I would like to thank those who took the time to attend my recent Webinar. You can find more information on the session here. While I answered quite a few questions during the session, we ran out of time. In the post below, I endeavor to answer the remaining questions. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact me at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Mark

It seems that the biggest thing we need to do is move away and change our thinking from “cradle to grave” to “continuous cycle”?

Correct. The ideal model is cradle-to-cradle (C2C), where all elements of the product exist in a continuous cycle. The items of the product are either repaired, reused in another product with no decrease in product integrity, or if they reach end-of-life, are disposed of without waste, returning biological nutrients to the earth for decomposition in the soil without harm to people or the environment. In this way, our unsustainable actions will no longer impact future generations.

The manufacturing industry has traditionally used cradle-to-gate (C2G) and cradle-to-site, which can be sustainable. Still, both models can easily remain typical take, make, and waste systems that are unsustainable and do not consider the product’s true cost. For example, if we buy a product that uses unrecyclable plastic, that company and the consumer are causing waste for our children and their children to deal with. Manufacturers are under increasing pressure to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint and recycle materials more sustainably while maintaining efficient business processes. Last December, the EU reached a provisional agreement covering the entire lifecycle of batteries, including the collection and amount that must be recyclable, taking the consumer out of the equation and essentially taking what was C2G and making it C2C.

The biggest hurdle to achieving C2C is not technology or chemistry but how we think based on growing up in a take, make, waste world. We must reimagine a world in which all things we take from the earth, make, and consume provide nutrition for both industry and nature so that they can continuously be reused or returned to the earth in a continuous sustainable cycle.

If this sounds unrealistic or futuristic, it’s not. There are companies well on their way to making complex products with net-zero emissions that will be 100% recyclable with zero waste. The leaders across many market segments will be disrupting their competitors. For example, let’s assume we have a net-zero, no- waste energy product from Company A. The competitor, Company B, is not close to net-zero and has not resolved their waste processes. The buyer of the product, a utility provider, has their own net-zero and sustainability goals, so who do they want to buy from? The answer is Company A because Company B would drag down their sustainability and negatively impact all their stakeholders— consumers, people, investors, customers, and their own families and children.

This has long been an invisible problem as we don’t look outside and see greenhouse gases (GHGs) or feel the earth’s warming, but the effects of GHGs are no longer even a question. As we transition to a decarbonized world, greener and more sustainable products and the C2C model will only accelerate.

Currently, the focus is on the data collection and reporting side within most organizations rather than on sustainable design. How long will it take to cross this chasm and get sustainable design in most industries?

First, let me say that LCAs are well intended, and in some areas, they gather data that would not necessarily be tracked in PLM technology as it exists today. As an example, how many manufacturers are tracking their water usage? LCAs date back to the 1970s, looking at airborne and waterborne emissions with diverging methodologies. Then they focused on standards in the late 90s and early 2000s and then began diverging and elaborating, which continues to this day. What has changed is the need to provide goals, KPIs, and generate reports, which have not been tying real sustainability data associated with actionable product data.

In Geoffrey Moore’s “Crossing the Chasm,” there are innovators, early adopters, and then the most challenging, the transition from early adopters to early majority (the chasm), followed by late adopters and laggards. Different from one technology crossing the chasm more quickly and focusing on one market to gain market share, is that we’re talking about the whole world made up of many industry sectors, so I’ll try to answer by explaining some of the key factors that will cause early adopters to move to the early majority.

Using PLM with embedded sustainability will occur faster in industry sectors with one or more of the following attributes.

First, if the company provides an SBTi net-zero plan, it will soon realize that its PLM strategy and sustainable design are at the heart of how they: 1) reduce emissions and 2) accurately report on them.

Related to this is the recognition that the design phase is the most powerful and cost-effective place to address the resource footprint of future products and services. Companies have long known that design decisions determine most of a product’s manufacturing, operating, and maintenance costs. The same applies to sustainability. Therefore, companies with a sophisticated PLM strategy that can truly manage their product and its costs across the lifecycle can add in the associated carbon equivalent (CO2e) for each part or material. This also means that they are managing and have visibility to their supply chains and can see the CO2e of approved parts they use to reduce their carbon footprint. So, companies with that level of maturity and those willing to improve their PLM strategy, which I suspect is a much higher number, will be the first to cross the chasm over the next few years.

Next are companies where there is a demand for new technology, such as home heating pumps that replace an oil or propane tank. Because the heating pump is more complex it provides an opportunity for them to rethink their sustainability and carbon footprint. The energy sector, whether wind, solar, grid-related, long-term duration energy storage (LDES), or many other technologies, will also be embedding sustainability within PLM. None of these companies want to be “Company B.”

Another is any sector where the demand for new technology involves aspects that are not sustainable and are unacceptable to the public. For example, in automotive, the shift from the internal combustion engine to electric propulsion in electric vehicles (EVs) is well underway and will dramatically reduce emissions. Assuming the EV recharges with renewable energy, this will further reduce emissions. Still, the lithium-ion battery is more carbon intensive, which correctly concerns people and caused the EU to act.

There are already examples of some companies moving to use sustainability within PLM. I predict this will grow exponentially over the next few years.

Green marketing is very successful in sustaining a green economy, but how green can green growth be?

Green marketing does not sustain an economy and has not proven successful without sustainable green products and services to back it up. Green marketing without green products is simply greenwashing— misleading claims that hurt brand image and shareholder value. In response, the EU passed the CSDR legislation, the UK is pursuing similar measures, and the SEC is proposing new ESG regulations.

Green growth can be as green as people want or need it to be. The explosive growth in certain products, such as in the renewable energy segment, is clear evidence of this, along with ESG investments, which Bloomberg projects to be almost 40% of all investments by 2025 across most sectors of the global economy. Although GHGs and global warming continue to rise, we are seeing an unprecedented response, hence the phrase “green energy transition.” Further evidence of the economy shifting is the dramatic rise in companies with validated net-zero plans and the increasing laws and policies supporting going green.

Decades ago, Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman argued that a company's sole responsibility was to return a profit for its shareholders. The problem with this, especially now, is that companies have not always had to account for the total cost of the products they take from the earth and make into products. This includes the cost to society in terms of damage to the people and the planet. This has caused people and now investors, companies, and policy makers to place more emphasis on people, the planet, and profit. How green will that get? If our ability to survive on this planet worsens, it will get very green.

The full lifecycle thinking also opens an after-sales market that can benefit both the consumer and the manufacturer.

Completely agree.

Are there ready-made GHG impact calculators available in any ERP or PLM software?

Yes, there are capabilities to track your product carbon footprint (PCF) in some solutions, albeit with differing maturity levels. Overall, we are seeing increased capability in response to customer demand.

How do you define a PCF? Metrics, attributes, and KPIs need to be developed to manage this in the PLM platform. Is there a framework already developed?

A PCF measures GHG emissions from a product or service across the product’s lifecycle, from the extraction of raw materials through end-of-life. The PCF is measured in carbon equivalents (CO2e).

Historically, this has been based on Life Cycle Assessments (LCA's); however, companies are using PLM because this is where product data lives across the lifecycle. Within PLM, the PCF is the sum of all the CO2e’s for all the items that make up the product lifecycle, including supply chain (scope 3) parts and materials and transportation. It could also include “should costs,” CO2e related to manufacturability, and actual costs. This would continue throughout the lifecycle in mechanical BOMs, as-built BOMs, as Maintained BOMs, and for each digital twin on an as-running basis.

To be clear, a PCF is a subset of sustainability where topics like energy consumption, social impact, and others fall outside the PLM boundary.

By using KPIs, companies can better measure their performance against their targets. When this is automated, they can analyze their sustainability data and make actionable insights faster. Except for those set up in an LCA, there are no absolute standards, but specifically to PCF, this can be aligned with corporate goals.

How to report carbon emissions related to fit out materials such as carpets, desks, etc.?

Not well. Building owners have less scrutiny, so there has been little awareness of the problem and little visibility of the CO2e in the materials.

The AEC sector has been on a carbon binge for decades. The American Institute of Architects, the largest design organization in the world, but not the only one, has made an AIA 2030 Commitment to set standards and goals for reaching net-zero with more than 1,100 firms committed to meeting net neutrality (this is not net-zero) by 2030.

Regardless of the industry sector, most carbon is “embodied carbon,” meaning it exists because of the material itself (i.e., steel, concrete, aluminum, etc.), which is locked in for the structure's lifetime. In contrast, “operational carbon” is the carbon that the product or the building uses, which can improve over time with energy-efficient building design and with the use of renewable energy.

Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) allow us to understand the environmental impact as defined by an LCA. But this assumes the EPD and LCA use the same methodology. There are also Hazardous Product Definitions (HPDs), which are important for human health. One issue is that data is used in PDFs and not electronic data that could be aggregated more easily.

The challenge is that you need a material specialist to be involved, which many smaller AEC firms can’t afford. Also, many AEC firms do not use PLM, so they can’t simply roll up the CO2e in a building’s bill of quantities.

Even if they were using PLM, the issue is much more basic. Building material has no standards that all suppliers adhere to; therefore, many suppliers do not have documented CO2e’s. Success in this industry is only attainable if they can define a common language. Here is a non-profit organization working to move building sustainability faster: www.Mindfulmaterials.com.

Some applications are available such as Tally, an Autodesk plugin to Revit that enables some ability to quantify the environmental impact.

For larger structures, there is LEED certification, which helps influence large companies to have their logistics centers certified.

But in answer to your question, no one requires this information in the building space other than a company voluntarily including it in their ESG report.

PS: Take our Green Energy & Sustainability survey at https://www.esurveyspro.com/Survey.aspx?id=a893baff-0be3-4c25-84e0-2261fad1493b.