Sustainability Assessment Standard Review of BIFMA Board Input November 2, 2006

1
Sustainability Assessment StandardReview of
BIFMA Board InputNovember 2, 2006
2
Participants

• All work group chairs and co-chairs
• BIFMA Staff, Project Manager
• Stan Askren, HNI Corp.
• Kass Bradley, Knoll
• Danny Davis, Davis Furniture
• Bill Rubino, JOFCO

3
Participants

• Chuck Saylor, izzydesign
• Paul Simons, Mayline Group
• Scott Schwinghammer, Versteel
• Dan Tuohy, Tuohy Furniture
• Brian Walker, Herman Miller Inc.

4
Purpose

• Update a subset (50) of the Board regarding
  project progress/status
• Solicit guidance and input
• Engage them as project champions

5
Summary of Input

• Excellent/Productive session
• Input summarized into 3 categories
• Value Equation
• Conformity Assessment/Compliance
• Measurement Criteria

6
Value Equation

• Verify the depth and detail of the standard align
  with customer expectations and needs.
• Ensure prerequisites and credits are definitive
  and descriptive, stating specific requirements.
• Credit should be awarded for results (not
  activity), measurable accomplishments toward
  sustainability.
• Ensure cost effective documentation requirements.
  Evaluate cost of conformance assessment.

7
Conformity Assessment

• Consider separating company/facility based
  sustainability factors from product specific
  factors. Potentially two different evaluations
  and certifications one for a company, and one
  for product line(s).
• Consider how a product line will be defined.
• Minimize conformance tiers, fewer is better.
  Prefer a system that states compliance to a
  certain level/range vs. disclosure of total
  points.

8
Conformity Assessment

• Consider how the document will provide guidance
  regarding the proof of compliance cycle /
  duration of certification.
• Need to have the ability to correct a violation
  (e.g. stack) and quickly be able to apply for
  compliance verification (i.e. not have a 2 year
  wait period).
• Avoid silver, gold, platinum nomenclature for
  conformance.

9
Measurement Criteria

• Balance absolute measures vs. relevant measures
  within the credits.
• Ensure fairness for a vertically integrated
  manufacturer vs. an assembler. The credit system
  shall not favor one over the other.
• Dont reference specific organizations in the
  documentation. Instead cite the specific
  requirements relevant to the credit.
• Public reporting consider if were asking for
  too much transparency from private companies.

10
Next Steps

• Opportunity for Board interface on February 8
• - Address questions/concerns
• - Solicit additional input