Open pdf
Review of Nike Considered Index and Support Tools
1
1 Introduction
Nike hasinvited TheNatural Step to provide external assessment and
advice on the Considered Index froma strategic sustainable
development perspective. Thisreview coversthe overall Index
approach,recognizing thatthere are variations ofthe Index (e.g.for
apparel and footwear). The assessmentmethod is explained below.
We referto different aspects ofthe Index in thisreview,so a
description ofthe approach and its partsis provided. We then give an
overall assessment,followed by technical examination of different
parts ofthe Index and commentary on its public release.
Assessment Method –Backcasting from Success
The assessment has been conducted using both the sustainability
principles and backcasting planningmethod ofthe unifying
Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, promoted by The
Natural Step in collaboration with itsinternationalresearch and
practitioner networks. Fourscience‐based sustainability principles
fromthe framework describe successin terms ofthe conditions
needed for a sustainable society, providing an operational definition
ofsustainability that allowsfor a gap analysis between where we are
today and where we need to arrive atin the future.
Fromthis‘whole systems’ perspective, it needsto be clearly stated
thatthere is no such thing as a sustainable or an unsustainable
material or product;there are only sustainablematerial and resource
management practices. Product andmaterialsustainability claims
therefore need to be viewed carefully, and as part of a journey
toward sustainability – one that hasmany possible pathways.
UnderstandingPurpose and Contextfor the Index
Alltoolsserve a purpose. They need to be examined with their
purpose inmind, and understood within the contextin which they
are used. To judge ifthisIndex is a good toolforsupportingNike’s
movementtoward sustainability,Nike’s overall approach to
sustainabilitymust be understood:
- • The Index has been developed to aid design andmaterial choices as part ofNike’s Considered design ethos, which is part of an overall company sustainability agenda.
- • Nike haslong‐standing commitmentsto sustainability in place.
- • The tool isintegrated intoNike’sinnovation process.
- • Dedicated personnelsupportthe tool’s development and integration acrossthe organization.
- • The Index connects with, drawsfromand supportsmany other aspects ofNike’ssustainable business and innovation agenda (for example, procurementsustainability and audit programs,
- restricted substanceslists, company targets and policies etc).
Just as an analysis of any singlemove or piece ofsports gear used in a
football game cannottell you who will win, one needsto look atthe
whole picture.Organizations wishing to use the Index and build from
Nike’s experience should bearthisinmind and ensure they build the
necessary competencies and structuresin place tomake the best use
ofthe resultsfromthe Index.
Description ofthe Considered IndexApproach
The Considered Index approach can be described as a set ofstrategic
design innovation tools providing:
- 1)Insightinto the environmental impacts ofmaterials used in product creation (materialscores).
- 2)IncentivesforNike tomakemore sustainable products, in line with the company’s priorities and goals(productscores).
- 3) Communication ofthe performance results usingNike’s internalstandards(Considered benchmarks e.g.Gold standard).
- 4) Company targetsfor continual improvement(stretch goalsfor meeting company‐wide benchmarks of product performance by a given year e.g. allfootwearto be Considered Bronze by 2011).
The twomain toolsthatmake up the approach are:
1. MaterialAssessment Tool(MAT). Thistoolscores and ranksthe materialtypes used tomanufactureNike productsfromleastto most preferred. The scoring is based on:
- ‐ Major, known supply chain environmental issues within defined impact categories.
- ‐ A life cycle perspective,from‘cradle to gate’.
- ‐ Publicly available data thatis compiled and aggregated for generalmaterialtypes and typicalsupply chain scenarios.
- ‐ Third party inputfromspecialistsinmaterials environmental impact assessmentmethods.
- ‐ Weightings are assigned to impact categories, based on Nike priorities.
2. The Considered Index. The Index rewards design innovation choicesrelated to product creation by assigning scoresto products. It encouragesthe selection of environmentally preferredmaterials(asscored in the Material Assessment Tool) as well as other practices where the designer can improve the environmental profile ofthe product, i.e. less waste generation, use of desired chemistry and an innovation bonusfor breakthroughsthat can be transferred acrossmodels.
Nike usesthese toolsin a number of ways ‐ for example, aiding
procurement decisions,setting ofinternalstandards andmore
broadly for defining sustainable design performance. Nike has
chosen to externally label Silver andGold standard products,sending
a signalto the consumer aboutNike’s Considered design ethos.
2 OverallAssessment
Using Sustainability as aDriver ofInnovation
Many traditionaltools and approachesformeasuring product or
materialsustainability take a static perspective, attempting to
measure and assessthe scale and severity of known issues and
impactstoday (primarily a risk avoidance approach).On their own
these life cycle assessment approaches have limitationsin terms of
guiding strategic decision‐making toward 1)sustainable resource
management and 2)related business opportunities.2
Itistherefore refreshing to see the approachNike hastaken –
combining quantitativematerial assessment with qualitatively‐
derived scoresrewarding improvementsin product creation.
This approach highlights an evolution in thinking onmeasuring
sustainability away fromsolely ‘impactminimization’ andmovement
toward an ‘innovation enabling’strategic perspective. We believe this
Index is a powerful demonstration of an overall ’backcasting’
approach for enabling sustainable design innovation, notsimply a set
oftoolsformeasuringmovement away fromenvironmental impacts.
DrivingProgress toward a ‘NorthStar’Vision
Forinnovation toolsto really drive progresstoward sustainability,the
definition ofsustainability itselfmust be clear – what are we trying to
achieve? Companies committed to sustainabilitymust ultimately
assess and align their corporate businessmodel and goals with the
needs and principles ofthe sustainable society we are trying to
create. Although the Considered Index tools were first created to
address a sub‐set of known environmentalsustainability issues,Nike
hassince defined itslong terminnovation goals using sustainability
principlesthat provide full awareness ofthe sustainability challenge
in both social and environmental dimensions.
This’ConsideredNorth Star’ vision establishes an ambitiousscope of
action based on whatscience saysis needed forsustainability and
whatisrelevantforNike’s business. While the Index does not
currently address all ofNike’s aspirations, we have observed thatthe
goalsthemselves are now driving further evolution ofthe Index. This
guarantees a living ratherthan staticmethod of evaluation that can
continue to grow overtime.
The lesson for other organizationsisthatthe use ofsuch tools can
onlymake sense when they are linked to a clear and comprehensive
definition ofsustainability in combination with relevant company
commitmentsfor helping society to achieve this desired state.
Evaluating the Impact ofthe Index
Recognizing thatNike needs a pragmatic approach relevantto
designers,the utility ofthe Index is best assessed by looking atthe
way designers use it and the outcomes oftheir work.Designers
interviewed in thisreview noted thatthe approach helpsthem:
- • Achieve a good overview ofthe environmentalsustainability profile of a productstyle.
- • Identify ‘low hanging fruit’; quick easy changes become obvious.
- • Strategically develop a style with sustainability issuesinmind.
- • Creatively explore design choices, analyzing pricing and testing scenariosforimprovementsthat are cost‐neutral.
Nike staff also noted outcomesfromthe Considered Index asfollows:
- • Built commitmentforNike Considered’s approach to sustainable productinnovation.
- • Provided a broader perspective on what designers can do to make a difference.
- • Raised enthusiasmand excitement aboutsustainability by making ittangible.
- • Overcame perception thatsustainability costs extra by showing cost‐neutral improvement possibilities.
- • Informed procurement decision‐making.
- • Challenged designersto compete between productlines.
AnecdotalreportsfromNike affiliates who are beginning to use the
Index also suggestthatitis prompting new questionsto be asked of
suppliers. Furthermeasurement ofthe impact attributed to the Index
is explained inNike’s Corporate Responsibility Reports and studies
such asthe MIT Sloan Managementstudy “Nike Considered:Getting
Traction on Sustainability” (Henderson&Locke 2009). The impact on
the end consumer has not been evaluated,thoughmuch has been
publicly written aboutthe evolution ofNike’s Considered approach
and the high profile athletes who wear Considered product.
3 GettingTechnical:Index Structure
Here we comment on certain aspects ofthe Index construction. As
the Index and Material Assessment Tool use differentscoring
approaches we discussthe two toolsseparately. Assessment ofthe
MAT isincluded in the nextsection.
HowComprehensive is the Index?
The Index needsto be acknowledged as a sophisticated tool covering
a significantscope of environmental issuesrelevanttoNike. Looking
through the lens ofthe foursustainability principles we can explore
the Index’sstrengths and gapsin relation to the fullscope of
sustainability:
- • Key environmentalsustainability impact categories(energy, chemistry, waste, and water) have been chosen in orderto balance practicality with comprehensiveness. The impact categories coversome issuesrelated to the firstthree sustainability principlesthat cover problems associated with minedmaterials,man‐made substances and physical degradation of nature. The approach identifiesthe least number of variablesthat can be used to have fairly high confidence that Nike ismoving in the right direction toward sustainability. It does notseek to cover everything.
- • Socialsustainability issues(related to the fourth sustainability principle) are not directly included. Some implications are addressed indirectly (e.g. health effects on workersfrom chemistry,sourcing fromwater‐scarce regions). Social issues and environmentalsustainability issues are inherently connected issuesso ideally they should not be addressed in isolation.
Thisshowsthat while the tool addressessome aspects under each of
the four primarymechanisms of un‐sustainability, it does not cover
themfully. AsNike has expressed the desire to expand the scope of
the Index tools and develop new tools, we suggestthatthe
sustainability principles be used to informthese updates. This would
capture issues not currently addressed,such as chemical persistence,
release ofscarcemetals, andmore on the social dimension.3
Design Parameterswithin the Index
The overallscoring scheme developed byNike to reward design
choices has been given considerable thought and sensitivity testing to
ensure that differentiation between design optionsis possible. We
expectthatthe scoring reflects a good range of options(bestto worst
options)forthe designerfroma sustainability perspective.
Although we cannot commentin detail on the suitability ofthe design
variablesin the Index (pointsrewarded formaterialselection, waste
generation, chemistry and innovation) we believe they strike a good
balance of whatthe designer has control over. Theremay, however,
be scope to expand the scoring to look atthe fate ofthe product, e.g.
isit designed for closed loop, durability, orfor cold water washing?
Finally, it needsto be noted thatthe scoring has been developed
directly byNike who does not claimthisto be a third party eco‐label.
External input on the approach is now being sought.
4 GettingTechnical: MaterialAssessmentTool
In thissection we commentspecifically on thematerials assessment
approach in the Material Assessment Tool underpinning the Index.
MATImpact Categories,Weightings andAggregation
We note the following:
• Nike has used external input and guidance frommaterials
environmental impact assessment expertsto create a 100‐point
scoring systemfromthematerials assessment data (the details
ofthe approach are notincluded in the scope ofthisreview).
The impact categoriesincluded in the scoring reflectNike’s
priorities. Weightings are applied to the impact categoriesso
thatscores generated in each category can be aggregated into
overallmaterialscores.
• In our view, deciding on the importance orsignificance of
particularimpact categories over one another(e.g.toxicity vs.
climate change)is an impossible task and should not be
attempted. They are simply different dimensions of un‐
sustainability to be tackled. The dangerin this aggregation isthe
perception thatthe bestscoringmaterials are viewed asthe
‘mostsustainable’ratherthan ‘most preferred, based on current
priorities’. This needsto bemore closely examined, asthe
potential(and cost) of amaterialto bemanaged sustainability
can change overtime, be region and scale‐specific or be heavily
affected by only one parameter. Recognizing thatNike has
consulted external partiesto develop itsscoring approach we
simply wish to note the interpretation risk in scoring ‘apples’ and
‘oranges’together.
• With the above caution noted, other companies who wish to
aggregate data fromthe differentimpact categoriesin the MAT
and Indexmay choose to assign different prioritiesto them. In
orderforthe toolsto retain theirintegrity,the company
prioritiesmust be included in a transparent way. The rationale
forsetting prioritiesshould also be outlined e.g. perceived
importance or urgency ofsustainability issues, business
priorities, ability to influence etc.
DataQuality andValidity
All organizations working on sustainability willrecognize lack of
supply chain transparency and accesstomeaningful data as key
challenges. The MAT employs a somewhat pragmatic approach,
working on available information and proxies. The assumptions and
data quality used to generatematerial and productscores need to be
understood so thatresults ‐ the basisfor decision‐making ‐ are
interpreted correctly:
• Publicly‐available data has been used.
• Data is not consistently available and expertinput has been used
tomake educated decisionsin orderto generate scoresfrom
multiple sources.
• The scores are also base scenariosfor genericmaterialtypes
with significant aggregation. This does not accountforthe
differences between supply chains and suppliers, which are
likely to be significant.
• Ensuring that data is accurate and stays currentis a key
challenge. A clearmechanismfor updating the assumptionsin
the Material Assessment Tool is not apparent but will be
essentialmoving forward.
In the future, industries will need increasingly sophisticated toolsto
understand the consequences oftheir activities and plan solutions.
Lack of data will need to be addressed.Given this, we would like to
seeNike and the industry atlarge aiming forfulltransparency in the
supply chain on sustainability issues. Ifthis ambitiouslong‐termgoal
were agreed,ratherthan create only the genericmaterialscorecards,
a furtherstep would be to quantify the uncertainty range and
incentivize suppliersto demonstrate where they lie within it. The use
of web‐based technologiesmay also be ameansfor building
transparency by crowd‐sourcing of data.
Overall,the MAT illustratesthe challenge of getting reliable
normalized data frommanufacturers and suppliers and suggests a
requirementfor a sea change in industrial practices. Nike’s effortto
share itsresearch findings on supply chain impacts needsto be
commended forraising thisissue to industry attention.
5 PublicRelease ofthe Index
Itis a hallmark ofleadership thatNike issharing itslessonslearned
with the industry and opening up for public scrutiny a generic version
ofthe approach – theNike EnvironmentalDesign Tool. Thisshould be
seen as a significant contribution to the industry dialogue on
sustainability performance and itshould supportthe development
and convergence on approachesthat can be universally applied
acrossthe industry.
We suggestthatmetric tools alone are not enough forindustry
alignment on sustainability. Capacity building toolsshould
accompany any Index to bring people on board with a shared story of
whatsustainabilitymeansforthe industry, using a robust definition.
In this way each actor can assessthe inherent problemsin their own
activities and work to generate and evaluate possible solutions.4
Knowing the ultimate aimsthatNike and otherindustry leaders are
seeking to achieve with theirtoolsis helpfulregardless of current
demands,the state oftools or available information. Such an
approach would help revise currenttools by identifying gaps and
continually liftthe bar asthe industrymakes progress.
6 Conclusion
We really like thistool asittakes a pragmatic,strategic life cycle
management approach where sustainability is viewed as a journey
ratherthan a staticmeasurement ofimpacts. The use of product
scores and labelssuch asGold, Silver and Bronze forscoring and
communication helpsto simplify a complex task,making
sustainability concrete enough to bring designers on board, giving
themthe information and incentivestomake a real impactthrough
design choices.Digging deeper one can see the depth of analysis as
well asthe scope limitations and challenges with data availability and
aggregationmethods.
ThisIndex is a very sophisticated tool and a powerful demonstration
of an overall ’backcasting’ approach for enabling sustainable design
innovation. WhatsetsNike apartisthatit has used scientific
principles ofsustainability to setthe scope forits vision ofsuccessfor
productsustainability.Nike is now using itstoolstomake progress
toward these goals.
Itis a hallmark ofleadership thatNike issharing itslessonslearned
with the industry and opening it up for public scrutiny. We look
forward to seeing how Nike continuesto evolve itstoolstomake
progresstoward sustainability.
7 AboutthisReview
TheNatural Step
TheNatural Step is an international notfor profit organization
dedicated to sustainable development. TheNatural Step acts as a
catalystforsociety, bringing aboutsystemic change by giving
decision‐makers a common,science‐based understanding of
sustainability, and a framework tomake decisionsin a genuinely
sustainable way.
www.thenaturalstep.org
The Framework for Strategic SustainableDevelopment
The Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development ‐ commonly
called TheNatural Step Framework afterthe organizations promoting
its development, application and dissemination ‐ has been
developed,tested and applied together with researchers, business
and political leaders and practitioners all around the world overthe
last 20 years. It underpins and hasinspiredmany ofthe world’s
pioneering sustainability initiatives and is openly published and freely
available for use by all.
The Framework as the Lens for thisReview
Whatmakesthe framework unique isthatitis proven on 3 arenas:
- • Itis built on scientific consensus, with PhDs, peer‐reviewed articles, and internationalscientific recognition.
- • It has been used by practitioners all overthe world in organizations of allfields and scales.
- • It can be used to analyze and relate allsustainability tools and conceptsto one another and to the goal ofsustainability.
Itisthese attributes whichmake itsuitable as a lensforreviewing
Nike’s Considered Index froma strategic sustainability perspective.
Scope ofReview
This assessmentismade drawing on insights by advisorsfamiliar with
Nike’s business. It has been reviewed byDr Karl‐Henrik Robèrt within
the scope ofthe internationalresearch programReal Change, in
which TheNatural Step is a founding partner. The review was
conducted betweenDecember 2009 and July 2010 through
interviews withNike’s Considered Teamand Index users,training on
Considered Index, documentreview and participation in anNGO
stakeholdersession. It builds upon TheNatural Step’s prior
understanding and collaboration withNike’s Considered innovation
teamthroughout 2008 to supportthe development ofNike’sNorth
Star Vision.
ContributingAuthors
Thisreport has been compiled using inputfroma number of TNS staff
drawn from The Natural Step International, The Natural Step Network
USA and The Natural Step Canada.
Regina Hauser ExecutiveDirector The Natural Step Network USA
Richard Blume Senior Advisor The Natural Step International
Latest Revision 12/8/10
|