Since its launch in July 2009, The Sustainability Consortium has been the subject of intrigue, not to mention myths and misunderstanding. Founded initially at the behest, and funding, of Walmart, it now boasts a membership of 75 or so companies, plus nonprofits and government agencies, plus affiliations with more than a score of academic institutions around the world. Just last week, the group, which is housed jointly at Arizona State University and the University of Arkansas, announced it was planting a flag across the Atlantic, with affiliations at universities in the U.K. and The Netherlands.
But what, exactly, is the group doing? Is it, as some would have it, creating a rating system for products? Is it establishing standards by which products will be certified as sustainable? Is it merely a cover organization for companies seeking to appear proactive?
None of the above. During 2011, the consortium seems to have found its footing, conducting research and building tools to help deliver science-based thinking to manufacturers, retailers, and others. In April, it hired its first fulltime executive director: Bonnie Nixon, formerly a sustainability executive at Hewlett-Packard and, before that, founder of an environmental consulting firm. Earlier this month, Nixon issued a 100-day assessment and plan, her first official statement. It listed more than a dozen activities and achievements the group had undertaken since her arrival.
Last week, I spoke with Nixon to learn more: the consortium's ambitions and plans, and where the group is headed over the coming year. Following is an edited version of that conversation.
Joel Makower: You've been at The Sustainability Consortium for a little over four months now. Is it everything you expected?
Bonnie Nixon: In many ways it's even more exciting than what I expected. As I've gotten more and more grounded with it, and met with most of the members and all of the staff and many people externally, it's become clear to me the space in which we need to be playing, the space that creates a tremendous opportunity and momentum for us.
Makower: So what space is that?
Nixon: I was hired under the premise that I focus on three things. One was delivery. The second was internationalization, making sure it's not just considered a North American initiative or just a Walmart initiative. And the third was growth -- that we be conscious about our vision and mission and how we're going to achieve growth objectives.
When I think of growth it's not just "Let's get a lot more members." It's what should our model be for the future so that we ourselves are a sustainable organization? How do we support innovation and products. How do we create assurance out there, not just for consumers, but for the huge B-to-B space, providing the right toolsets for retailers and buyers.
Makower: You mentioned that "delivery" was one of your goals, but I'm not entirely sure what that means.
Nixon: We have to be really clear on what promises we are making, and that we're delivering on those promises. When I came into this, my observation was that there was a lot of excitement, a lot of anticipation about who we are from the moment it was announced. And initially people thought we were just an index, right? As time went on, there was a lot of discussion on what exactly are we and how should we evolve.
What became clear was that we needed to help navigate this very complex space that contains lifecycle assessments, lifecycle thinking, lifecycle approaches, but also look at other innovative approaches like Cradle to Cradle, biomimicry, natural capitalism, and whole systems design. How do you deal with the fact that, to date, there hasn't been consensus around things like biodiversity or social impacts or toxicity in materials?
Ultimately, delivery is about our longer-term vision, which is how we advance the science to drive a new generation of innovative products and supply networks that address environmental, social and economic imperatives. They're not mutually exclusive. We have to recognize that in order for companies to be actively engaged in many of the environmental and social things, that they actually have to be viable companies.


















































































































Joshua, The Consortium has
Joshua, The Consortium has been working with NGOs from the start, and they have been crucial to our scientific credibility, along with our founding in academia. We are conscious of the need to involve more NGOs, and we think adding representatives to our Board of Directors is a good start. We strive to be inclusive because we know each organization will have something unique to offer that will contribute to our work. In response to your mention of conservation groups, TSC is working with WWF and NRDC, among others.
We agree that each company should not score themselves, because how can we then as consumers be adequately informed if everyone is using a different measurement method? All of our members working together, including NGOs, will help rectify this problem.
Karen Millen is your best
Karen Millen is your best choice! Our products are authentic quality with original box. Discount Karen Millen will cost you less money. So, please don’t hesitate. I am sure that Karen Millen Dress online shopping is your great choice.Just contact us for details to get the Cheap Karen Millen Dress! We will be your reliable business partner!
Welcome to our website:== http://www.karendresses.com == Thank you!
This is an informative
This is an informative interview. Thanks Joel and Bonnie. I appreciate the focus on science and the stated commitment to that. There's not much mention/discussion of NGO partners. Just listing the corporations, some with a very mixed reputation there's no doubt, and also their academic institutions of preference. I know a couple of NGOs were just added. But how serious is the Sustainability Consortium about being inclusive and collaborative with conservation groups? Is this part of the plan? It would be great to hear a little more discussion on that. I still hear lots of chatter that its the companies scoring themselves and that's ultimately not the solution. Thanks!