Industry Panel on Sustainability - Aug/Sep 2009

The flooring industry is at the heart of the green movement, and as the movement evolves and it becomes increasingly clear that we’re entering a second industrial revolution, it’s difficult even for the most ardent green advocates to keep up with the rapidly blossoming universe of green products, programs and attributes, and all the accompanying bureaucracy.

We invited a panel of experts from leading green flooring manufacturers to answer a number of questions to help shed light on some of the most fundamental issues in sustainability: Shaw’s Vice President of Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Affairs, Rick Ramirez; InterfaceFlor’s Chief Innovations Officer, John Bradford; Mohawk’s Senior Sustainability Manager, Jenny Cross; Mannington’s Vice President-Environment, Dave Kitts; and Milliken’s Director of Sustainability, Bill Gregory.

We invited a panel of experts from leading green flooring manufacturers to answer a number of questions to help shed light on some of the most fundamental issues in sustainability: Shaw’s Vice President of Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Affairs, Rick Ramirez; InterfaceFlor’s Chief Innovations Officer, John Bradford; Mohawk’s Senior Sustainability Manager, Jenny Cross; Mannington’s Vice President-Environment, Dave Kitts; and Milliken’s Director of Sustainability, Bill Gregory.

Q: How does profit relate to a company’s focus on sustainability?

Gregory: Profit is one of the three pillars of sustainability along with concerns for people and planet. Sustainable benefit categories also are listed as social equity, economic and environmental. You have to be profitable to remain in business.

Cross: Profitability and sustainability are inherently connected. My favorite definition for a sustainable business is: “A business that creates profit for its shareholders while protecting the environment and improving the lives of those with whom it interacts.” This triple bottom line approach extends the traditional structure for financials to one which considers profits, people and the planet holistically rather than separately.

Ramirez: Profitability is part of the sustainability equation and is enhanced through sustainability initiatives around business growth, productivity improvements, innovation and overall business performance. Think of not only cost management from energy, waste and water reductions, but also business growth from eco-product revenues and marketshare increase. At Shaw, we have a team led by our VP Administration/Controller to develop a “growth and sustainability balance sheet” to assess our return on investment of our many initiatives.

Bradford: At InterfaceFlor, we have proven that the perceived choice between profit and sustainability is a false choice. Sustainability is a key driver for profit for many reasons. For one, we believe a focus on sustainability facilitates our company’s ability to see the future and adjust to it—and profit is related to our ability to predict shifts in the market and adjust to them. Overall, sustainability directly contributes to our bottom line through reduced costs, increased revenues, and enhanced innovation.

Q: Do the more visible components of a company’s sustainability program (like recycled or bio-based content) have more of an impact in the eyes of the client than companywide practices like waste reduction and alternative energy sources? How can you help the client understand the importance of the latter?

Kitts: Typically, yes. We all tend to have that mindset as consumers or buyers. Someone buying a refrigerator or a kayak will be most focused on the product they are buying. They’ll be most interested in its features because it is what they’ll ultimately get. Company practices tend to be secondary in the buying thought process (or often non-existent). How do you help the client understand the importance of the latter? Education, general green awareness, and broader thinking are starting to change this behavior.

Ramirez: That may have been the case in the recent past and even today since much of product positioning is based on end product attributes, but that is changing. Customers and end-users are demanding not only that the end product demonstrate environmental performance but that the manufacturer’s operations also be socially and environmentally responsible and that there are processes to ensure supply chain responsibility. The NSF / ANSI 140-2007e Carpet Sustainability Assessment Standard reflects this thinking in its certification structure and point system. The recently announced initiative by Wal-Mart on a green product rating system is another example of a complete “value chain” view of sustainability.

Bradford: We think first that claims of what you have done (recycled content, post consumer recycled content, or even post industrial content) are much more powerful than claims of what you intend to do. ‘Recyclable’ is, after all, just a promise about the future, while recycled content shows that choices have already been made to reduce impacts—especially if that recycled content is from a company’s own (old) products. The LEED rating system puts a lot of emphasis on single attribute factors like recycled content, but not on whole company footprint, so clients that are only relying on LEED do care more about recycled content than how the products are made. We are always trying to raise our client’s awareness that you can’t get a “green” product if it came from a “brown” or polluting factory. A company’s footprint is embedded in every product they make, so as a company reduces its footprint, then the products are more sustainable.

Cross: I see a distinct difference between the commercial and residential segments for this question. At the present time, single attribute or product features are more impactful in the residential marketplace, in part because those features are easier for a salesperson to relay to a consumer than sweeping corporate practices, but also because sustainability for residential is immature. 

There is movement toward multiple attribute consideration on the commercial front. Many of the product features have become requirements for specification rather than competitive advantages. Specifiers, particularly of large jobs, demand a more complete picture of a supplier’s sustainability objectives and deliverables in addition to the product attributes.

Gregory: As customers become more educated about sustainability, they take a more holistic viewpoint. Obviously, education is critical. New customers enter the marketplace each year and the buzzwords vary. You have to stay informed to help educate your audiences.

Q: What is the best way for designers to cut through the greenwash?

Gregory: Transparency via certifications cut through misleading claims. Multi-attribute certifications make decisions easier for specifiers.

Ramirez: “Trust but verify” and “Show me the money.” Transparency is key. Customers and end users are demanding proof of sustainability/environmental claims and substantive evidence of commitment to sustainability via initiatives and investments. Third party product certifications are one way to select products that reflect independent verification of product claims/performance. But beyond those certifications, designers and end users can request that manufacturers demonstrate commitments and claims through evidence of public goal-setting, timetables for achieving results, public-private partnerships, and investments in sustainability initiatives. Designers should request specific information through a company’s sustainability report, website or by creating a questionnaire which requires specific information on environmental, social and governance initiatives around energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, safety, eco-products, recycling, and investments. 

Bradford: Greenwash is a growing problem. We think the only way to cut through greenwash is to get to know the company through research and good questions, and/or understand lifecycle assessment (LCA). Clients know the financial impacts, the aesthetic impacts, the impacts on comfort, etc., and they should also be able to know the environmental impacts. LCA is a way for companies to illustrate the environmental impact of their products’ full life cycle. Environmental Product Declaration uses an ISO protocol and uses LCA to declare the environmental impacts. We think this is the most relevant way to declare a product’s environmental performance, and it cuts through the greenwash.

We also hope that clients will ask more questions beyond “what is the recycled content?” To sort through greenwash, clients should keep digging to find out where specific recycled content came from, how it was manufactured, how were supply chains reinvented to meet sustainability goals, etc. 

Cross: Third party certifications are truly the best way to cut through the claims to the truth. In lieu of that, they should become familiar with the FTC green guidelines, ask questions and get all manufacturer claims in writing.

Q: With regard to transparency, if a firm is making an environmental claim, shouldn’t it reveal all the supporting evidence?

Kitts: The same debate is occurring in the financial markets and in government, particularly during this shift from the past Bush Administration to the current Obama Administration—how much transparency is “good enough?” Many want to see anything and everything, except often that is counter to the competitive nature of the marketplace, especially as green demands proliferate. What if the supporting evidence contains proprietary information that competitors would hunger for?

Cross: Absolutely. The Federal Trade Commission green marketing guidelines are pretty specific about environmental claims and what is allowed. These are guidelines and not laws, so there are some companies that might not follow them to the letter. Take organics for example, and how unsubstantiated claims have wounded that industry. If a company is not willing to back up a claim with documentation, an end user should assume that the claim is not valid.

Gregory: Again, certifications provide transparency without revealing proprietary information. Third party certifying organizations often require information to comply with standards that companies may not make public.

Q: How do you determine if more energy is used than saved when adding bio components or recycled content? 

Bradford: We use lifecycle assessment (LCA) to rigorously evaluate all of the inputs associated with our processes and materials choices. It’s the only way to truly know if choices like using recycled content are better or worse for the environment.

Kitts: It’s very difficult—determining true energy usage in one’s own facilities and companies is challenging in itself. To accurately assess energy usage back through the supply chain is much more challenging. Part of the LCA process attempts to quantify that.

Cross: A solid lifecycle analysis will include the energy use. When attempting to answer the question of whether recycled or bio content is better than virgin, one must consider all the variables of the equation. To single out energy use while ignoring raw material savings, landfill diversion, or greenhouse gas emission reduction is short-sighted.

Ramirez: Lifecycle inventory and analysis is a useful and important tool in making these energy impact determinations, but doesn’t necessarily address all the elements in product design and company sustainability. One must also consider material toxicity, total resource use (e.g., water, waste generation, effluents, emissions), social responsibility, supply chain impacts, governance policies, etc. 

Q: Is lifecycle analysis (LCA) given enough weight in the sustainability equation?

Bradford: No, not yet. LCA is a measurement tool, not a certification of sustainability. It’s what you do with the information an LCA can provide and how you make choices going forward that really play into the sustainability question. And companies need to be more transparent in sharing their decision making process. Did they use LCA to evaluate their capital investments or product design? How are they making decisions? LCA provides confidence that a company is relying on science to understand the impacts of their decisions on the environment.

Ramirez: Lifecycle analysis is becoming a growing part of the sustainability conversation. Although somewhat complicated to explain to the layperson, it can be a useful part of demonstrating environmental impacts across several fronts—both on a product level and on a manufacturing process level. It is also useful in product/process design. LCA is a part of the NSF / ANSI 140-2007e Carpet Sustainability Assessment Standard. You will likely see more use of LCA thinking going forward, and the use of Environmental Product Declarations, which summarize the LCA approach for consumers and end-users in a more simplified way in order to compare similar products within a category.

Kitts: LCA is really focused on ecological impacts, but not on the social or people part, nor on the economic part. A different tool—LCC—or lifecycle cost (analysis or evaluation) is sometimes confused with LCA, but focuses on costs—part of the economic piece.

Cross: LCA is becoming more and more important, again with commercial leading the charge. NSF 140 and third party certifications will result in LCAs becoming a standard versus an optional exercise very quickly.

Gregory: I can’t speak for all companies, but at Milliken it helps drive innovation. We introduced PVC-free carpet in 1986 based on LCA. Protocols like LCA and Design for the Environment (DfE) are vital to new developments. We believe that more weight should be placed on LCA.

Q: Does an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) cover all the angles in determining the true sustainability of a product? Is it the measure of a product’s total environmental footprint? 

Kitts: Nothing covers “all angles”—there are too many. EPD is another tool for a broader view of a product. Is it the measure of a product’s total environmental footprint? No, but it’s certainly another thorough approach for a broader view.

Gregory: The use of an EPD is fairly new to our industry and the U.S. Several organizations are attempting to advance the use of an EPD, but until consensus is reached on the inputs and measures, wide acceptance of this tool will be slow.

Ramirez: An Environmental Product Declaration is a useful way to portray a product’s lifecycle analysis on multiple environmental impacts, but does not necessarily tell the whole story. Smart product design should reflect lifecycle impacts through an LCA but should also minimize use of all resources and consider such attributes as recycled content, recyclability and material choices. 

Bradford: It follows an ISO protocol, is based on lifecycle assessment, and requires third party verification. It can be obtained from many different consultants—it is not connected to one consultant—so we think it is the best way today to make transparent and credible claims on the environmental impacts of a product. 

Of course, EPD is a measurement and reporting system. You can publish an EPD on a Hummer, and it won’t become a sustainable vehicle. EPDs will be most useful when multiple manufacturers publish them, so consumers can compare impacts across multiple products. When you can compare the EPD of the Hummer and the Prius, and all of the impacts are quantified and reported (including the impacts of the battery for the Prius)—that’s what we’re hoping for in our industry.

Q: Is it possible to have a truly green program without third party certification?

Ramirez: Independent third party certifications are certainly important with regard to aspects of sustainability initiatives. Public-private partnerships are also important to demonstrate a public commitment to setting goals, measuring progress through reliable metrics and through reporting/disclosure of results. Awards and recognition by third parties can also be a useful way to demonstrate success in sustainability practices. Accountability, transparency and disclosure of continual improvement and progress are basic tenets of corporate sustainability. 

Gregory: You may have a green program, but as a business you will have little credibility without third party certification. It assures your customers that you are doing and offering what you claim.

Bradford: You can certainly have a green program going on without a third party certification. Third party certifications only come about because there are activities going on within a company that the company wants to market, or because a customer group wants to have an outside source validate a claim. Most of the time it is the former. This is where the issue begins. If someone is paying you to verify a claim, then you really want to verify the claim, so you will get repeat business. If someone is using you as a consultant, and to verify a claim, then it is even more tangled. 

When there is an ISO or ANSI standard and many businesses can follow the protocol and a round robin can actually be run to verify the results, then at least you have some congruence and assurance against conflicts of interest.

Companies had been eliminating waste for decades before third party verification came into play. As clients begin using environmental claims to affect their decisions, third party certification becomes more important. It’s just too easy to self-declare environmental wins without having someone else determine if those wins are legitimate. There is a huge learning curve in the market, too, so without a third party certification, consumers may not know if a claim is meaningful or appropriate.

Kitts: Yes. I recently was asked by someone, very seriously, “Who certifies the third party certifiers?” It’s such a shame how cynical and skeptical we’ve become as buyers. Some bad apples can spoil the whole bunch. Also, it’s simply not practical or economically viable to third party assess each and every process or practice that’s part of a “green program.”

Cross: With transparency and the right measurement tools in place, you know if you have a good, solid green program without having any certification. Third party certifications, when done correctly, do provide an opportunity for the consumer or end user to cut through the clutter of green claims. 

The industry has essentially brought the need for third party certifications upon itself. Questionable claims and greenwashing have made them necessary. Unfortunately, it’s as though there are more third party certification schemes within the marketplace than there are green claims, so making heads or tails of those is difficult at best.

Q: How do you determine if a certification is sufficiently neutral, and not biased toward manufacturers or environmentalists?

Gregory: Standards should be developed through a consensus process that involves all stakeholders.

Cross: The best certifications meet the Federal Trade Commission guidelines and have non proprietary standards. NSF 140 is a great example. This is a standard that is widely accepted by all parties involved and developed with consensus in mind.

Bradford: When the protocol follows ANSI protocols it is more likely to have balanced input, due to the requirements for including a balanced group of stakeholders and public comment. It is used by many verifiers, and checked on with some frequency for accuracy by the standard body. 

So, for instance, if I can’t go to many different companies and get the same certification, then there is a protocol problem. Labs do this all the time when following ASTM standards, and have ISO certifications. They offer the same tests and are certified to give exact results. This is the model we seek. If there is only one place to get the certification, we’re skeptical; if there is no check on the protocol, we’re skeptical; if there is a black box (something you can’t see) that you can’t get into, we’re skeptical; and if there is a link between a consultant and a standard that can’t be obtained by another consultant, we’re skeptical.

Ramirez: Certification systems should be transparent in their requirements and the independence of the certifying bodies. NSF 140, Cradle to Cradle, Green Label Plus and Greenguard are examples, and are achieved through independent review. At Shaw, we participate in all of these programs, but also seek public-private partners as well as awards/recognitions to demonstrate our performance and progress. 

Kitts: Or biased to the opinions of the certifiers? I do think we need to “chill” a bit. Certifications are done by people and people are inherently imperfect. The certification scene has come a long way, and has added very responsible checks and balances, but certainly is not perfect.

Q: How do you get residential consumers to understand and focus on sustainability like commercial end users?

Bradford: It is happening. Consumers are generally interested in sustainability. As they learn they can choose green products, they do. We’ve noticed that residential consumers approach sustainability from a different angle. They seem more concerned about personal health impacts, and choosing to do business with good corporate citizens. 

Ramirez: The industry must continue to communicate the safe, healthful and many good environmental attributes of its products and the contributions each company makes in this regard. We must simplify the messages on what benefits our products provide, not just in end use but also in how they are produced. We see the use of “green home” articles, television programs, advertising, web-based communications, brochures, in-store displays, dealer/retailer training and labels as useful tools to educate consumers. Environmental product declarations and eco-labeling will be evolving as well, in addition to eco-product programs at the retail level such as seen at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, JC Penney and many consumer product/home remodeling manufacturers.

Cross: It will take time and effort from everyone. Residential consumers are not fully aware of the options available to them for environmentally sensible flooring. I would argue that some automatically think negatively of our industry because they do not know the facts. 

Unlike commercial end users, homeowners are not willing to pay more for green. About 10% of consumers looking for flooring for their homes ask for green products, but 90% will choose a green product if there is no performance sacrifice or upcharge to do so. This is an important point. Many retailers think that this is a niche buying segment and often ignore it altogether, when, in fact, it encompasses the overwhelming majority of buyers. We cannot be afraid to start the conversation with the consumer about green alternatives. More than ever, dealers and retail salespeople must be comfortable with their product knowledge. Today’s consumer is more educated than ever and she expects her salesperson to be well informed. Training has never been more critical.

Q: Is there an onus on the end user in terms of balancing sustainable product attributes and upfront expense?

Kitts: Sure—end users, or buyers of products, typically drive market dynamics. Culturally, many of us, as buyers and users, are recognizing that we each have obligations to consider beyond just cost. There is a large environmental and social dynamic that results in buying choices.

Cross: I think the onus is on all of us to create sustainable products that meet consumers’ needs and expectations. Manufacturers have done an excellent job in developing technologies and product lines that have strong sustainable attributes while managing the cost of that product to the consumer or end user, so that the expense does not outweigh the benefits. Green design or green building should consider the long term impact of the products on variable cost reduction in addition to the upfront expense. Most sustainable buildings can pay for themselves very quickly if the right product choices are made initially through energy reduction, water conservation and increased productivity.

Ramirez: We don’t see a trade-off for our customers and end-users to balance sustainable product selection and upfront investment. Selecting a product with sustainable attributes, for example, recycled content and recyclability, has the beneficial impact on the front end (e.g., green building design credits and environmental benefits) and an advantage based on “total cost of ownership” and back-end savings regarding end-of-life management (i.e., reclamation, landfill disposal cost avoidance).

Bradford: No, this is another false choice. Well designed sustainable products should appeal to customers for many reasons, and should also be cost-competitive. Token products for the sole purpose of being “eco-friendly” are not holistically designed and usually are not sustainable. Creating token sustainable products for marketing reasons or to try to ride the green wave is shallow and reveals short-term thinking. For example, as a society we have shifted towards more consumables versus durable products. But can a green product that doesn’t perform truly be a sustainable product? Performance and durability are undervalued sustainability attributes.

Q: Has the current economic recession affected the residential consumer’s or commercial end user’s desire to buy more sustainable products?

Kitts: Not really. This question presumes “sustainable products” are more expensive. The market is slowly insisting that green attributes need to be part of products and not come at a much higher cost.

Cross: The residential consumer appears to view green as a tie breaker when it comes to flooring. If the color is right, the style is right and the price is the same, she will go green. Because of this, we do not see her as any less likely to purchase sustainable products than traditional ones due to the recession—she is simply less likely to buy anything. 

On the commercial front, historically the more performance based products have stronger sustainable stories with longer lifecycles, generally resulting in a higher price point. In these economic times, lower price generally wins out.

Gregory: To the extent that value is a factor in purchasing decisions, sustainable products have an advantage. Consumer and commercial buyers who understand that durability and healthy interiors are as much sustainable attributes as are traditional environmental characteristics make that choice.

Ramirez: The economic recession has certainly had an impact on all buying decisions in all sectors, including flooring. A recent survey by Deloitte sponsored by the Grocery Manufacturers Association indicated some interesting results on green shopping trends. The “green shopper” is a clearly growing group and becoming more educated. They are looking for value as well as sustainability in their purchasing decisions across the board. Surveys are showing more and more interest among buyers of all types for “green and green”—sustainability and value. 

Bradford: I believe it has tested the integrity of companies. As the funds grew smaller, companies were forced to choose what was important to them. If the environment fell off the radar, it showed their focus. This applies both to end user purchasing decisions and to decisions some companies may be making to cut back or even eliminate green initiatives, reflecting a short-sighted commitment to sustainability.

We’ve also seen that the resistance to buying more sustainable products is coming from end users that have suffered through product failure on supposed green products and therefore are hesitant to put green on the top of their list for the next purchase. 

Copyright 2009 Floor Focus 

Related Topics:Shaw Industries Group, Inc., Mohawk Industries, Mannington Mills