Accurate measurements of a product/process ensure trust in validity not just in the functional scope, but also a macro scope, in which the original calculation is now a variable in its formula.

All of this is environmental accounting for which reporting and auditing are needed just like in finance.

I would suppose the great goal in the coming years is for standards recognition, accurate reporting, and 3rd party auditing…for functional areas like carbon, water, toxicity, fair trade, and more.

My primary concern is that just like in finance, we don’t place too much emphasis on single metrics to judge the holistic sustainability of a product/process. For that, we need multi-attribute life cycle assessments.

This is why I think carbon labels alone aren’t good enough. Calories on nutrition labels indicate embodied energy, but without additional information on the amount of fat, protein, carbohydrates (9, 4, and 4 calories per gram respectively), sodium, vitamins, minerals, and ingredients…calories fall short for a holistic health appraisal.

No one in the scientific or financial accounting world would disagree with this line of reasoning. As environmental and social accountability become more important in the coming years, it is my hope that comprehensive sustainability assessments are balanced.

And thanks for pointing out Lean thinking, which indeed by means of time compression and throughput and process analysis, help identify bottlenecks and Muda (waste).

I agree that carbon lables alone are not comprehensive enough. But a detailed life-cycle carbon footprint of a product/process — tracked over a period of time — is a good total indicator of the energy used, transition to renewable energy sources, any energy efficiencies implemented, etc. It also indirectly measures transport impacts, water usage, waste generation, etc., as reflected by their GHG emissions. All major GHGs are included in this analysis (CO2, CH4, N2O, ..), expressed in CO2 equivalents — not only from energy use but from all parts of the process. We typically use a carbon footprint analysis as a process characterization and optimization tool. One of the advantages is the large amount of process data that can be efficiently captured in this single metric. Product labeling is just one of the simpler applications. The advantage of carbon footprint is the inherent simplicity of the metric — analogous to the use of “time” in lean systems. (Note: “Lean” is based on the premise that compressing time reveals hidden quality problems and that their resolution leads to more efficient, cost-effective business processes.)

Regards,
Kumar Venkat
CleanMetrics Corp.