Environmental Standards

Environmental Standards

By Arthur B. Weissman, Ph.D., President and CEO, Green Seal

For over fifty years the manufacturing sector has been bombarded by standards to improve it. The development of total quality management practices in the 1950s and 60s led to the ISO 9000 series of standards in the 1980s for quality management and assurance. Then, the advent of environmentally responsible business practices led to the issuance in the 1990s of ISO 14001, the Environmental Management Systems (EMS) standard. Other related standards in the 14000 series cover such manufacturing matters as environmental declarations and life-cycle assessment.

Can a manufacturer feel satisfied that the ISO 9000 and 14000 standards suffice for guiding and verifying its environmental practices? Since so many companies, particularly outside the United States, have embraced these two approaches, particularly certification to 9001 and 14001, should a manufacturer aspire to anything more?

The answers are no and yes, respectively. ISO 9001 and 14001 are good foundations for environmentally responsible manufacturing practices, but they may not be sufficient to ensure that a manufacturer is demonstrating leadership in its industry in using sustainable practices or producing more sustainable products.

Manufacturers should be aware of the higher, more specific levels of sustainability which they can achieve beyond what ISO requires. In essence, as generic standards for all of industry, the ISO 9000 and 14000 standards can only work at the systems level, not at the performance level. They can provide guidelines for what systems a manufacturer can put in place to ensure compliance with environmental laws, consistent reduction in waste and environmental impact, involvement of external stakeholders, etc. But these standards cannot specify what levels of impact, waste, or other environmental or health attribute a manufacturer of a particular type of product should achieve, nor what represents leadership in that manufacturing sector.

This is where product-specific standards come in. An environmental leadership standard for a product category subsumes the requirements of the ISO 9001 and 14001 standards in that it requires consistent production that is legally compliant and that goes beyond compliance in a number of important environmental parameters specific to that product category. Such a standard, whether for paints, windows, cars, chemical products, or paper, specifies the environmental performance that is expected and achievable by a leading manufacturer of that product.

A number of organizations – governments, non-profits, industry trade associations, and standards organizations – develop and issue product-specific standards, and these may include criteria for one or more environmental attributes (e.g., energy efficiency). Generally, however, the product standards issued by industry trade groups or related standards organizations represent accepted good practice levels – what a reputable manufacturer should consistently be able to achieve with every product. If a manufacturer wants to be a true leader in sustainability, it must look to independent programs for product standards and certification. Such programs are provided by third-party environmental certification organizations like Green Seal.

Green Seal is a non-profit organization based in the United States which has set environmental leadership standards for nearly 400 categories of products and services and certifies those that meet the standards. Green Seal is actually one of about three dozen similar programs around the world that engage in life-cycle-based, multi-attribute certification of a number of different categories of products and services (such programs are known as Type I in ISO 14020 parlance). These programs have formed an association known as the Global Ecolabelling Network to strive for harmonization among their standards and promotion of their programs.

One important distinction between Green Seal and Type I programs and the majority of other environmental labels, such as Energy Star, is that the former are based on a variety of environmental and health attributes that are significant in the life-cycle of a product or service. Many other environmental labels are based on single attributes such as energy efficiency, water efficiency, biodegradability, volatile compound content, recycled content or recyclability, absence of a particular toxin, etc. While single-attribute labels can be useful and important, they do not necessarily capture the full environmental and health profile of a product or service as multi-attribute ones do.

More relevant to manufacturers, life-cycle-based product standards consider what happens in the manufacturing process, and criteria for the latter are included if these impacts loom large in the life-cycle of the product. For example, the life-cycle of paper products, whether recycled or virgin, is defined largely by raw material extraction and the manufacturing process; in the latter, energy and water use are big impacts along with effects on air and water quality.

Consequently, the Green Seal standard for tissue and towel paper (GS-1) includes criteria limiting the energy and fresh water that can be used in manufacturing each ton of final product. Reports on air and wastewater monitoring as well as on solid waste from manufacturing are also required. Strict limits or prohibitions are included for bleaching agents (e.g., chlorine is not allowed) and additives (e.g., optical brighteners are restricted to a low level), and additives to the process must generally be biodegradable. Similarly, the Green Seal standard for printing and writing paper (GS-7) requires either that they are made with significant post-consumer recycled content or that they adhere to restrictions on chemicals used in the process of deinking or bleaching.

Many other Green Seal product standards address the ingredients that may be used in manufacturing the product. Primarily, this comes in the form of restrictions or prohibitions on toxic chemicals, such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, mutagens, heavy metals, known endocrine disruptors, asthmagens, aquatic toxins, ozone-depleting compounds, etc. Such criteria ensure that both the final product and the manufacturing process are not loaded with harmful chemicals.

There are numerous benefits for a manufacturer in following the environmental leadership standards Green Seal sets, and even more for obtaining its third-party certification. First and foremost, the standards represent a highly technical and deliberative effort to identify the key attributes of a more sustainable product in a given category. The standards are developed in an open and transparent process with stakeholders from many different groups represented, typically including manufacturers, trade associations, government, academia, public interest groups, and environmental groups. Hence, the standards are excellent roadmaps for manufacturing more sustainable products.

Secondly, by following the standards and then going the next step of getting certified to them, manufacturers can demonstrate with the credibility of a third-party organization that they are in fact making more sustainable products. Manufacturers must realize that customers generally trust a third-party certification more than its own environmental claims or purported conformity to a standard. A Green Seal certification, for example, carries with it a reputation for credibility built over 26 years and thousands of certified products and services.

Returning to the original point, the certification that ISO provides in ISO 9001 and 14001 does give a good framework for more sustainable manufacturing processes and products. But, like the old joke about a 9001-certified factory producing a concrete life-preserver perfectly to spec every day, a 14001-certified factory may fall short in producing a truly sustainable product or one that would meet a Green Seal standard. In both cases, the emphasis on process and management structure cannot substitute for specific performance goals for production or products. Environmental leadership standards such as Green Seal’s – and those of the three dozen other ecolabeling programs around the world – do provide specific environmental and health targets for products, including the manufacturing process. Manufacturers would be well-advised to consult these standards, consider following them, and apply to have their products certified to them.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. How can were expand linear thinking approach to standards to include living systems thinking? Can the standards for processes and product output, also have criteria for developing the capacity and health of the larger support system in which it operates and receives its input?

    • JW – I developed an expanded update of the Green Rating form created by Malcolm Wells in the 1960s. Using it & our natural curiosity, creativity & survival instinct + a well-developed new cultural paradigm may do The Trick. You can view the new form at my EcotectureNow.wordpress.com blobsite-in-progress or ask for a PDF copy.

  2. I like your thinking John. What if the certification were broadened like you’ve suggested in the manner that the B Lab uses to certify the B Corps?

    For readers not familiar with B Corps, they are for-profit companies certified by the nonprofit B Lab to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. They write these goals into their incorporation documents so that these goals are cemented in the makeup of the company. B Corps are built on the simple fact that business impacts and serves more than just shareholders—it has an equal responsibility to the community and to the planet. Individually, B Corps meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability, and aspire to use the power of markets to solve social and environmental problems. Collectively, B Corps lead a growing global movement of people using business as a force for good. Through the power of their collective voice, one day all companies will compete to be best for the world, and society will enjoy a more shared and durable prosperity for all.

    I realize a lot of companies perhaps aren’t entirely ready to take on becoming a B Corp right off the bat, but could a set of baby steps be developed to help companies shift their systems thinking to include living systems thinking?

    • Sadly, without disinfecting the sociocultural paradigm installed in most entrepreneurs’ wetware (brains), and then installing a bioethical ecotopian paradigm, there won’t be much improvement before its too late too rescue cities & towns along our coasts & lower level river banks. We have less than 30 years to plan for an alternative to total urban/suburban disaster. More than 50% of Americans now live at less than 60 feet above current sea-level. Imagine all those cities, towns, roads, railways & airports under water. So, we need a pervasive paradigm upgrade ASAP, I’d say by 2025 at the latest.

  3. I appreciate that fact that Green Seal programs establish tough but achievable standards of performance. A foundational step to embracing any worthwhile change is to set a goal to achieve. Not just a stretch goal but a goal that, on the surface, may seem unachievable. A goal that ignites the intrinsic motivation deep within the entire team. A goal that aligns all members of an organization to work as a team for the benefit of the entire system.

  4. Sometimes you read a short blog that is more informative and inspiring than most books on the subject. Mr. Weissman congratulated industry for the progress we have made but challenged us to what he knows we can do….so much more. No matter what industry we are in if we look at every aspect of our operation we will find ways to use less energy, less volume of products, less waste, less distribution energy, etc. etc. Thanks Mr. Weissman for encouraging all of us to pat ourselves on the back but also move forward to the next level of sustainable manufacturing, distribution and usage. It is a team effort and industry has a great team ready to move the ball forward..

    • Good thinking Marvin. I agree. I also see that our ability to see beyond the limits of our current psychosocial reality, to a deeper level review of what’s happening and what’s possible requires major paradigm repair & upgrade. I would love to have your take on An Ecotopian Manifesto that’s largely about making an ecotopian paradigm & ecotopian civilization globally possible, before its too late (ca. 2025-2030). Thanks, sincerely ~ M

  5. Dear Mr. Weissman – As a veteran ecotect, since 1975, I’ve watched all the new standards come and vie for viability. Arguably, the best of them for buildings is the Living Building standard. For buildings and everything else, my update of the Sustainability Rating standard created by Malcolm Wells still seems superior to all others. Why? Though it may not easily be used for a certification program, it is easy to use as a tool for preliminary project planning or even for rating products, industrial processes, politicians, their campaign platforms & on-the-job performance. The disadvantages of all ‘Green’ certification standard programs, so far, is that their use & value are limited by the paradigm & selective inattention of the people who use them or ignore them and don’t use them. Now, if the Green Seal program adopts & uses the neoWellsian “Green Rating Form” to extend program outreach & usefulness, maybe we will soon see more progress that’s truly adequate to the real scale & scope of our complex global crisis. Otherwise, it seems that all the ‘Green’ standards combined will not expedite adequate planning & action before 2025-2030. If not, most of the USA’s cities, towns, roads, railways, airports, nuclear power plants & hospitals near our coasts & low-level rivers will be underwater by 2050.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *