Lauren Heine

Whether driven by market pressures or increasing global regulations, businesses are seeking to understand better the hazards associated with the chemicals in their supply chain and to move toward the use of inherently safer alternatives to substances of high concern. In order to do so, they need reference tools that will allow them to compare options. Chemical hazard assessment (CHA) is an approach that allows one to compare chemicals based on inherent hazard and to make more informed decisions. Clean Production Action, a non‐profit organization, has developed the first freely available and fully transparent CHA methodology called the GreenScreen™ for Safer Chemicals (GreenScreen™). The method builds on national and international precedents for hazard classification including the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) and the US EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) Program Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation, and includes a structured decision logic in the form of Benchmarks. Clean Production Action has published all of the supporting documentation and is in the process of developing infrastructure to enable broader adoption of the GreenScreen™. This chapter traces the origins of the GreenScreen™, describes the process of applying the method, highlights how it can be and is being used to make more informed decisions by organizations including Hewlett‐Packard, Staples, Royal DSM and The Wercs and outlines the future direction of the GreenScreen™ program.

Comparative analysis of 5 programs that address material health in buildings: * Clean Production Action's (CPA's) GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals (GS) * Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Products Innovation Institute's C2C CertifiedCM Product Standard * Healthy Building Network's Pharos Chemical & Material Library (CML) and Building Product Library (BPL) * Health Product Declaration Collaborative’s HPD * International Living Future Institute’s Declare The report compares how each program conducts product content inventory, list screening analysis, and hazard assessment. It also evaluates the current state of alignment and potential for further harmonization and information sharing among the programs. Additionally, it compares how they verify and disclose collected information and how these requirements compare with the Globally Harmonized System for Safety Data Sheets

Chemicals alternatives assessment (CAA) is a form of alternatives assessment that focuses on finding alternative chemicals, materials or product designs to substitute for the use of hazardous chemicals. Chemical hazard assessment (CHA) or comparative CHA is a method for comparing chemicals based on their inherent hazard properties. CAA is inclusive of CHA. However, a comprehensive CAA can be much broader and include information such as cost, availability, performance and social and environmental life‐cycle attributes. CHA/CAA provides users with hazard‐based information to make informed decisions when selecting less hazardous chemical alternatives. There are multiple CAA methods in use around the world and these methods share a common goal, namely, to support the intelligent design, use and substitution of chemicals to benefit humankind in a manner that will not harm our environment and its inhabitants. Ideally, a CAA/CHA will completely characterize a chemical's intrinsic human health and environmental hazards, in the process promoting the selection of less hazardous chemical ingredients, in addition to avoiding unintended consequences of switching to a poorly characterized chemical substitute.CHA methods typically share common hazard endpoints related to human toxicity, environmental toxicity and environmental fate. The endpoints are evaluated based on criteria that allow for the use of measured or predicted data. Human health criteria in CHA evaluate endpoints such as potential carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, endocrine disruption, acute and chronic or repeat dose toxicity, dermal and eye irritation and dermal and respiratory sensitization. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity, terrestrial toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation are commonly evaluated to predict a chemical's environmental toxicity and fate. Finally, some CHAs (such as GreenScreen™) also evaluate a chemical's physical characteristics such as flammability and reactivity.Of the CAA methods listed, only the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s DfE program, CPA's GreenScreen™ and MBDC's Cradle to Cradle® paradigms are fully transparent and publicly available methods of assessment. Most other CAAs in use around the world do not fully disclose all of their reasoning or resources used for establishing threshold values for hazard criteria, prioritization of hazard endpoints and life‐cycle concerns. Some CAA methods are limited to a focus on CHA whereas others such as MBDC's Cradle to Cradle® expand the focus to consider some life‐cycle attributes. Whether the CAA method includes additional attributes or not, CHA can be used in a modular way, combining with other needed information to inform decision‐making.CAA provides a powerful means to improve upon the status quo by establishing methods to inform chemical substitution in a scientifically rigorous and defensible manner. Recognizing the value of CAA and fostering greater adoption of CAA methods provide stakeholders with much‐needed tools to address a serious deficiency in the way in which chemicals are used in society, as maintaining the status quo is analogous to giving up. As humankind's understanding of the full costs and benefits of chemicals matures, it is critical that we cease using those chemicals that can permanently impair human health or the environment.

Sustainable development has become a catchphrase within engineering and corporate management, and green engineering is now viewed as the techniques applied in order to achieve sustainable development. In this paper, we first describe the origin and rationale for green engineering, and then describe the motivational forces behind the green engineering movement and the surveys of corporate leaders, concluding that most of the motivational forces are based on corporate profitability and are at best amoral (not morally admirable). We then report on a survey of corporate leaders on their attitudes toward green engineering and sustainable development and show that many engineers and managers do espouse to the principles of green engineering without a profit motive. Lastly, we consider why, all things considered, an engineer would want to engage in green engineering and conclude that the objective is best describes using the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia, or the attainment of meaning and contentment with on...

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to develop and implement a new sustainable apparel design and production model, cradle to cradle apparel design (C2CAD), that provides guidelines for apparel designers and manufacturers to solve some of the sustainability problems related to apparel production.Design/methodology/approachThe C2CAD model was developed by integrating McDonough and Braungart's “cradle to cradle” model into existing apparel design and production models. Knitwear design and production was used to implement the C2CAD model as a proof of concept. The performance and cost of the C2CAD knitwear were evaluated.FindingsThe C2CAD model has four main steps: problem definition and research; sample making; solution development and collaboration; and production. Following the four steps and with an international collaboration similar to current apparel industry practices, “Four‐season sustainability” children's knitwear prototypes were developed. Produced with an acceptabl...