Interface Cut The Fluff

Ericsson and their LCA’s – Highlighting the ‘Products in Operation’ Phase

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:23 +0000

It’s great to see my ex-colleagues at Ericsson are making progress at reducing the impact of their products.

Back in 2008, Ericsson set a five-year target to reduce carbon emission intensity by 40% across their own activities and the life-cycle impacts of their ‘Products in Operation’ phase.

Direct emissions are minimal compared to their products, as you can see below. This confirms again, as with most companies, how critical the ‘Products in Operation’ phase thinking is.

On page 19 of their sustainability report, you can find their LCA results.

Good News From Ericsson’s Sustainability Report

Ramon Arratia — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:20:02 +0000

I found this fantastic graph while looking at a recent Ericsson sustainability report.

You can see how the new mobile internet has substantially less impact than fixed internet. The switch from PCs to mobile devices will slash its environmental impact as well as the improvements in networks technology.

I’m glad the mobile industry is not dividing metrics into MB like it used to do a decade ago, normalised by user. We have to ensure we’re comparing oranges with oranges; a heavy user in a developed country with several devices is not comparable to a fisherman in Africa with a basic cell phone.

Let’s wait to see how the graph below pans out just with European data…

Climate Change, GDP & Social Development – No Compromise Needed?

Ramon Arratia — Tue, 15 May 2012 11:19:13 +0000

What if you found a technology where no compromises had to be made between climate change, GDP and social development?

A technology we all know – Broadband.

The ICT industry has provided a very insightful pitch for their technology in this report called: The Broadband Bridge

The expansion of broadband networks, services and applications is directly correlated to global GDP growth. For example; in China, every 10% increase in broadband penetration could contribute an extra 2.5% to GDP growth.

The ICT sector has been estimated to contribute 2 – 2.5% of global GHG emissions, including radio communications systems and equipment. But by far its largest contribution is in enabling energy efficiency in other sectors (the remaining 98%).

The smart use of ICT solutions could reduce CO2 emissions in logistics, transportation, buildings, smart grids and dematerialisation in Germany by as much as 25%.

For every kilowatt hour of electricity consumed by ICT, the US increased overall energy savings by a factor of 10.

Our Response to the Consultation on Delivering more Sustainable Consumption and Production

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:36:36 +0000

This is InterfaceFLOR Europe’s response to the European Commission consultation on the possible introduction of EU-wide measures related to sustainable consumption and production (entitled: Consultation on Delivering more Sustainable Consumption and Production).

The consultation looks at green public procurement, the environmental footprint of products (PEFs) and the environmental footprint of organisations (OEF).

At InterfaceFLOR Europe (http://www.interfaceflor.eu) we are particularly interested in PEFs. We make and sell the world’s largest and most diverse range of modular carpet flooring. We have an annual turnover of around $1bn and 5,000 employees.

Our founder, Ray Anderson, who died in 2011, was a leading proponent of sustainable consumption and production, and in 1996 set Interface a ‘Mission Zero’ goal of delivering zero negative impacts by 2020 while maintaining and even improving profitability. We are well on the way to achieving that goal, having, for instance, reduced our water use by 75% since 1996, cut greenhouse gas emissions by 44%, and lowered energy use by 43%.

The European Commission is beginning to understand the power of full product transparency, as is evident in this latest consultation document. At InterfaceFLOR we very much welcome this development, as we believe that environmental policies across Europe lack co-ordination. Our view is that the coordination of all environmental policy instruments is best served by starting from the central point of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which the EC is calling Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs).

An EPD reveals the ingredients of a product, its methods of production, and the full environmental impact of each stage of its life cycle, measured in several impact categories including impact on climate change (grammes of CO2), water use (litres), and other air emissions (grammes of SO2).

EPDs are becoming more prevalent in Europe. They are already widely used in the construction sector. The new EN15804 standard for EPDs will be published in 2012, and we will therefore see more new products with EPDs that have been developed to a European harmonised standard.

At Interface we are producing EPDs for all our carpet tiles. We believe the way forward for corporate sustainability is to use the information gleaned from EPDs to substantially reduce the overall environmental impacts of the products we make, rather than just focusing on cutting the impacts of our own operations. By concentrating on EPDs, we will automatically cut the impacts of our operations anyway as these are represented in the manufacturing stage of the product life cycle.

Using EPDs as a starting point, we have managed to garner information that has helped us to substantially reduce the environmental impacts of many of our products. A typical carpet tile of virgin nylon yarn has an embodied carbon footprint (from the well to the factory gate) of around 10kgCO2/m2. But our latest tile, Biosfera Micro, is made of recycled nylon from old carpet and fishing nets – and has a footprint of just 5.8kgCO2/m2. We think we can take this close to 4kgCO2/m2 soon.

So these low yarn carpet tiles, which we call Microtuft, have almost half the embodied environmental impact of a typical carpet tile. We launched Microtuft in 2000 and they account for around 13% of our sales. But does the market really reward products such as these? Are there any incentives that support products with less environmental impact? The answer is no. We believe there should be such incentives, and that they should be based around EPDs.

Here are some of the ways in which we believe EPDs can be used to reward those who begin to reduce the environmental impacts of their products:

EPDs as a guarantee against greenwash.

Despite the prevalence of greenwash, there is no European-wide agreement on the making of environmental claims. Companies are very fond of making extravagant claims, such as that their factories use ‘100% green electricity’ or that they are ‘carbon neutral’. But the main impacts of products are usually outside company boundaries. EPDs are the only things that show these impacts exactly as they are, across the life cycle.

We therefore advocate a European-wide regulation which stipulates that companies can only make environmental marketing claims that are based on third party certified EPDs. That way greenwash is effectively banished – and companies also have an incentive to carry out EPDs. The French government is exploring this avenue already. Governments should stop wasting money on anti- greenwash guides and awareness-raising, and make sure that companies are only allowed to make claims that can be prove through an EPD.

EPDs as an alternative to dubious green labels.

There are too many ‘green labels’ in Europe, and a good deal of them are inadequate or highly dubious. Some companies have labels on their products that are issued by private firms that offer consulting and certification services simultaneously. Many labels are far too easy to obtain, or just focus on a narrow range of issues. Others lack independent certification methods or may even be administered by the manufacturers themselves. Many labels duplicate each other, confusing clients and obliging manufacturers to certify the same product several times. Unfortunately, some of the labels that are best marketed are the least robust.

EPDs are a much better alternative. The concept of full product transparency (producing an EPD where you state your ingredients, production methods and environmental impacts) will give greater re-assurance to buyers and will eventually lead to the demise of bad labels. If every product had an EPD, then there would be no need for any other ‘green’ labelling.

EPDs as a basis for Ecolabels.

The consultation paper suggests increasing the marketing budget for the EU’s voluntary Ecolabel. This might be a good idea, but we should fix the Ecolabel criteria first. At the moment there is no credibility in the criteria required to achieve the Ecolabel. Powerful industry lobbies – and countries protecting their industries – manage to impose criteria that are favourable to themselves. In many cases, the criteria for Ecolabels do not take into account the full environmental impacts of a product because they do not include the rigour of a life cycle analysis.

Again, EPDs can provide the solution. There should be an overarching European rule which says that Ecolabels are only awarded to products that have 50% less impact than the typical generic product in their category. For example, a typical carpet tile has 10kgCO2/m2, so Ecolabels should only be awarded for carpets with less than 5kgCO2/m2.

In order to drive radical innovation there should be a ‘golden’ Ecolabel (at a higher level than the normal Ecolabel) which is only awarded to products with 80% less impact than the generic product. That way you create an incentive for companies to go the extra mile.

Once these rules have been introduced to add credibility to the Ecolabel, then we can consider increasing the marketing budget.

EPDs as the foundation for green public procurement.

If you had EPDs for all products, it would be easy to know which products have more or less impacts. That would be good news for public procurers, who are struggling to establish which of the products they need to buy is better for the environment. Today everybody is talking about the power of
green public procurement, but what’s the point if nobody knows how to buy green?

The EU’s guidelines on green public procurement provide advice based either on complicated criteria and ideas or on generalities such as ‘take into account energy consumption and emissions’. What public procurers really want is clear guidelines and targets. For instance, that they should buy cars with less than 120gCO2/km or rent buildings with heating/cooling requirements of 50kWh/m2. With EPDs, we could provide very simple guidance to public procurers on many things. We could provide real data per product, instead of vague advice that is of very little help in making sustainable purchasing decisions.

EPDs as a way to decide on tax incentives.

If EPDs were universally adopted, we would have a clear and simple basis for assigning tax benefits to products that have a lower environmental impact. For example, products awarded the Golden Ecolabel on the grounds that they have 80% less environmental impact could also qualify for lower product taxes (eg VAT) over a period of time.

If we don’t provide such tax incentives, who will re-design products with 80% less embodied carbon, apart from a handful of companies with a higher purpose? Business needs clear signals that environmental innovation will be rewarded.

EPDs as the bedrock for voluntary standards.

At present, various industries have to cope with different national voluntary green standards according to the country they are dealing with. In the construction sector, for instance, there are various national green building standards competing against each other, including DGNB in Germany, HQE in France, BREEAM in the UK, and Verde in Spain – with only the DGNB standard being based on EPDs. This is a problem for suppliers of building products such as Interface, who have to pay in various countries to certify their products.

If we were to have a harmonised European standard for each sector based on EPDs, this would immediately become valid in all countries and so would do away with the confusion, extra cost and administration that the current piecemeal system of standards entails.

Some lessons from EPD-based regulation of the car industry.

One of the best ways to appreciate the transformative power of EPDs is to look at the progress made by the European car industry since a 2009 EU regulation introduced EPDs as the basis for requirements on tailpipe emissions.

The regulation required car manufactures to decrease average tailpipe emissions across their portfolio to 130gCO2/km by 2015 and 95gCO2/km by 2020. This forced each manufacturer to create an EPD for each of its cars based on gCO2/km.

From 2010, if the average CO2 emissions of a manufacturer’s fleet exceed its limit in any one year, the company has to pay an excess emissions premium for each car registered. This premium

amounts to €5 for the first g/km it exceeds the target, €15 for the second g/km, €25 for the third g/km, and €95 for each subsequent g/km. From 2019, the exceeding the limit will become even more expensive, with the cost of even the first g/km rising to €95.

With such significant financial implications, the impact of this approach was almost immediate. In 2009 the decrease in average EU emissions was 5% against the previous year, with a further 4% cut in 2010.

In 2008 the average gCO2/km for car emissions in the UK alone was 158, but by the end of 2009 this was down to 149.5. Within just one year of the regulation coming into force, the UK car industry had achieved a reduction in tailpipe emissions of more than 5%, compared with just 2.2 per cent in the eight years up to 2006.

This suggests a way ahead for other products:

Develop a common ‘magic metric’, to be measured by an EPD, based on the full product life cycle impact or at least on the main area of impact.
Set a target for the product, based on that metric, at EU level. Reinforce this with penalties if the target is not met.
Make it mandatory to have the magic EPD metric visible on all promotional materials and at point of sale. This could be through an easy to understand colour-coded A-G label based on absolute figures.
Create tax regimes and incentives that reinforce the signals given at EU level.
Encourage civil society intermediaries to raise awareness of the issue based on the magic metric.
Release the power of public procurement by providing easy guidance based on the magic metric.

Warning: EPDs are not the answer to everything!

At Interface, as you can see, we are firmly of the opinion that EPDs are the way ahead on a number of fronts. But we recognise that they are not a panacea for all ills.

Although EPDs can pinpoint the most critical environmental impacts of a product, and provide magic metrics for many product categories, they cannot measure some things. They cannot, for example, provide a measure of product durability or show how recyclable it is.

There is little that governments can do to mandate durability at product level, apart from requiring manufacturers to guarantee the products they sell for a number of years and obliging them to disclose product durability information at point of sale.

The encouragement of recycling requires further policy instruments than those enabled by EPDs. EPDs will create a strong support for recycling because products with high post-consumer recycled materials are very likely to have substantially smaller footprints than those from virgin materials. But that might not give manufacturers an incentive to re-design products for better disassembly and recycling. This means there should be extra incentives for companies to design products that are easier to disassemble and recycle. At the regulatory level, high landfill tax rates encourage recyclability .

Conclusion

If the EC wants to deliver more sustainable consumption and production, then it must harness the power of full product transparency.

EPDs provide a full picture of a product’s impact throughout its life, rather than a snapshot as that product passes through one business. Companies that focus on EPDs very quickly discover what they need to do to reduce their footprint – whereas those that don’t can spend many years pursuing policies that make little difference, mainly because they don’t have the true picture of where their main impacts are.

The EC should encourage a shift towards EPDs as the main driver of environmental progress at corporate level. The strides made in the car industry show the value of this approach.

Because EPDs present a precise and verifiable measure of a product’s impact, not least through the use of a ‘magic metric’, they provide a clear and simple way of measuring progress.

If the EC were to insist that environmental claims can only be made only in relation to EPDs, then greenwashing may become a distant memory. If every product has an EPD, then there will be little or no need for other ‘green’ labelling. EPDs can be the basis for voluntary industry standards, doing away with the geographical variations across Europe that cause confusion and duplication of effort. They can offer a solid foundation for green public procurement, providing real data per product instead of vague advice. They can be the foundation stone for a more robust Ecolabel regime, and they can be the markers for tax incentive regimes that reward manufacturers of products that are less harmful to the environment.

We strongly urge the EC to embrace the value of EPDs and to harness their power now.

Magic Metrics In A Can Of Coca-Cola

Ramon Arratia — Thu, 10 May 2012 09:06:57 +0000

It’s true. Only geeks like me read sustainability reports, but what can you do when you’re bored waiting for a flight?

This time I read the report from Coca Cola Entreprises. Their seventh, incorporating Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CRS).

Here is my take:

It’s a bit of a surprise that they are reporting so prominently on key product metrics (normally the opposite for corporates), and it’s quite a good performance.

1.43 litres of water are used per litre of Coke. However, I wonder how much room there is to reduce it to 1.1 or lower perhaps? (Please forgive me for not being ‘a man’ while I grab a Diet Coke)

I love the focus on LCA, finally companies are getting it. And guess what?

47% of the carbon is packaging… with:

21% used to keep the cans and bottles cold
17% on ingredients
8% for manufacturing

Another nice surprise is that they have managed to decouple business growth from emissions although I believe there is a further potential saving seeing that refrigeration and packaging takes so much carbon.

One of the elephants in the room is portfolio management. No company is talking about it.

How can you sell more of the more sustainable stuff and less of the less sustainable. For example CCE could consider how to shift from traditional soft drinks to low calorie ones? And given that packaging has such a high relative carbon footprint, how can they entice customers into shifting towards lower carbon packaging products?

Value of Certified Green Construction Worldwide is Rising

Ramon Arratia — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:58:27 +0000

An interesting report from SBI Energy :Certified Green Construction Market Strong in Down Economy

Green construction is moving from a niche to the mainstream. The total value of certified green construction worldwide in 2011 is estimated at nearly $70 billion. According to a new research report from industrial and energy market research publisher SBI Energy, the market is anticipated to reach almost $150 billion by 2016, and $294 billion by 2021.

More harbingers of this growing industry: Non-residential buildings have the major share in the market at $51 billion in 2011,but green homes currently represent the fastest growing segment of green construction — the market value of LEED certified homes jumped from $39 million in 2007 to $17.15 billion in 2011.

“Interest in joining the green construction market is growing,” notes Shelley Carr, publisher of SBI Energy. “Regulatory instruments, governmental initiatives and financial support mechanisms, together with growing consumer awareness and expectations, all put pressure on construction market participants to adopt more green practices.”

“The role of buildings in energy efficiency policy is expected to grow in the next few years as well, both at the national level and globally,” said Carr. “In addition to addressing environmental concerns, the development of a green construction market also has important socio-economic implications. It is estimated that investments in improved energy efficiency of buildings can generate an additional 2 to 3.5 million green jobs in Europe and the United States alone.”

How the Daily Mail ruined one of the best green building policies

Ramon Arratia — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:49:08 +0000

Conservatory tax.

How two words chosen by the Daily Mail ruined one of the best green building policies.

Paul King, CEO of the UK Green Building Council, explains the truth behind the recent government U turn on consequential improvements.

4 key points:

1. It was not a tax
2. It would be paid out of energy bill savings
3. It would only be enforce if the savings were cost-effective
3. It didn’t apply to conservatories

View the full document below:

The consequences of a U-turn on consequential improvements

The Sustainable Shipping Initiative

Ramon Arratia — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:22:32 +0000

Fantastic initiative from the shipping industry, coordinated by Forum for the Future.

The sustainable shipping initiative aims at a profitable and sustainable shipping industry by 2040 and has just published the 4 work streams they will be focusing on:

Closed Loop Materials Management
Financing sustainable shipping
Energy technology
Credible Benchmarking: How to use and improve Sustainability Rating Schemes in Shipping

When an industry is serious, they address the elephants in the room such as the below:

Seeking alternatives to spray insulation, which makes recycling impossible
Conservatism in the industry
Uncertainty over technologies
Split incentives

Well done to Forum for the Future and the shipping industry.

The role of the UK Construction industry

Ramon Arratia — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:54:35 +0000

Here is a nice summary of the role of the UK Construction industry but together by the The Innovation and Growth Team (“IGT”) discussing how they can work towards the low carbon agenda:

For companies in the wider construction industry, the task is three-fold:
● to de-carbonise their own business
● to provide people with buildings that enable them to lead more energy efficient lives
● to provide the infrastructure which enables the supply of clean energy and
sustainable practices in other areas of the economy

Click below to view the full report

Low Carbon Construction – Innovation & Growth Team: Final Report

Creating a Sustainability Culture: A breakfast seminar hosted by Interface

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:09:58 +0000

As part of the Carbon Credentials breakfast series we will be hosting a breakfast on the 9th of May in our London show room

I will be taking about creating a sustainability culture, how we have done this at Interface and what we have learnt.

If you would be interested in joining us please register here

IGT Low Carbon Construction Report

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:37:43 +0000

The Innovation and Growth Team (“IGT”) have put together this report looking at how the UK construction industry is working towards the low carbon agenda.

They discuss the barriers and key issues for the industry and the government.

A few of the key themes they discuss are:

● The need for clear leadership.

● Co-operation.

● The problem of complexity and confusing language.

● The absence of a transparent plan.

● Industry structure and practice.

● Capacity and skills.

● Incentivisation.

● Affordability and funding.

See the full report here:

Low Carbon Construction – Innovation & Growth Team: Final Report

Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World – Report by KPMG

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:46:29 +0000

KPMG have put together this interesting report that looks at the systems of 10 sustainability megaforces and how they will impact each and every business in the next 20 years.

A few key insights:

The costs of environmental impacts of business operations are doubling every 14 years
Companies should expect increases in external environmental costs which today are often not shown on financial statements
Businesses and policymakers must take joint strategic decisions and act now

The global sustainability mega forces they analyse are as follows:

Climate Change
Energy & Fuel
Material Resource Scarcity
Water Scarcity
Population Growth
Wealth
Urbanisation
Food Security
Ecosystem Decline
Deforestation

The report discusses the strategies that businesses need to consider for the future, and recommend businesses understand and assess risks, measure and report on sustainability and seek collaboration with business partners in sustainability issues.

They also recommend that government and policy makers work towards better continuity and coherence in policy, reducing complexity in policy and encourage international collaboration.

The full report can be found here: Expect The Unexpected – Building Business Value in a Changing World

Milan Design Week 2012 – The Metropolis Collection by Interface

Ramon Arratia — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:55:18 +0000

During Milan Design Week 2012, Interface launched our latest collection, Metropolis.

Architect and fashion designer Francesco Maria Bandini, the creative force behind last years ‘The Positive Floor’ installation, is currently collaborating with Interface on the exhibition that will showcase the new Metropolis collection.

You can also view our interactive video on the Interface website here

Resource Revolution – Report by the McKinsey Global Institute

Ramon Arratia — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:24:04 +0000

The McKinsey Global Institute has put together a very interesting report looking at the Resource Revolution and how to meet the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs.

The report goes into detail into the challenges of meeting resource supply and production, how policy makers should consider this and the risks and opportunities relating to businesses.

In the 20th century, governments and businesses didn’t have to worry about resource productivity; they were able to focus on capital and labor instead. Over the next 20 years, resources needs to be put at the heart of public policy and business strategy.

A few interesting stats:

3 billion more middle-class consumers expected to be in the global economy by 2030
80% rise in steel demand projected from 2010 – 2030
147% increase in real commodity prices since the turn of the century
100% increase in the average cost to bring a new oil well on line over the past decade

The report also identifies 15 opportunities that could deliver about 75% of the resource productivity benefits.

The full report can be found here:

Resource revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs

World Economic Forum and Accenture Report : More With Less

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:46:46 +0000

Accenture and the World Economic Forum have put together this report looking at how consumption can be made more sustainable.

The video below discusses the 3 key takeaways.

For more interesting information you can view the full report here

European Commission Consultation on Delivering more Sustainable Consumption and Production: Our Response

Ramon Arratia — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:11:08 +0000

This is Interface Europe’s response to the European Commission consultation on the possible introduction of EU-wide measures related to sustainable consumption and production (entitled: Consultation on Delivering more Sustainable Consumption and Production).

The consultation looks at green public procurement, the environmental footprint of products (PEFs) and the environmental footprint of organisations (OEF).

At Interface Europe we are particularly interested in PEFs.

The European Commission is beginning to understand the power of full product transparency, as is evident in this latest consultation document.

At Interface we very much welcome this development, as we believe that environmental policies across Europe lack co-ordination.

Our view is that the coordination of all environmental policy instruments is best served by starting from the central point of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which the EC is calling Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs).

An EPD reveals the ingredients of a product, its methods of production, and the full environmental impact of each stage of its life cycle, measured in several impact categories including impact on climate change (grammes of CO₂), water use (litres), and other air emissions (grammes of SO₂).

We believe the way forward for corporate sustainability is to use the information gleaned from EPDs to substantially reduce the overall environmental impacts of the products we make, rather than just focusing on cutting the impacts of our own operations.

By concentrating on EPDs, we will automatically cut the impacts of our operations anyway as these are represented in the manufacturing stage of the product life cycle.

Below you will find a few excerpts from our consultation document.

You can find the full PDF here .

If you have any suggestions, questions or queries about this document, please don’t hesitate to leave a comment.

If you would like to share this document with individuals that would be interested, we would could very much welcome this.

At Interface we are producing EPDs for all our carpet tiles. We believe the way forward for corporate sustainability is to use the information gleaned from EPDs to substantially reduce the overall environmental impacts of the products we make, rather than just focusing on cutting the impacts of our own operations. By concentrating on EPDs, we will automatically cut the impacts of our operations anyway as these are represented in the manufacturing stage of the product life cycle.

Here are some of the ways in which we believe EPDs can be used to reward those who begin to reduce the environmental impacts of their products:

EPDs as a guarantee against greenwash

Despite the prevalence of greenwash, there is no European-wide agreement on the making of environmental claims. Companies are very fond of making extravagant claims, such as that their factories use ‘100% green electricity’ or that they are ‘carbon neutral’. But the main impacts of products are usually outside company boundaries. EPDs are the only things that show these impacts exactly as they are, across the life cycle.

We therefore advocate a European-wide regulation which stipulates that companies can only make environmental marketing claims that are based on third party certified EPDs. That way greenwash is effectively banished – and companies also have an incentive to carry out EPDs. The French government is exploring this avenue already. Governments should stop wasting money on anti-greenwash guides and awareness-raising, and make sure that companies are only allowed to make claims that can be prove through an EPD.

EPDs as an alternative to dubious green labels

There are too many ‘green labels’ in Europe, and a good deal of them are inadequate or highly dubious. Some companies have labels on their products that are issued by private firms that offer consulting and certification services simultaneously. Many labels are far too easy to obtain, or just focus on a narrow range of issues. Others lack independent certification methods or may even be administered by the manufacturers themselves. Many labels duplicate each other, confusing clients and obliging manufacturers to certify the same product several times. Unfortunately, some of the labels that are best marketed are the least robust.

EPDs are a much better alternative. The concept of full product transparency (producing an EPD where you state your ingredients, production methods and environmental impacts) will give greater re-assurance to buyers and will eventually lead to the demise of bad labels. If every product had an EPD, then there would be no need for any other ‘green’ labelling.

EPDs as a basis for Ecolabels

The consultation paper suggests increasing the marketing budget for the EU’s voluntary Ecolabel. This might be a good idea, but we should fix the Ecolabel criteria first. At the moment there is no credibility in the criteria required to achieve the Ecolabel. Powerful industry lobbies – and countries protecting their industries – manage to impose criteria that are favourable to themselves. In many cases, the criteria for Ecolabels do not take into account the full environmental impacts of a product because they do not include the rigour of a life cycle analysis.

Again, EPDs can provide the solution. There should be an overarching European rule which says that Ecolabels are only awarded to products that have 50% less impact than the typical generic product in their category. For example, a typical carpet tile has 10kgCO₂/m², so Ecolabels should only be awarded for carpets with less than 5kgCO₂/m².

In order to drive radical innovation there should be a ‘golden’ Ecolabel (at a higher level than the normal Ecolabel) which is only awarded to products with 80% less impact than the generic product. That way you create an incentive for companies to go the extra mile.

Once these rules have been introduced to add credibility to the Ecolabel, then we can consider increasing the marketing budget.

EPDs as the foundation for green public procurement

If you had EPDs for all products, it would be easy to know which products have more or less impacts. That would be good news for public procurers, who are struggling to establish which of the products they need to buy is better for the environment. Today everybody is talking about the power of green public procurement, but what’s the point if nobody knows how to buy green?

The EU’s guidelines on green public procurement provide advice based either on complicated criteria and ideas or on generalities such as ‘take into account energy consumption and emissions’. What public procurers really want is clear guidelines and targets. For instance, that they should buy cars with less than 120gCO₂/km or rent buildings with heating/cooling requirements of 50kWh/m². With EPDs, we could provide very simple guidance to public procurers on many things. We could provide real data per product, instead of vague advice that is of very little help in making sustainable purchasing decisions.

EPDs as a way to decide on tax incentives

If EPDs were universally adopted, we would have a clear and simple basis for assigning tax benefits to products that have a lower environmental impact. For example, products awarded the Golden Ecolabel on the grounds that they have 80% less environmental impact could also qualify for lower product taxes (eg VAT) over a period of time.

If we don’t provide such tax incentives, who will re-design products with 80% less embodied carbon, apart from a handful of companies with a higher purpose? Business needs clear signals that environmental innovation will be rewarded.

This suggests a way ahead for other products:

Develop a common ‘magic metric’, to be measured by an EPD, based on the full product life cycle impact or at least on the main area of impact.

Set a target for the product, based on that metric, at EU level. Reinforce this with penalties if the target is not met.

Make it mandatory to have the magic EPD metric visible on all promotional materials and at point of sale. This could be through an easy to understand colour-coded A-G label based on absolute figures.

Create tax regimes and incentives that reinforce the signals given at EU level.

Encourage civil society intermediaries to raise awareness of the issue based on the magic metric.

Release the power of public procurement by providing easy guidance based on the magic metric.

Conclusion

If the EC wants to deliver more sustainable consumption and production, then it must harness the power of full product transparency.

EPDs provide a full picture of a product’s impact throughout its life, rather than a snapshot as that product passes through one business. Companies that focus on EPDs very quickly discover what they need to do to reduce their footprint – whereas those that don’t can spend many years pursuing policies that make little difference, mainly because they don’t have the true picture of where their main impacts are.

Closing the Loop presentation

Ramon Arratia — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:18:57 +0000

This is the presentation I did at Ecobuild in the UKGBC tent.

Closing the loop presentation in Ecobuild

View more PowerPoint from Ramon Arratia

Friends of the Earth response to EU resource efficiency roadmap

Ramon Arratia — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:21:26 +0000

Thanks at Friends of the Earth for putting the product policy at the center of their recomendations on the EU resource efficiency roadmap

It’s very much aligned with our response on to the EU resource efficiency roadmap. where we put full product transparency at the center of the policy framework.

How European policy instruments could radically change with EPDs

View more documents from Ramon Arratia

Aldersgate Group letter to the chancellor

Ramon Arratia — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:14:51 +0000

The concept of the magic metric

Ramon Arratia — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:02:02 +0000

magic metric: a single piece of data that has the power to galvanise legislation at all levels to create a level playing field that promotes strong competition and innovation to redesign products to reduce their environmental footprint.

Like gCO2/km in cars

Transparency at work the magic that changed the car industry

View more documents from Ramon Arratia