I ran into a blog entry on Cnet the other day. It was entitled "LCD making worse for the environment than Coal?". This got me thinking. LCD televisions and screens are often seen as "green", eco-friendly, because they consume less energy than conventional CRT tubes. However, according to the blog, during manufacturing nitrogen trifluoride, whose globe-warming effect, according to scientists, is 17.000 times stronger than that from CO2, is used in chemical vapor disposition. I have heard a lot of requests to move to flat panel displays for lower energy consumption, but this was the first I heard about the harm during manufacturing.

It illustrates very well the importance of looking at the impact of a product throughout its whole lifecycle, from manufacturing all the way through recycling. Most companies today unfortunately do not provide that information, nor do they focus on that. We find many, laudable, efforts to reduce this or that substance from a product, but it is not put into context. If we take a substance out, by what do we replace it? Is the new substance, including its manufacturing, usage and recycling, less harmful than the previous one? These are the real questions that we need to ask ourselves.

HP and a number of other companies are using "Design for the Environment" to take the product lifecycle into account right from the product design stage. In doing so, they not only look at the manufacturing of the product, but also at its usage and recycling. Such approach requires an in depth understanding not only of the components going into the product (which can be obtained from the suppliers), but also from the product usage (work with consumers), and recycling operations. But to achieve this, the company needs data, provided by suppliers, the distribution channel, the consumers, and the reverse logistics partners. This is becoming the next battlefield. The companies that will be first at being able to convince their partners to share more information and use it to their advantage to make "greener" products will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Legislation helps, but has a tendency to lag behind the innovators.

With the same logic in mind, I was surfing another blog entry, called "BPA-free and proud of it", pointing out that Sigg, a Swiss company, has developed reusable drinking bottles in stainless steel to reduce the usage of disposable bottles and cups. It's an interesting concept. However, let's think about the lifecycle impact. What has been the effect of manufacturing the stainless steel and paint on the environment? How much water is used to rinse the bottle? If the bottle needs to be collected for refill, what is the effect of the collection process? And I could continue that way. Frankly, I don't know the answers to those questions, and the bottle may be a great addition to our increasing list of "greener" products. Unfortunately, I don't know whether anybody ever did the exercise.

You disagree with me, obviously feel free to react.

I am going on holiday for a couple weeks, so will be quiet, but my partners are keeping the blog going during my absense.

Green, sustainability and SER, are terms that appear increasingly in our publications and conversations. They draw our attention on the fact our products interact with their environment and potentially harm it. That impact needs to be evaluated from the development of the product onwards, and obviously, diminished as much as possible. This is what is being called DfE, design for the environment.

But this is easier said than done. Indeed, in today's environment, suppliers do not have the information at hand for each of their components, ingredients or substances. Actually, as mentioned in my previous post, the way to calculate the impact is not standardized, so even if the values exist, what do they mean?

During the development of a product, a Bill of Materials (BOM) and Bill of Process (BOP) are created. These will be used at a later stage in the operational systems. I would like to argue that we need to add two new bills to the series. These are first, the Bill of Substances (BOS), which would contain all the substances contained in the product and their quantities, and second, the Bill of Carbon (BOC), containing the amount of carbon emissions for the product at all stages in the manufacturing. There should be a close link between the BOM and the BOS, and between the BOP and the BOC. Operational systems should include modules to report on those two bills.

But now, how do we get the data to populate them. Obviously, the base information related to the components, ingredients and substances needs to come from the suppliers and be augmented with the data associated with the company's operations. The easiest way to do this would be for each company to report both the BOC and BOS for their own products. For the BOS, the information should be the sum of the information of each of the components, ingredients and substances included in the product, potentially reduced by the substances subtracted during the process. For the BOC, we should start from the sum of the information coming from the suppliers and add the quantities generated during manufacturing and transportation.

For the Bill of Carbon, we should agree on a standard way of calculation to ensure the numbers are meaningful and reflect reality. Obviously averages may have to be used, as not all manufacturing facilities generate the same amount of CO2 to make the same product, and that transportation can depend on the warehouse/distribution center used, on the distance to the customer etc. Let's stay pragmatic. Gaining visibility of the amount of CO2 generated, even if it is an average, would already go a long way to focus the attention on reducing it.

So, are we ready to increase our usage of three letter acronyms?