from Burt’s Bees and the Shaw Industries Group to share some of these lessons as we discuss “Waste Management for the 21st Century” . We will describe the journey and answer such questions as how to get started, how to get leadership endorsement and how to transform these concepts from paper to practical process. We also will talk about how our sustainability programs have translated into profitability and how these efforts have impacted the environmental footprint of our products.
As we prepare for the conference, what questions do you have about waste management? What efforts is your company making to re-think how you use materials?
Mike Lloyd is the Director of Global Environmental Services for the Kimberly-Clark Corp. He will be speaking about at the 2010 EHS Management Forum in Indianapolis on October 14th.
Valuing ecosystems services
Andrew Mangan
Ecological balance is one of the three pillars of sustainable development and without it, business cannot function. All companies affect ecosystems and benefit from the services they provide, such as fresh water, fiber, and food. They also rely on regulatory services, like climate regulation, flood control and waste treatment.
Over the past 50 years, human activity has altered ecosystems faster and more extensively than ever before. That finding was supported by the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – a four-year, international, scientific appraisal that was completed in 2005. It concluded that most of the critical ecosystem services assessed are being degraded or used at unsustainable levels and that this will accelerate, diminishing sustainable development options and business opportunities.
Both the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development (US BCSD) have been working on ecosystems issues for 10 years. The overarching goal is that all stakeholders – including business – recognize the real benefits of ecosystems and that the true value of ecosystem services be accounted for. We’ve used gaming theory, collaborative projects and measuring tools to move toward this goal. The value and sustainable management of ecosystems must become a more integral part of economic planning and decision-making; otherwise nature will always play second fiddle to social and economic development.
With today’s communication tools, we have a unique opportunity to help business leaders understand the value of ecosystem services and their local opportunities. The current efforts of the WBCSD are focused on identifying risks and opportunities (using the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review) and quantifying the economic value of ecosystem services and strategies to businesses. The US BCSD was one of 16 WBCSD companies and regional councils that participated in a “road test” of the WBCSD Ecosystem Valuation Initiative in 2010. A guide based on that initiative describes the effectiveness of various ecosystem valuation models and tools. The final guide is expected to be published in 2011. Details will be laid out at the fall meeting of the US BCSD in Indianapolis on October 12 and presented at the 18th annual EHS Management Forum on October 14.
The US BCSD plans to establish working groups with volunteers from interested companies to help identify projects, set implementation plans, evaluate potential funders and reach out to relevant university programs. Using a project-based focus that builds on its ecosystem experience, including the US BCSD’s green brownfields project and its afforestation efforts in the Lower Mississippi River valley, the council plans to play a role in supporting healthy ecosystems for a long time to come. After many years, it appears that today, the business community, NGOs and academics are gradually realizing they share the same concerns, but simply approach them in different ways.
Andrew Mangan is the Executive Director of the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development. He will be speaking about ecosystems services at the 18th annual EHS Management Forum, October 13-15 in Indianapolis.
What are the green metrics that really matter?
Carol Singer Neuvelt
The world of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance analytics is exploding at a breakneck speed. What once was a niche field of socially responsible investing (SRI), is transforming into a vast marketplace of financial ESG-oriented indices, ratings firms, carbon reporting and mass-market editorials like Newsweek’s Green 100 ranking. Today the trend toward broader ESG and sustainability reporting is beginning to expand into auxiliary areas such as supplier questionnaires and product labeling.
With all this activity, it seems like everyone has an opinion about which metrics determine a company’s “greenness.” What remains unclear, however, is whether these types of ratings schemes can truly illustrate competitive eco-advantage in today’s complex global marketplace, or even reliably reflect strong EHS and sustainability management within a company.
When this movement took hold a decade ago, many corporate environmental leaders were excited that the external world was finally paying attention to the value their efforts contributed to the bottom line. Indeed, the establishment of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the growth of financial firms such as KLD and even the creation of the Carbon Disclosure Project were viewed as affirmations of their professional focus.
But recently, my conversations with corporate EHS leaders seem to reflect a frustration with the ever-growing number of requests. As environmental managers spend more and more time crunching data, they do so with little insight into who the requesting firm is, what their business interests are or how the mountains of data will eventually be used. What we do know is that some of this information is being used to make material judgments about a company’s long-term prospects. Yet does any of this data really indicate true progress?
I believe there is a need for a clear, thoughtful approach to ESG and Sustainability reporting that reflects the performance metrics that are both meaningful to a company and useful to its C-suite leadership, and relevant to external stakeholders.
To address this issue, NAEM has launched its ‘Green Metrics that Matter’ program, an audit of the field of ESG and Sustainability analytics. Our final report will identify the key players, the proprietary benefits of participating with them and the core metrics EHS leaders send to their C-suite. We believe this insight will help promote better decision-making by both corporate users and the broader ESG community.
As we continue our research, we would like to invite you to share your key metrics with us through our confidential online survey. We’d also love to hear your thoughts on this project. How are sustainability analytics changing how you manage? Are the questions you’re being asked the right ones for determining the extent of your environmental stewardship? Is this information truly helping the public better understand whether your products are sustainable? Or is it just an additional paperwork burden?
I eat sustainably because I care
Kelvin Roth
Some people have asked why I’m writing about food on a blog ostensibly dedicated to EHS and Sustainability business matters. Well here’s my short answer – because I care.
As Joe Fiksel so nicely pointed out in his recent post, there are several approaches to sustainability from a corporate perspective. But I firmly believe that sustainability is a ground-up grassroots individual-driven issue. No company is “sustainable” because of government regulations, shareholder referendums or board resolutions. Those may all eventually happen, but sparks of “sustainability” occur when someone in the organization cares and they are able to express it’s importance and get others involved.
Although people often equate sustainability with sacrifice and compromise, food is the one area where it’s relatively easy to do the right thing. A friend of mine once said that if he started on a quest to find the most sustainably-raised shrimp and I started on a quest to find the tastiest shrimp, we would end up in the same place with the same shrimp. This is true about so many items within our food chain. The Slow Food movement has summed up this experience in a common saying – “Eat it to save it!” – and I like to modify that a little bit to “Eat the best to save the best.”
Food sustainability is something that we can all participate in every day. This has never been truer than for the Gulf fishers and foragers who have survived this summer’s catastrophic spill. Shrimp season is now open and Gulf shrimp are not only some of the tastiest shrimp you can get, but also some of the most sustainably raised/harvested shrimp. Gulf shrimp fisheries have been effective in maintaining stocks, researching habitat effects, and addressing by-catch issues.
This presents us with a true “eat it to save it” opportunity: The largest potential damage to the Gulf fishing/food community may, like the oil spill itself, be man-made – a marketplace that is hollowed out by fear of contaminated food, even if it’s actually safe to eat.
Although many fishers and foragers were (are still) directly affected by the Gulf oil spill, the Gulf food community is not dead. Shrimp, shellfish, and other seafood from the Gulf that have been green-lighted by the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program are still making their way to market and to restaurants near you.
There are many safeguards in place, not the least of which is a community of proud artisans who care not only about the profits, but the craft of their labors. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also been sampling seafood both in closed and open waters, and sending it off for chemical testing. There are even “seafood sniffers” – state and local inspectors who have been trained to literally sniff out traces of oil contamination on seafood.
“There’s nothing wrong with Gulf seafood, because it’s tested probably more than any seafood that’s being removed right now,” retired Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen told reporters during a press briefing last week (August 18).
So if you can find Gulf-area food at a market or restaurant near you, buy it and feel good about supporting fishers, foragers and a food community in dire straits. There may be no better time for eaters, foodies and chefs to support an important economic backbone of the Gulf and country – and you can do it all by eating something tasty… how easy is that?
Are the Canadian tar sands really the solution?
Margery Moore
In his recent keynote speech to the ‘Greening the Oil Sands’ conference, John D. Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress highlighted a point that often gets overlooked whenever we start talking about development of Canada’s vast Oil Sands reserves.
As you may know, the tar sands are the second largest recoverable sources of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia, and the Alberta government proclaims that through responsible development, technology improvements and significant investment, it can help amplify Alberta’s role as a leading world energy supplier.
Even in Washington, D.C. one is hard pressed to hear anyone speak out against this development. “Hey, Canadian oil is better than foreign oil from ‘unfriendlies’?” I hear that a lot. And, “What is the matter with you, isn’t this a matter of energy security?”
Mr. Podesta’s speech answered these arguments by pointing out that continued development of unconventional energy sources like this, is stopping us from fully addressing the real issue of climate change.
“We all recognize we have to keep global temperatures under 2 degrees Celsius to avoid catastrophic climate change,” he said. “But our reliance on oil continues unchecked.”
I agree.
There are significant environmental and social costs to this development, including the clear impact of this development on wildlife and human life. To me, who has been there, and seen this development with my own eyes, the scale and impact is sobering. The development could eventually impact an area of land comparable in size to the entire state of Florida! $125 billion has been earmarked for tar sand developments within the next few years, and industry is calling for this to be increased to $379 billion by 2025. Projects totaling more than 7 million barrels of oil production have been disclosed, and current approved production exceeds 3 million barrels per day.
As one of the largest contributors to global warming in North America, I agree with Mr. Podesta that the tar sands are not the answer to our energy security crisis. Instead, we must reinforce our much talked about commitment to alternative energy and simply put more investment into renewable sources.
What do you think about the development of the Canadian tar sands? How do you think this should fit in within U.S. energy strategy?
Will the BP spill change anything?
Carol Singer Neuvelt
I recently started thinking about the importance of cultural attitudes vis-a-vis the environment, after reading an article in the Washington Post about the prospects for climate change legislation. The story explored the question of whether or not the BP spill will influence the debate and help spur legislative action:
“For environmentalists, the BP oil spill may be disproving the maxim that great tragedies produce great change. Traditionally, American environmentalism wins its biggest victories after some important piece of American environment is poisoned, exterminated or set on fire…But this year, the worst oil spill in U.S. history– and, before that, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years — haven’t put the same kind of drive into the debate over climate change and fossil-fuel energy.”
As I was reading the article, it seemed to me that if a society’s not ready for action, environmental disasters won’t necessarily translate into change. Indeed, in looking back over the history of environmental catastrophes, the cultural context seems to be as important to change as the tragedy itself.
One of the first examples we confronted, of course, was the burning of Ohio’s Cuyahoga River in 1969. During my tenure at the EPA, we talked about that incident as the seminal event that established the need for a regulatory framework at both the federal and state level. From my perspective, the other reason this event had such a big impact is because it came on the heels of the cultural movement of the 1960s, which included a focus on society’s connection with the earth.
The next major event was the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. What this taught us is that the regulation of end-of-pipe controls alone do not prevent disasters. And the unintended consequences of engineering (such as we are facing now) are not always thoroughly considered. The result was a greater emphasis in the regulatory world on the need for environmental and safety oversight from inside a company. It was also the beginning of the recognition of the role community activists can have on the public debate. As we began to notice the long-term effects of industry on communities, citizens started to find their voice through activists like Lois Gibbs who advanced the environmental movement in a new way.
And then in the 80s, we had the gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear facility in the Ukraine. These tragedies not only introduced our global awareness and response to environmental issues, but also were catalyst that led to the passage of community “right-to-know” legislation. The other key outcome from Bhopal that’s still relevant today was the strong demand for public and financial accountability. Union Carbide no longer exists, yet the effects of the leak continue in the form of on-going litigation, severance to individuals, and continued quantification of the disaster’s impact.
So what does this all mean for where we’re headed tomorrow? What do you think?
Should the BP spill be an instigator for climate change legislation? Should regulations come out of it? If so, what regulatory, legal, financial or societal changes do you think we need? I’d love to hear from you.
Local initiatives create sustainable communities
Margery Moore
Community-level sustainability initiatives are on the rise! According to the book “Blessed Unrest” by Paul Hawken, there is an enormous surge of grass-roots initiatives happening globally right now. And although they are relative disconnected, together they wield huge influence.
I see this happening daily, from my home on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, where no fewer than 150 NGO’s are working on sustainability and related environmental projects. The power of groups like these is growing. In many towns in North America, local level by-laws are being re-written to exclude certain types of development based on sustainability principles and frameworks, such as “The Natural Step” or “Transition Town.”
Transition Town is a movement that supports communities with creating carbon emission reducing initiatives. It already has about 300 towns on board and is growing rapidly. Salt Spring is one of them and has already made headway locally, helping set carbon reduction goals. At the heart of a Transition Town is an energy plan the community develops to help them move off of fossil fuels. This can occur through setting up food co-ops, electric car co-ops, pressuring the local government to set carbon reduction goals or exclude certain types of industrial businesses, etc.
Communities can now take advantage of data freely available on the Web to inform them of what governments, NGOs, and businesses are doing in their region. That is the first step to understanding a town’s carbon footprint and where to put the bulk of the effort.
Going one step further, using community planning software, collaborative decision-making can occur in a community between all groups to help identify goals, metrics and what the trade-offs are so that everyone can agree to a local energy reduction plan.
As community interest in quality-of-life and resource management issues grows, what impact do you think this will have on the practice of EHS Management? What is your company doing to engage community-level stakeholders?
Margery Moore is a member of the NAEM Board of Directors and the Director of EHS Alliances for the Bureau of National Affairs, a Washington, D.C.-based media company. A columnist for BNA, she also regularly contributes to GreenSense Radio, a radio program about the top climate and energy stories of the week.
During her spare time, she serves as advisor to the Association for Climate Change Officers(ACCO) and runs The Institute for Sustainability Education & Action on Salt Spring Island, B.C.
Environmentalism is Patriotic
Carol Singer Neuvelt
While much has been written about our country’s abundant natural wealth, it bears reminding that our access to natural resources helped fuel our economic prosperity and leadership during the 20th century.
I know it’s hokey, but on the eve of Independence Day, I’d like to spend a few moments pondering the idea that environmental values are at the core of the cultural and societal values this country was founded on.
So in the spirit of the day, I’d like to share what a few of our Presidents had to say about the importance of environmental conservation:
“To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.” - Theodore Roosevelt
“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
“The solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.” — Jimmy Carter
“The American people have a right to air that they and their children can breathe without fear.” – Lyndon Baines Johnson
“The people have a vital interest in the conservation of their natural resources; in the prevention of wasteful practices.” – Herbert Hoover
“The recent upsurge of public concern over environmental questions reflects a belated recognition that man has been too cavalier in his relations with nature. Unless we arrest the depredations that have been inflicted so carelessly on our natural systems–which exist in an intricate set of balances–we face the prospect of ecological disaster.” - Richard Nixon
As we all prepare to close up shop and celebrate the Independence Day, I invite you share some of the patriotic environmentalist that have inspired you in your career and life.
Memo to the Millennials
Stephen Evanoff
This is a big, fat, bald-faced, suck-up appeal to NAEM members under age of 30, aka, the Millennial Generation. You old farts, a.k.a, Boomers, stop reading, put down your bifocals, and go watch M*A*S*H reruns.
My millennial generation-aged son likes to remind me that I am from the Bronze Age. Yes, I was alive when Kennedy was President, and can remember when telephones had dials and the four local TV channels went off the air at midnight. But hear me out — because NAEM wants to hear from you.
The EHS profession emerged as the Boomers began entering the work force. So for the past 30 years, Boomers have dominated the profession to an even greater extent than they’ve dominated every other aspect of our society. All this is about to dramatically change. The Boomers will be retiring in large numbers over the next decade and your generation will need to fill the void and take on EHS challenges more complex, more global, and more long-term in nature than ever before.
I’ve visited college towns like Ann Arbor, Mich. and given presentations on EHS management at the University of Denver and University of Colorado. I’ve concluded that your generation brings a unique set of skills, healthy perceptions and realistic expectations to these issues. I think my son and his friends are representative.
My son works for Apple Computer in Denver’s Apple Store. He’s passionate about his work and believes in the product, but he’s not a workaholic like I tend to be. He understands that our current way of living isn’t sustainable, but he’s not a zealot about the environment like many Boomers were when they were his age.
He and his friends want to live comfortably, but they are not motivated by materialism. The 1980’s bumper sticker “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins” makes no sense to them. I’ve observed that he and his friends seek balance in their lives and tend to value relationships above stuff. These are encouraging signs. After all, achieving balance in one’s own life is the first, important step to achieving balance in the world around us.
NAEM understands this and is ready to change. Over the coming months, we will begin making changes to the NAEM Website, the Green Tie blog and our event offerings to better connect to the needs and values of the future leaders in our profession.
But we need your help to make our efforts a success. So, if you are younger than the band members of Green Day and Coldplay, tell us: What do you like about the EHS profession? How can NAEM help you advance in your career? What kind of tools would you like to see us use to help you do a better job?
And to you Boomers, if you’re not already into your afternoon nap, tell us: What skills do you think our younger members should develop to be successful EHS managers?
Stephen Evanoff is chairperson for the 2010 NAEM Forum. He resides in an assisted living facility, where he spends his ample free time listening to Moody Blues records. He hopes to attend the 2010 NAEM EHS Management Forum in person, if the airline permits him to board with his walker.
