When modeling the life cycle environmental performance of products and services, some people account for process flows – energy use, water use and solid waste production. Others account for environmental impacts – such as global warming potential, human toxicity and ecotoxicity, water pollution, ozone layer depletion, and smog production. Differences between these measurable groups may seem subtle, but they have significant implications for our ability to protect natural ecology and human health.

Process flows
Non-scientists quickly comprehend the idea of process flows. Embodied energy, water use and solid waste production are relatively self-explanatory concepts. As a rough and simple metric – they indicate the quantity of resources associated with the production of a material or process, and they echo the common idea that material, energy and waste flows are proportional to environmental impacts. This generalization can, however, lead to erroneous conclusions. A closer look reveals some of the paradoxes inherent in measuring process flows in the pursuit of making ‘greener’ products.

In the early days of ecodesign, we often lauded products made from recycled or renewable materials, but we quickly learned that environmental impacts are so complex that material choice is only one of many design factors that need to be considered. So how do we actually classify good, or inspiring green design?

Ecodesign has only recently been evaluated — 2006 was the first year it was included as a category in the IDEA Design competition. That year, the Zody chair by ITO Design, won a Silver award. ITO validated their design with Cradle-to-Cradle certification, a certification that focuses on material choice only. In 2007 the IDEA EcoDesign Bronze winner, Greenscapes Mountain Sneaker by The Timberland Company claimed a ‘Green Index’ rating of 50% better for the environment than other products they produce. The Green Index is a rating system internal to Timberland, so it is unclear what it really means. What is clear, however, is the need to substantiate claims.

With verifiable and accessible rating systems such as Eco-Indicator in Europe and Okala in North America, we are rapidly moving towards a more consistent understanding of the ecological impacts of a product. But even with this there will always remain some unquantifiable questions. One of my favourite questions is: Could this product reduce ecological impacts by helping us to change our behavior?