Efforts to Protect Market Transformation
The deliberation has been going on for a few years by now, but it appears that the U.S. Green Building Council may be close to finalizing their process of developing a Benchmark standard for forest products. When green building was in its infancy, the founding members of USGBC sought a vehicle that would incentivize project teams to use wood products from responsibly managed forests… and they found the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). At the time, FSC was the only forest certification program that met the values of USGBC, and it had several unique elements that would make it a turn-key credit for USGBC's LEED program. Two of the most important elements unique to FSC were its third-party certification process and its rigorous Chain-of-Custody (COC) certification.
A third-party certification system requires that the standard setting body accredit certifiers to carry out the field work in the forest and the supply chain. This provides an extra layer of credibility between the standard setting body and the certificate holding company. Many view this as the most legitimate process for evaluating companies in a certification program because the accredited certifiers have no stake of any kind in the outcome. Thus, they can evaluate that company's ability to meet and follow the standard setting body's guidelines free from any apparent conflict of interest.
A rigorous Chain-of-Custody (COC) certification that extends throughout the supply chain is central to the development of any credible product certification program or certified label. FSC was first to the punch with its COC certification and it has enjoyed a higher level of credibility in the market because of it.
Recently, competing forest certification programs – such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) – have noticed both of these elements and they have altered their programs to include a third-party certification process and a COC, too. But it was not the industry trade association that decided these would be good elements, it was the market that told the American Forest & Paper Assoc. (SFI's founding body) that third-party certification and a rigorous COC was important to gaining market acceptance. So they changed their system based on market drivers or ‘market transformation.'
USGBC and its members are market drivers through the use of the LEED checklist, and as an independent organization its board of directors is beholden to its Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and its membership. Many would simply prefer the USGBC to accept all ‘third party' certification programs as equal and move forward. This is due in part to the fact that in some parts of the country the majority of forest land is either government owned or is certified under SFI.
However, this logic is not only short sighted but counterproductive toward working to a better future. This is akin to the building industry saying, “Let's develop a green building standard with third party certification that barely changes the current codes and laws for building – and then call it green.” Woosh! In a second every building in the country would be ‘green,' but it would mean nothing.
In a recent letter to USGBC, Oregon's Governor Kulongoski (D), said it the worst: “The FSC program is certainly laudable, but the vast majority of Oregon's wood products industry has elected to utilize the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification program. Like FSC participants, their management under SFI third-party certification represents a commitment to responsible forestry that goes well beyond Oregon's comprehensive forest practice laws.”
The attitude that just because some portions of the forest products industry ‘elected' to go with the SFI program we should accept it as parallel to other leadership standards is laughable. As a tax paying Oregonian I was appalled to read that my governor provided such a short sighted, one sided view of this issue. Unfortunately, I now view him as just another politician who can't bear to tell his constituents the truth: change from our previous and current use of natural resources is needed to ensure a safe future, but that change will come at a cost to people, companies and – yes – shareholders.
I would add that if we are proactive and work on these changes now the cost will be less to all. However, many in the US seem more willing to stick their head in the sand and pass the responsibility on to the next generation. Shame on you Gov. Kulongoski for not having a longer-term view of responsible forestry in Oregon, the Pacific Northwest and the country. Your need to appease the forest/timber lobby in Salem may insure that we pass this issue onto our children. No one should ever stop thinking about making improvements or feel like the work is done.
Please don't forget that without the market giving weight to third party certification or the COC process, the industry would have never altered its own standards. If you ask the SFI, they will tell you that they made changes based on what people told them made FSC stronger.
Archived Content:
Life Cycle Analysis, Pt. 1
Archived Content:
Chain-of-Custody Certification: Why, Who, & How
Archived Content:
First Report: Dealer/Distributor Conference on Green Building
Archived Content:
The Green Building Stimulus
Archived Content:
Re-positioning your business for the green products revolution
