Sustainable Product Design Tools and Technology – Free Webinar

Recently, I had the opportunity to participate as a panelist on a webinar focused on tools for sustainable product design and development. Other panelists included: Lise Laurin, founder, EarthShift; Terry Swack, founder & CEO, Sustainable Minds; and Jørgen Vos, product management director, Life Cycle Analytics, PTC InSight Product Analytics.

Hosted by Cadalyst magazine as part of its new On the Edge webinar series, “The Truth About Environmental Performance Software” attempted to address such questions as:

• Is sustainable design just a passing fad?
• Do the tools available today effectively support the kind of lifecycle thinking required to create innovative, profitable, earth-friendly products?
• To what extent do LCA (life cycle analysis), PLM (product lifecycle management), and environmental compliance tools and technology play a part in supporting sustainable product design and development today?

What was perhaps most compelling to me is that we all agreed that sustainable product development is here to stay - the real question is, what will it take for it to be embraced more widely? As a scientist and true practitioner of life cycle analysis, Earthshift’s Lise Laurin offered valuable insight regarding the evolution of LCA-based thinking, while Sustainable Minds’ Terry Swack emphasized the value of LCA as a diagnostic tool, useful for assisting product designers early in the design process. PTC’s Jørgen Vos offered a unique perspective, as the overseer of both the company’s new lifecycle analytics tool, as well as its more widely known InSight environmental compliance software.

Mostly, however, the discussion centered around what it would take, ultimately, to make sustainable product design more of a standard practice among manufacturers. And, here – the message is clear. In addition to education, communication between such diverse groups as engineering and design, quality, environmental health and safety, and corporate sustainability is key. How that will be accomplished – as well as the tools, technology, and best practices that can be employed to facilitate communication and achieve sustainability objectives – is part of the ongoing debate among practitioners in this area.

Some suggest that sustainability is destined to take much the same path as the quality movement did years ago; some suggest that taking even small steps towards meeting your company’s sustainable product design and development objectives, is what is required. In either case, tools and methodologies like PLM, LCA and environmental compliance are an important part of the solution, but only a part. Overall, a new way of viewing and supporting product design and development is what is truly necessary – one that takes into account both economic objectives and environmental/social impacts.

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

See also:

On the Edge with Cadalyst #3: “The Truth About Environmental Performance Software” (Replay)

Sustainability: It’s About Having a Beneficial Footprint -- Not Necessarily a Smaller One

In a recent interview, chemist and co-author of the book Cradle-to-Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, Dr. Michael Braungart offers the view that sustainable design isn’t about minimizing or reducing environmental impact but rather, designing a product that ultimately has a positive environmental footprint.  As noted in the following excerpt:

 “Our traditional thinking is cradle-to-grave—the way many of our current industries still operate. It’s a design paradigm that destroys the planet. With Cradle-to-Cradle thinking, products should be made with quality and beauty. We need to focus on a positive agenda. What is the positive footprint of a product or a service? Look at nature - it’s not just about reducing, avoiding, minimizing - it’s about abundance using the right materials. Nature doesn’t know waste as everything is reused. It is all about reusing and recycling nutrients. This is true both for biological cycles and industrial cycles.” - Dr. Michael Braungart

More conventional views take the stand that sustainability is about reducing environmental impact, using fewer resources, emitting fewer GHG emissions, etc. But is that really the right metric for defining a successful sustainability effort? Braungart would no doubt argue that it isn’t. Why? Because by thinking about polluting less, or being less “bad”, or reducing the degree of damage to the environment or society, the problem is that less damage is still damage. Instead, organizations need to look at the entire product lifecycle and ask, “How can products be designed in such a way as to maximize the environmental, societal, and financial benefits - rather than simply minimize negative impacts?” There’s a big difference.

Currently, companies are primarily focused on such sustainability metrics as: energy efficiency, minimizing carbon and water footprint, and reducing GHG emissions. Instead, what if companies were rated on their ability to design products that were durable, yet easily recycled once no longer in use? Not just made with safety in mind, but with environmentally-beneficial features in mind? What if sustainability was based on the ability to achieve some kind of positive environmental impact – and to achieve the equivalent of some kind of top-line environmental improvement - rather than simply a bottom-line resource reduction/savings?

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

See also:

Exclusive Interview with Dr. Michael Braungart

Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: Reporting on “Scope 3” Emissions at the Product-level and Across the Supply Chain

The recently released Carbon Disclosure Project’s 2010 Global 500 Report (pdf), which provides an annual summary of climate reporting by the world's 500 largest companies, offers some important insights on corporations' reporting about climate change and their supply chains according to BSR, a global business network and consultancy focused on sustainability.

One of the most compelling findings for 2010? As noted by BSR in a recent article on the subject, the number of companies reporting on GHG emmissions from their supply chains continues to steadily grow.

As Ryan Schuchard, manager of research and innovation at BSR, observes “Two years ago, only about a quarter of the world's top 500 companies reported on "Scope 3" greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Last year, the reporting share climbed to 42 percent, and this year it grew to nearly half.

“That's a steep change compared to reporting overall, which rose only a few percentage points this year to 82 percent,” notes Schuchard.

But what exactly are “Scope 3” emissions? As BSR describes it, “Scope 3” emissions result from activities that companies have influence over, but are beyond direct ownership or control, such as in supply chains.

More specifically, BSR offers the following “primer” on scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions:

Greenhouse gas emissions are typically divided into three "Scopes" for the purpose of organizational and project management.

The first, Scope 1 emissions, refers to combustion (e.g. from fuels, chemicals, or other materials) that leads to GHG emissions on a company's site or other operations under ownership or control. Scope 2 emissions refer to purchased electricity at a company's site or other operations under ownership or control. Together, Scope 1 and 2 usually can be called "internal" or "operational" emissions.

"Scope 3 emissions" refers to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that a company has influence over, yet which are outside its direct control. Supply chain emissions are one component of this, and there are several others, as described below.

These definitions have been popularized by the GHG Protocol, which is the standard for the business management of GHG emissions. The GHG Protocol is currently revamping its original definition to provide more comprehensive guidance. The results are due in early 2011.

Currently, a good working definition is CDP's, which now has 17 categories of Scope 3 emissions:

2010 – "Scope 3" emissions -- proposed categories (17 categories)

1. S1: purchased goods and services – direct/tier 1 supplier emissions
2. AS: Purchased goods and services – emissions of all upstream suppliers – tier 1 and beyond
3. USP: Use of sold goods and services
4. DSP Disposal of sold products at the end of their life
5. Wa: Waste generated in operations
6. Tr: Business travel
7. EC: Employee commuting and teleworking
8. TSP: Transportation and distribution of sold products including warehousing and retail
9. Oth: Other
10. Eq: Capital Equipment
11. Fr: Frachises (scope 1 emissions of the franchisor)
12. Lr: Leased assets (scope 1 emissions of the lessor)
13. In: Investment (scope 1 emissions of the company receiving investment)
14. Fe: Franchises (scope 1 emissions of the franchisee)
15. Le: Leased assets (scope 1 emissions of the lessee)
16. EA: Energy-related activities not included in scope 2
17. TI: Transportation and distribution of inputs (goods and services) and waste generated in own operations

What’s perhaps most worth noting here is that in addition to more detailed scope 3 emissions reporting guidelines for suppliers, proposed definitions for scope 3 emissions reporting relate to a number of product-specific categories, as well – including: emissions occurring during the product use phase, emissions resulting from disposal of products at end of life, and emissions occurring during transportation and distribution of sold products.

Related to this, the WRI/WBCSD (World Resources Institute/World Business Council on Sustainable Development) GHG Protocol Initiative is currently engaged in developing two new standards that relate specifically to scope 3 emissions and emissions associated with individual products, both due for release in early 2011, as noted above:

• Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
• Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standards

According to GHG Protocol organizers, these new standards are intended to provide a standardized method to inventory the emissions associated with individual products across their full life cycles and of corporate value chains, taking into account impacts both upstream and downstream of the company’s operations. By taking a comprehensive approach to GHG measurement and management, it is hoped that businesses and policymakers can focus attention on the greatest opportunities to reduce emissions within the full value chain, leading to more sustainable decisions about the products we buy, sell, and produce.

On November 2, 2010, WRI and WBCSD released the second drafts of these two new GHG Protocol standards for public comment. WRI and WBCSD welcome feedback from all interested organizations on these draft standards. To be considered, feedback forms must be completed by Friday, December 3. To learn more, see The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative – Product and Supply Chain Standard.

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

See also:

The Latest CDP Results Reveal a Rise in Scope 3 Reporting

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 Global 500 Report (pdf)
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative – Product and Supply Chain Standard

Carbon Disclosure Project to Identify Supply Chain ‘Hot Spots’ Using Trucost Data

When it comes to sustainability reporting, one of the greatest challenges for a manufacturer is being able to track and manage carbon emissions across its supply chain.

To address this challenge, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has partnered with environmental data provider Trucost to enable members of the CDP Supply Chain program to use Trucost’s environmental data to identify their most carbon intensive suppliers for inclusion in the disclosure process.

Large organizations often have a significant problem understanding and managing their total environmental impacts, due to their long and complex supply chains, which can encompass many thousands of suppliers, according to Trucost. Trucost solves this problem by identifying ‘hot spot' suppliers that offer the most potential emissions reduction.

As Richard Mattison, chief operating officer at Trucost states, "we regularly find that just 10% of suppliers will be responsible for around 90% of supply chain environmental impacts. Our data enables organizations to identify their ‘hot spots', even when their suppliers do not disclose data, and efficiently manage their supply chain risks."

The impact of such an initiative could be significant. Earlier this year, more than half (56 percent) of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) members surveyed said that in the future they would stop doing business with suppliers that do not manage their carbon.

That’s a strong incentive to start tracking carbon emissions.

CDP Supply Chain currently works with 56 of the largest organizations worldwide, including Wal-mart, PepsiCo and IBM, to help them engage with their suppliers to understand risks and opportunities throughout the supply chain.

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

See also:

Trucost to identify supply chain ‘hot spots’ for Carbon Disclosure Project

Survey: 56% of CDP Members May Cut Out Suppliers Who Don’t Manage Carbon

Recent Study Identifies Sustainability as a Key Competitive Differentiator

It’s one thing to embrace sustainability because it’s “the right thing to do.” It’s quite another to be able to show that sustainability programs can truly help companies achieve a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Yet that's exactly what's happening at some of the world's leading chemical companies today, according to a recent survey of over 200 chemical manufacturers, conducted by consulting firm CSC in partnership with Chemical Week magazine.

As Chuck Deise, vice president and chemical sector lead, CSC explains, “We are seeing a significant shift in the industry to reinvent the corporate sustainability agenda as a major driver of innovation. Leading companies are doing this by developing more eco-friendly products to differentiate the brand which improves top line, and reducing carbon emissions and energy to enhance the bottom line. Sustainability practices not only positively impact the environment and an organization’s public perception; they can create quantifiable competitive advantages.”

The message is clear – these companies are finding that it pays to embrace sustainability. While regulatory compliance has been the primary focus in previous years, the ability to support a much broader sustainability agenda has become a top priority because of the benefits that it can deliver – from sustainability-driven innovation to energy efficiency, cost-savings, and ultimately, revenue-growth.

Moreover, in addition to supporting sustainability initiatives at the enterprise level, many of these companies are also setting aggressive targets to reduce carbon and water in the product development cycle and throughout the supply chain to achieve even greater gains, according to the research.

The question is - how do they do it? In terms of addressing the issue of sustainability at the product-level, the research reveals that a number of key business practices have been adopted by top performers:

1. Utilize LCA (Lifecycle Analysis) to Evaluate Products, assessing their total impact on the environment through customer and consumers, and applying this knowledge to design new products and supply chains to deliver them. “Borealis at this time is assessing its impact along the supply chain via a series of life cycle assessments (LCA) of its products. It will enable us to better manage risk,” says Sylvain Lhôte, EU and Sustainability Affairs/ Strategy and Group Development.

2. Promote Growth in Eco-Premium Branding and Sustainable Products to drive additional revenue and improve the environmental footprint. AkzoNobel has built on its approach (begun about five years ago) of treating sustainability from a position only of risk management, to one of building its future business around sustainable or “ecopremium” products. The company’s risk management activities, include global product stewardship and standards for its suppliers verified by environment, health and safety audits.

3. Measure Supply Chain Sustainability Contribution by establishing criteria for suppliers and holding them accountable for materials and energy performance and specific distribution methods. DuPont has embarked on a program to assess the environmental footprint of its supply chain activities, including its raw materials and the footprint of its customers. Their initial phase involves pilot assessments of certain supply chains and will include water consumption and scarcity in certain areas as well as energy use and GHG emissions. 

4. Incorporate Environmental Conditions in Emerging Markets into Product Design associated with both climate change and the ability to increase food supply globally with minimum impact to the environment. “Dow historically had wanted to be a leader in environmental performance so as to ensure its right to operate. We had always looked at safety of our employees as a priority. Now we have discussions into the business strategy for megatrends such as sustainable energy supply, human health, housing, and water in the emerging world.” David Kepler, II, chief sustainability officer/Dow Chemical.

5. Achieve Carbon and Environmental Footprint Reductions in conjunction with energy savings and incorporate improvements into your products environmental performance and positive carbon financial benefits. Energy management and carbon emissions reduction are the most important factors financially for Borealis when it comes to environmental sustainability by virtue of the energy intensity of the company, the cost of energy, as well as the impending cost of the European Union’s (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS). The ETS, scheduled for 2013, will oblige major chemical firms in Europe to purchase emissions allowances via public auctions. 

 So what can we learn from these chemical manufacturers? A lot. After all, much of what plagues manufacturers of consumer products, automobiles or high tech electronics when it comes to sustainability is the potential risk posed by the chemicals or substances contained within their products. Indeed, the need for "green chemistry" is at the very heart of the sustainability issue. So, it’s worth paying attention to the sustainability-related “Lessons Learned” by chemical manufacturers in this critical area.

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

See also:

Sustainability Identified by Chemical Industry as Key Competitive Differentiator

Sustainable R&D (Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry)

Sustainability Reporting at the Product-level Allows Companies to Substantiate ‘Green’ Product Claims

If your organization hasn’t already begun efforts to support sustainability reporting, it might want to start. Especially if it is looking to substantiate ‘green’ product claims – an increasingly important area for manufacturers of products or services that promise eco-friendly or ‘green’ benefits.

As noted in a related article on the subject, Ernst & Young says reporting on “green” product development will provide companies with the opportunity to document the basis for any claims they make. It also will help them collect environmental information about their products as their customers develop supplier sustainability initiatives.

The problem is that the use of terms like ‘green’, 'eco-friendly', or ‘made of 100% recycled materials” can be misleading. To address this growing challenge, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed revisions to its “Green Guides”, including new guidance on marketers’ use of product certifications and seals of approval, “renewable energy” claims, “renewable materials” claims, and “carbon offset” claims.

As noted in the FTC announcement:

The revised Guides caution marketers not to make blanket, general claims that a product is “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly” because the FTC’s consumer perception study confirms that such claims are likely to suggest that the product has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. Very few products, if any, have all the attributes consumers seem to perceive from such claims, making these claims nearly impossible to substantiate.

The proposed Guides also caution marketers not to use unqualified certifications or seals of approval – those that do not specify the basis for the certification. The Guides more prominently state that unqualified product certifications and seals of approval likely constitute general environmental benefit claims, and they advise marketers that the qualifications they apply to certifications or seals should be clear, prominent, and specific.

Next, the proposed revised Guides advise marketers how consumers are likely to understand certain environmental claims, including that a product is degradable, compostable, or “free of” a particular substance. For example, if a marketer claims that a product that is thrown in the trash is “degradable,” it should decompose in a “reasonably short period of time” – no more than one year.

The bottom line? If a product claims to be ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’, it better be clear on just exactly what that means, and have the documentation to prove it.

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

See also:

Federal Trade Commission Proposes Revised “Green Guides”

FTC Green Guides’ Proposed Revisions Unveiled

Seven Questions to Ask about Sustainability Reports

Eco-design Gets a Boost from Autodesk, Granta Partnership

“Better, faster, cheaper…” Sound familiar? For decades now, and even – perhaps centuries – these words have guided product designers and engineers in their quest to deliver the right products to market, gain market share and drive revenue growth.

But, increasingly manufactureres are getting the message -- it's what's inside that counts.

Today, it’s simply not enough to optimize designs in terms of price/performance alone. Instead, such criteria as materials toxicity, energy efficiency, carbon footprint, and water footprint must figure into the equation as well. That’s where sustainable product design – which takes a more holistic approach to product development - can help.

Sustainable product design, however, requires new approaches to educating and equipping the next generation of engineers and designers. Fortunately, we’ve begun to see a rise in both technology to support this effort, and sustainable engineering programs and curriculums in universities and training programs to bridge this gap in understanding.

For example, as part of an effort to help engineers and designers more effectively incorporate sustainable materials during product development, Autodesk recently announced an important new partnership with leading materials information technology provider, Granta Design, Ltd. The goal? To simplify the process for specifying suitable, safe and eco-friendly materials during the product design phase – making it easier for industrial designers, mechanical engineers and others to create products through sustainable design.

According to the announcement, the companies will be working together to integrate Granta’s eco design methods into Autodesk software, helping designers to estimate the environmental impact of a product and make more sustainable design decisions. Ultimately, such technology could prove to be of great value in helping companies to both anticipate and avoid the risks and penalties associated with the use of materials that might later be identified as hazardous or restricted, as well.

Indeed, managing restricted substances during product design has become increasingly important for manufacturers. As noted by Grant Design’s Kim Marshall and David Cebon in a presentation made earlier this year:

Restricted substances legislation, such as the European Union's REACH regulation, create major challenges for engineering enterprises.  They impose stringent compliance and reporting requirements on companies.  They also introduce significant risk of withdrawal of substances and consequent obsolescence of mission-critical materials, ‘preparations’ (coatings, cleaning agents, working fluids, etc) and manufacturing processes that use them.  This can affect current products: where it can necessitate expensive materials substitution and re-qualification of components.  It can also affect the design of future products: where it is essential to avoid using substances that may become obsolete in future.  Shipping products containing banned substances – knowingly or not – can have severe legal and financial consequences for companies and responsible individuals, and can present substantial risk to business continuity.

Earlier this month, Autodesk also introduced the Autodesk Sustainability Workshop , a new online portal that offers free sustainability resources and educational content. Aimed at mechanical engineers and educators, the Autodesk Sustainability Workshop features lessons that illustrate the principles and practice of sustainable design, such as Whole Systems Design and Lightweighting.

As Jeremy Faludi, a lecturer for the Joint Program in Design at Stanford University and collaborator on the Autodesk Sustainability Workshop puts it, “Thinking back five years ago, or even one year ago, mechanical engineering students didn’t have good resources available to think about sustainable design practices.  This Workshop provides students with inspiration, technical depth on implementation, and innovative sustainable design strategies.”

It’s all part of next-generation product design, a topic that is explored in greater detail in the related research study, “Sustainability and the Product Lifecycle: A Report on the Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices for Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing.” So, stay tuned. We’ll be providing updates and an opportunity to participate in the research in the weeks and months ahead.

To learn more, see:

Autodesk and Granta Partner to Help Enable Sustainable Product Design

Autodesk Introduces Free Sustainability Resources for Engineering Students, Educators