We all like to think we are discerning about what we will and won’t put in our trolleys at the supermarket. Not any old salty, fat saturated gloop will make the cut these days. That’s why food producers like to proclaim its healthiness on packaging, regardless of the nature of the product within. ‘Lower fat’ doesn’t mean low fat. Companies in other sectors follow suit. The office products market is one in which some manufacturers don’t mind a splash of green on product labels. This doesn’t do the customer or the buyer any good and can breed cynicism in the market, undermining the efforts of those suppliers who actually take a sophisticated approach to the environmental performance of their products.
Ideally this should extend beyond the product itself to the systems and supply chain. For example, marketing an office chair as 98% recyclable or whatever is good in theory, but if there is no attached collection and disposal service, what is the likelihood that the chair will actually be recycled at the end of its useful life? Where is the know-how and inclination to dismantle a chair, separate its component parts and then send them off for processing? How can we ensure that a decision taken by one buyer will be followed through to its conclusion by their successor five or ten years hence?
Perhaps we should take these factors out of the equation and we would all benefit from the introduction of some legislation similar to the rules that relate to electrical equipment in the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. This would not only encourage the effective disposal and recycling of products but also encourage the use of natural or recycled materials place products firmly within the context of their life cycle. The best suppliers already take this cradle-to-cradle approach and should be commended but maybe there should be no choice.
Organisations have a role to play too of course. In terms of the products they buy for their workplaces, companies can aim to lessen their environmental impact through careful selection of products. Similarly, it can pay to make informed decisions that may run counter to the prevailing wisdom. Even a material that seems like an environmental no-no such as chrome can prove to be a more sustainable choice if it offers a longer life cycle. Buyers should be able to make these kind of well informed choices but I fear they are not given the means to do so and even if they were, may ask the wrong questions when choosing.
More can be done to help buyers make better decisions,  particularly through legislation. But the onus should always be on suppliers to offer better products and better guidance that exceed and precede legislation. We’ve seen it with other industries. Some car manufacturers introduced catalytic converters early, and were ahead of the game when everyone was eventually required to do likewise legally. Why shouldn’t this also be the case with office products?
March 19, 2013
Suppliers need to take responsibility for green labelling of products
by Mark Eltringham • Comment, Environment, Workplace design
Ideally this should extend beyond the product itself to the systems and supply chain. For example, marketing an office chair as 98% recyclable or whatever is good in theory, but if there is no attached collection and disposal service, what is the likelihood that the chair will actually be recycled at the end of its useful life? Where is the know-how and inclination to dismantle a chair, separate its component parts and then send them off for processing? How can we ensure that a decision taken by one buyer will be followed through to its conclusion by their successor five or ten years hence?
Perhaps we should take these factors out of the equation and we would all benefit from the introduction of some legislation similar to the rules that relate to electrical equipment in the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. This would not only encourage the effective disposal and recycling of products but also encourage the use of natural or recycled materials place products firmly within the context of their life cycle. The best suppliers already take this cradle-to-cradle approach and should be commended but maybe there should be no choice.
Organisations have a role to play too of course. In terms of the products they buy for their workplaces, companies can aim to lessen their environmental impact through careful selection of products. Similarly, it can pay to make informed decisions that may run counter to the prevailing wisdom. Even a material that seems like an environmental no-no such as chrome can prove to be a more sustainable choice if it offers a longer life cycle. Buyers should be able to make these kind of well informed choices but I fear they are not given the means to do so and even if they were, may ask the wrong questions when choosing.
More can be done to help buyers make better decisions,  particularly through legislation. But the onus should always be on suppliers to offer better products and better guidance that exceed and precede legislation. We’ve seen it with other industries. Some car manufacturers introduced catalytic converters early, and were ahead of the game when everyone was eventually required to do likewise legally. Why shouldn’t this also be the case with office products?