New Zealand Celsias

As someone who led a project to make our energy product carboNZero certified, and who works with small business (Celcius Coffee), I have seen both ends of the spectrum. From a large company perspective, people generally don't trust big business in NZ so third party verification is a given. In regards to the particular certification you choose, I do have some questions I suggest any business should ask when investigating this. The main two being; what is the certification company doing to educate the market and increase awareness and customer demand for certified products and services (I argue it is their responsibility to grow awareness of the value of certification), and secondly what certification is relevant for the markets you sell your products into. If for example, you sell your products to the US and they have a certification programme that is recognised by your customers, imposing your certification programme which no one knows about requires you to then educate them, or it could result in percieved greenwash. Like anything, you need to do your homework on this and understand what matters to your customers.

Written in October 2009

Hmm, clearly a contentious issue, which I think is half the problem for organisations who are trying to measure suppliers performance on non-financial criteria. I used to write specifications for Environmental Choice NZ and have to say, international equivalent certification schemes are not, in many case, actually comparable. I wrote the carpet tile specification for EnvChoice NZ and in doing so, had to look at the other recognised labels around the world. Most of them were so out of date as to be meaningless - i.e. any manufacturer who met legislative requirements would pass or they were so soft that the same thing applied. We had to basically start from scratch and build something meaningful. The other issue is who pays for the certification? If a third part verifier is paid by the person getting the certification only, and are reliant on these companies for their income, how 'independent' do we think the certification actually is? Now, just to save people going nuts, there are many exceptions to that, so I don't mean all of them. The main issue is in who pays for the actual specification to be written. I know, from the specifications I wrote, that manufacturers try and steer it as much as they can, to make it easier for them to pass. I ignored them, but not everyone does. If income is derived from charging companies to go through the certification process, then it obviously follows that any organisation who wants to stay in business, needs to write the standards so that more than just a few can pass it, as they can't survive on just two best practice companies. I think, my main message is, that third party certifications, in my opinion, and having been heavily involved in the field, do not denote 'best practice', but are really only an indication of 'better practice'. So long as we remember this, we're all good.

One other thing to mention, while I'm on a role, is the focus on the product itself, what about the company? I can design and sell you the 'greenest' product, but if I am not, as a business, focussed on the other aspects of Corporate Sustainability, is the product really 'green'? I would argue not.

I've just finished, and had approved, the sustainable procurement resources for the Rugby World Cup 2011 and there is a very strong focus on the organisation itself, rather than the focus being on the product. It's my belief that if an organisation is doing everything it can, then the product, to some degree, will follow. Not, of course, that there aren't product specific criteria, I'm just suggesting this is just one aspect of a much larger issue.

Written in October 2009