Workshop Labelling and Procurement Support for Sustainable Product Innovation - 2011-03-10

workshop aim

Co-develop a first prototype of an improved criteria development process for labeling and procurement that includes a full sustainability perspective• Get insight feedback on (practical/juridicial) challenges• Discuss social sustainability questions and how this can be integrated in the process• Discuss future case(s) and ideas for next workshop

Participants

Inger Mattson Scandic Hotels AB

Ove Jansson Eco-labelling Sweden

Annika Christensson Landstinget Blekinge

Eva Berg Cascades Djupafors AB

Lennart Larsson Cascades Djupafors AB

David Cockburn Tetra Pak International AB

Jonas Oldmark The Natural Step International

Göran Broman Blekinge Institute of Technology

Karl-Henrik Robèrt Blekinge Institute of Technology

Cesar Levy Franca Blekinge Institute of Technology

Cecilia Bratt Blekinge Institute of Technology

Summary of the day:

1.A short summary of the project and project results

2.Presentations of how ISO standards details the principles for eco-labelling type 1 (ISO 14020 and 14024) and the principles within LOU3.Presentation on how ISO 26000 is built and on how it is intended to be used to support social responsibility

4.Presentation on a tool developed by Cesar Levy Franca - Sustainability Self Assessment Support. Main message; Self Assessment Support could be used to assess corporate performance

5.Summary of found gaps in assessments of criteria development processes Main message; The current processes do not include setting a clearly defined and operational goal for the labelled product/service. This leads to a missed opportunity to develop criteria strategically and to communicate on future criteria strategies.Social aspects are only partly included. Lack of data and traceability are allowed to affect the criteria (and life cycle phases are excluded from the criteria) There are no measures to ensure that sufficient competencies are brought into the criteria development process.

6.Presentation of draft prototype for a criteria development process aiming at filling the found gapsMain message; Protoype objective is to bridge the gaps in compliance with ISO 14020, 14024 and LOU and provide a practically manageable process. The point of departure will be Templates for Sustainable Product Development (TSPD), which is a tool developed at BTH aiming at providing benchmarks for the analysis of existing product´s sustainability performance. Strategic Life Cycle Aanlyzes can be used to capture current and potential future problems

7.Open dialogue about the suggested draft prototype with targeted questions.Conclusion from the day:

•‘Labelling is perfect as long as sectors co-operate’ with labelling organization, but when sectors do not, labelling is an insufficient instrument. ( and the same goes for green procurement criteria). Some strong brands do not want to ‘pollute’ what this brand stands for with an eco-label (e.g. IKEA).

•The principles in ISO14020 and ISO14024 leave a relatively wide room for interpretation. Still some overarching boundary conditions is provided

•No direct conflicts with the presented prototype was pointed out, although WTO rules and details with LOU needs to be further analyzed as there are potential incompliances, ie the principle to ‘avoid conflicts of interests’

•It was pointed out that neither MSR, Eco-labelling Sweden as criteria developers (nor Landstinget) are imposed to include social aspects today.

•Needed competence in participative criteria development working group (for labelling and procurement) should include actors from the whole value chain (if possible). People with env/sustainability knowledge all along the value chain needs to be involved in criteria development (Cissi; but if there is no such competence?)

•Criteria meeting needs to be held like webinars (or alike) to facilitate for the possibilities to participate at a distance. Transparency can be enhanced if peer-review is part of the criteria development processes (wiki model). Desired property for the process: provide an attractive criteria development environment. There should also be possible to join the process on the way.

•NGOs are important participants in working groups both by providing knowledge and to avoid later conflicts between producers and NGOs.

•In the EU flower labelling development processes there has been more diversity including representatives from e.g. NGOs, small entrepreneurs if comparing with the Nordic Eco-labelling. Stakeholder engagement for criteria development is open at EU level for those organizations and sectors interested to participate – access are usually open through their websites

•Data gathering along supply chains is sometimes problematic due to for example confidentiality. Public data bases are under development.

•A TSPS approach including stakeholder mapping is important for the extended criteria development process and in shifting from a product focus to a functional focus (product-service-systems)

•There have been discussions on labelling of organizations instead of labelling products ex. Computers – or HP ? (Ove)

•TetraPak also benchmark with regarding existing practice – should we be better maintain our position or be worse? (David) (The relative position is of more interest than the absolute)School of EngineeringBlekinge Institute of Technology, Address: 371 79 Karlskrona, Telephone: 46 455-38 50 00

•There has been interest in creating white lists (good options) for examples related to flame retardants for TV production (Ove) instead of black lists (its not possible to develop criteria for flame retardants – it is not ‘märkvärdig’ (free translation; worthy the label)

•Pre-procurement phase might be used to procurement processes as a driver for innovation in the market – David mentioned some examples from TetraPak about involving the supply chain to innovate (CLF)

8.Inger asked about the plan for an extension of the project, which will be discussed at the next work-shop.9.Suggestions for future workshop:Discuss solutions/options for how the project can be extended. The aim is to send in an application to KKS HÖG, with a deadline 1st of September to avoid a time gap in 2012.To learn from this work-shop; Stronger time-keeping according to the agenda, so that more time is provided for participative discussions on key questions of the day.


Workshop, April 27, 2010

Purpose

The workshop has two goals: (i) to deliver some research results and get feedback on those and ii) together discuss how the procurement process could be improved. It is also a meeting for the project participants to be able to contribute with their thoughts and ideas on development steps for an improved criteria development process with a strategic sustainability perspective. An overview of the project will also be presented with some milestones for 2011.

pROJECT ACTIVITIES

  • Project activities and some future milestones (Sophie)
  • Supply chain and procurement reflections (Project partners, max 10 min each)
  • Project partners give answers and reflections to some discussion questions:

-      How do you investigate your supply chain in terms of the level for taken environmental and social issues into consideration?

-       How could you procure something that is not on the market (for example new innovations)?

-       How do you cooperate with other partners that use same suppliers to demand more?

-       How can you trace data and verify data from suppiers?

  • PhD researchers give their reflections (Cissi and Cesar, 10 min each)
  • PhD researchers give reflections and relate the discussion  questions to their surveys
  • Summary of the answers and reflections on the supply chain and procurement session (Sophie)

Group work on three themes

a) At each station a researcher explain together with a figure the “metaphase”. (5 min)

b) The participants discuss in the group together with the researcher (10 min) the subheadings:

- I wish and I would like (What can be added, what is missing) and

- Questions (things that is unclear)

c) all groupmembers write down on post-it notes and add to the subheadings (5 min).

d) researchers collect and write down on a white board/ participant pause (5 min)

e) change group/topic

Suggested topics

CTT: metaphase or suggestions for an improved criteria development process

CFR: survey around procurement and ideas about survey for key opportunities/ challenges, and how a strategic sustainability perspective can add guidelines for an innovation driven procurement.

Jonas: Social sustainability matrix – the matrix that Cissi and Cesar work with.

Theme leader gives a summary of partner’s feedback (Cissi, Cesar and Jonas; 10min/theme)

The participants can add note/comments to the summary of the topics.

Walk around and use post-it notes

Summary of the activity and the day. (Sophie)

I wish and I would like activity (5 min/each partner).

The partners gave feedback on the workshop day, the activity, their suggestions for next workshop and expectations from project.

 


 

Edit
Share Share