First, the Challenge asks manufacturers to walk the talk of restorative sustainability by making their own on-site operations Net Positive with respect to the impact categories of water, energy and waste. This means, for example, creating more on-site energy through renewable means, or capturing more water on-site than is used in the production process at the final manufacturing location. Ultimately, these improvements also result in life cycle Footprint reductions, thereby reducing the size of Handprint required to then become life cycle Net Positive.
Product Share vs. Whole Facility Site Compliance
When considering the inputs to include in Footprint calculations, the impact of workers and ancillary functions within the facility need not be included unless the product(s) pursuing certification exceed 75% of the total value of production for the facility. This production-focused offsetting approach is known as the Product Share Pathway.
If the total value of the product is over 75%, the manufacturing processes in addition to the impact of workers from the entire facility must be included within the scope of Net Positive calculations. This is known as the Whole Facility Pathway. If the manufacturer opts to make the entire facility Net Positive for an impact category, then all products produced at that site will be considered Net Positive at the Site scale for that impact category.
In identifying actions and changes that can be realized at the facility scale to reduce on-site impacts and move towards Net Positive, here are some useful considerations that can be applied to each idea that the manufacturing team proposes.
Cost Feasibility
Some on-site impact reduction opportunities may be associated with significant cost increases. Among competing priorities, it is important to identify which efforts can be successfully incorporated into time and monetary budgets, and which efforts are best reserved for longer-term sustainability strategies. However, it is also important to explore the problem from multiple angles and engage employees at the facility to get creative. In one case, the perceived need for larger, expensive infrastructural changes to source captured water for production uses was avoided through a simple input connection that brought in rainwater, put in place by a resourceful facility manager.
Physical Feasibility
Impact reduction opportunities related to the production site may only be feasible at certain scales of production or at facilities of a certain size. They may also be site-specific between multiple final manufacturing sites for the same product. Where some facilities may have ample roof surface area or parking canopies for solar panel installation, others will have to dig deep in process efficiency efforts to reduce the site impacts within a limited building footprint. Understanding physical limitations with facilities managers and product managers will additionally narrow the list of impactful on-site footprint reduction opportunities. Keep in mind that LPC has off-site opportunities for both water and energy Net Positive solutions if you are unable to manage on-site installation.
Decision-Making Feasbility
Lastly, it is often the case that a manufacturer is not necessarily the sole owner of a facility used to produce its goods. In many situations, companies employ contract manufacturing. Once again, while on-site Net Positive is a program requirement, in cases where due diligence is demonstrated but it is ultimately not feasible to influence a building owner to put renewable infrastructure into place, manufacturers are invited to propose alternative actions that create an equivalent amount of impact. In some cases, for example, renewable energy installations that cannot be placed at a facility, may actually do more good at a local school or community center. Manufacturers should refer to specific water and energy exceptions in the LPC Guide for feasibility.
