Textiles. What's in your pocket...?

A report in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology said that a new ‘greener’ and cleaner chemical process* could revolutionize the leather-tanning industry.

This is something we don't talk enough about: what processes make the dyes, dye the clothes, tan the leather, fabricate the buttons on the new jacket?

What's in that upholstery, how was it made?  The handbag?  The thread?  The needle? 

As a teenager who hung around like-minded-prepschool-treehugging-wool-wearing teenagers, this point lurked in the back of my mind.  Pals would fuss if someone's mom wore fur.  But the damage done forests and rivers from chemicals used to make our shoes was somehow permissible. 

It was confusing.  It still is.

The great thing about the Green movement in industry is that we get to think, talk, blog, and comment about these things.  Greening industrial processes.  It's good.  Humans are going to make things, especially tools, fabrics and furniture.  So let's make things in a considerate, respectful fashion.

[As a recent wave of media said, Human Impacts on the environment have ancient precedents.  Torben Rick, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, says the notion of hunter-gatherers respectfully living in perfect harmony with their environment is going the way of the dodo.] 

[Obviously, the stakes are higher now -- with massive populations, a "sometimes unmindful" upper-foodchain, and tools that can blow up or pollute or climate-change the whole show -- so that it really does matter, now more than ever, what impact humans have when they make things.]

Stanley Tools makes tools.  Stanley is addressing its food chain, what's in it, and tidying it up.

Herman Miller makes furniture, and they are streamlining operations toward visibility into their products, supply chains, chemicals therein and the properties thereof.

And what's in the clothes on our backs?  What about dyes, tanning, or the process of twining microfibers together to make thread?

What IS a microfiber, exactly...?

Coach (handbags) uses software to manage chemicals in products at the retail outlet level.  This is a good start.

The AATCC is the a leading not-for-profit professional association for textile design, materials, processing, and testing industries.  They have a terrible web site but do good work.  The December issue of AATCC Review plans to address questions about textiles, sustainability, greener processes. December will be an interesting issue.

If interested, while writing this it came up that the Smithsonian currently has an exhibition (and sale by looks of it) called Craft 2 Wear -- wearable art -- jewelry and clothes.  Worth checking out.  http://www.craft2wear.smithsonian.org/.

Incidentally, if you've ever wondered why people shell out $80,000 for a dress -- or maybe why your wife shells out $hundreds for a handbag -- but you didn't hear that here -- check out this behind-the-scenes docu.  It argues that a dress by Chanel is equal to a painting by Picasso, and that's why it's worth $80k.  This blogging entity has no opinion on these things.  But if you do, you can comment on this page.

*Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. Report in Feb 2008.  For more information about green chemistry visit GC3 or the Green Chemistry Institute.

Cleanware: software between Industry and a Greener Environment

Clean is the word.  Cleanware is the new word.

CleanTECH tends to mean windmills, solar panels, water purification and that kind of thing.  It's a category of hardware towards a cleaner environment.

But we need software towards a cleaner environment.  Call it cleanware.

A colleague here liked the idea, and came up with this definition:  cleanware is software that helps clean the heavy, oily, legacy industrial footprint.  Okay... and... please don't say "pedicure for big industry" or go there.

CleanWARE would be software for chemical accounting.  With modules that act as a Regulatory concierge:  constantly checking for new local, regional, global environmental policy and compliance mandates.  A supply chain concierge: checking in with the supply chain.  Compiling inventories, usages, changes in supplier soldering ingredients three tiers down.  Rolling up BOM-data into threshold data-pies.  Folding in the latest EPA, OSHA, ECHA and local environmental bits.

CleanWARE certainly exists. Actio Corp of course puts out the platform-agnostic suite of on-demand solutions to bridge between industry, chemicals, and the EPA (and OSHA, ECHA, et cetera).  SAP has a few modules that address environmental regulation - they seem to work sufficiently with drawbacks - namely that all locations and all instances of an enterprise have to be on the same version of the ERP in order for it to work; this brings the attendant upgrade costs and consulting fees, because no organization ever upgrades at the same time worldwide, and often have different ERPs anyway.  There are other cleanware would-be's in the space, too.

But for now, let's focus on the term:  What do you think of cleanware software category?  Think it's a good idea?

Wiki says: Cleantech is a term used to describe knowledge-based products or services that improve 1)operational performance, 2)productivity or 3)efficiency ... with respect to the environment (italics paraphrased).

Which is what we need software to be:  knowledge-based products or services that improve 1)operational performance, 2)productivity or 3)efficiency ... with respect to the environment.  Cleanware! 

Web-based supply chain software comes to dominate the landscape

In the future - specifically by 2015 - web-based supply chain software will dominate the landscape.  This is a prediction by Dan Gilmore, the editor of a supply chain publication.  We'll provide link to his article at the end of this post.

Glimore is making predictions about the supply chain five years from now.  The prediction he is most confident about, he says, is that web-based supply chain software will dominate the landscape.  There will be a point of critical mass when a straw breaks the camel -- or the tipping point is reached -- then all fall down and get SaaS solutions to manage the supply chain.

How exactly he got there he doesn't say.  But considering he spent months working on this projection, there's probably something to it.

SaaS: America's next top model

Recently an AMR Research  blogger, Bruce Richardson, ran a hot blog on the topic of SaaS.  He quoted another blog (as you do...) called GigaOM as saying the following:

“Traditional legacy applications such as Oracle or SAP have a fully loaded cost of delivery of $1,000-$1,500 per user per month. Several years ago, Oracle On Demand got that cost down to $50-$100, whether it was Oracle-hosted or customer-hosted. Salesforce.com has squeezed that cost down even more to $7-$10, though admittedly just for the much lighter-weight CRM portion of the suite."

Is SaaS really that much cheaper -- one-tenth the price?  Across how much time are we talking about? 

Well, even if the cost gap is exaggerated in the quote, there is still a gap, and it seems transparent that on-demand solutions really are less costly in full deployment.  They're quicker to ignite, easier to maintain, and more flexible in that they work with any and all legacy software, and also in the sense that you can cancel it -- it's not like you have multi-$milllions invested if you want to start over.

The rebuttal to SaaS is to say that analysts underestimate the relationship a traditional legacy app provider has with a company.  Nay-SaaS-ers say that you can't put a price tag on the ERP-customer relationship (well, except for the industry-average 22% annual maintenance fee, not to mention consulting hourly fees, those extended SOWs, and incredibly costly enterprise-wide upgrades).

Certainly a SaaS provider also has a relationship with its customers.  It's not as deep, but it's arguably not as controlling either.  There's more free market and competitive spirit in the on-demand model which is likely why analysts like its chances.  Which may make it the next supermodel.

Shakedown street

In the end, there will have to be a place for both, because SAP and Oracle rule the world and they are not so very much on-demand. Best Value is the most likely to succeed in the long, long, long run.  SaaS is a relatively new phenomenon; we forget how young the software industry really is anyway.  The market will have to shake it out; Gilmore predicts five years till shakedown.

The wildcard is that Best Value overall is not always Least Costly in dollars.

There was a very nice blog post yesterday about Best Value vs. Least Costly -- around the subject of software maintenance contracts.  About TCO (total cost of ownership) and 3rd-party maintenance contracts vs. services by vendor.  Blog post by the one and only Josh Greenbaum here and worth a read.

Back to our supply chain.  One big voice out there in supply chain operations believes that The proverbial Market will endorse on-demand services over any other by 2015.  His name is Dan Gilmore, he's the Editor of Supply Chain Digest.  Here is his blog.  His rumination on supply chain came in a newsletter containing the top ten changes we'd see in supply chains by 2015.

He writes:
"Web-based supply chain software comes to dominate the landscape: I haven’t completely been on this bandwagon until recently, but by 2015, this is how it is going to be – which has many major implications.  More confident of this than about any other prediction on the list. Once this becomes the lead approach for almost all vendors, the shift will happen rapidly."

What do you think?

Supply chain solutions are available already for lots of things, but on-demand solutions are still slowly claiming pieces of a market that is rightfully, and inevitably, theirs.  Supply chain management would be one.

What do you think?  Are on-demand solutions to supply chain data management the inevitable progression?

More on GHS: how OSHA won't getcha but the market will

GHS means a globally harmonized system of chemical classification and labeling.  We need one.  Because a product may be considered flammable or toxic by one agency or country, but not by another.

We can see by comparing a few hazards how complex it is to comply with all domestic and global regulations. Acute oral toxicity (LD50) is a good example. Although most existing systems cover acute toxicity, what is considered hazardous varies considerably. These differences allow the same product to be hazardous in one country/system and not in another!  At the very least, the same product has different labels and SDSs.

Get into a conversion program.  Start now.  If you put all your data in a centralized, secure database like MSDS Vault or Actio’s Material Disclosure -- which is a quick-start software module for communicating with a supply chain on matters of substances and high concern -- you will not only be ready for GHS but you’ll be able to leverage that content.

That's where the ROI is: leveraging the content and saving so much time and tedious work.

“OSHA won’t drive GHS,” said Kal Kawar, CIH, Professional Engineer, EHS veteran, manufacturing industry expert, and national speaker on manufacturing best practices.

“The market will drive GHS,” he said.

Why?  Because differences in hazards and SDS/labels impact both protection and trade.

In the area of protection, users may see different label warnings or safety data sheet information for the same chemical!

In the area of trade, the need to comply with multiple regulations regarding hazard classification and labeling is costly and time-consuming.  Some multinational companies have estimated that there are over 100 diverse hazard communication regulations for their products globally.  For small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) regulatory compliance is complex and costly, and it can act as a barrier to international trade in chemicals.


From the OSHA site:
Many countries already have regulatory systems in place for these types of requirements. These systems may be similar in content and approach, but their differences are significant enough to require multiple classifications, labels and safety data sheets for the same product when marketed in different countries, or even in the same country when parts of the life cycle are covered by different regulatory authorities.

This leads to inconsistent protection for those potentially exposed to the chemicals, as well as creating extensive regulatory burdens on companies producing chemicals.

For example, in the United.States (U.S.) there are requirements for classification and labeling of chemicals for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The GHS itself is not a regulation or a standard. The GHS Document (referred to as "The Purple Book") establishes agreed hazard classification and communication provisions with explanatory information on how to apply the system.  The elements in the GHS supply a mechanism to meet the basic requirement of any hazard communication system, which is to decide if the chemical product produced and/or supplied is hazardous and to prepare a label and/or Safety Data Sheet as appropriate.(end osha material)

Most want to know:
How do I:
-    prepare for GHS? 
-    find a solution that automates conversion to GHS from current materials data (both raw materials and legacy MSDSs)?
-    show benefits and ROI?  Can ROI be demonstrated in streamlining internal processes and six sigma initiatives?
-    show benefits in ongoing CSR and Public Relations?
-    quickly review all ingredients and harmonize their associated information?

Is there a way to automate conversion to GHS, increase ROI, streamline operations, leverage both legacy and future supplier-network chemical data -- and automate all these processes without making my own job redundant?

Kawar, resident expert on GHS, says, "Yes.  Software modules are so sophisticated today they can leverage substance data stored in a relational database to solve regulatory challenges."

We've looked at some solutions.  Here are some other solutions, an article from NetworkWorld, with a decent case study at the bottom of page 2 - about how Easton Sports solved its "hundreds of thousands of MSDSs" problem.  This is an older article but the problem/solution stands.  Story also discusses Cisco, IBM, and others so it's interesting all around.

OSHA prosposes rule to adopt Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication System

A proposed rule to align the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) was published in the September 30 Federal Register. 

From the OSHA site, here is the background of GHS.

Kal Kawar, CIH, PE, chemical and manufacturing industry veteran, offers the following:

“The landscape has changed in the past 30 years,” said Kawar, speaking from his Chicago office.  “Global compliance – including REACH, RoHS and many other directives – has taken center stage.  We are now talking about a Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) where the downstream user provides input into the uses of a product, and that input has to be incorporated into the extended SDS."  

He adds, "Incidentally, software modules are so sophisticated today they can leverage substance data stored in a relational database to solve regulatory challenges."  More of Kal Kawar's expertise on the subject of GHS is available. 

"The proposal to align the hazard communication standard with the GHS will improve the consistency and effectiveness of hazard communications and reduce chemical-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities," said acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab. "Following the GHS approach will increase workplace safety, facilitate international trade in chemicals, and generate cost savings from production efficiencies for firms that manufacture and use hazardous chemicals."

A number of countries, including the United States, international organizations and stakeholders participated in developing the GHS to address inconsistencies in hazard classification and communications.

Taiwan's EPA has "new toxic substances control act"

The R.O.C. (Taiwan) Environmental Law Library website has been developed as part of a project to create an English living environment in Taiwan.  It aspires to enhanced international communication on Taiwan's environmental laws.  The website presents Taiwan's environmental laws & regulations in Chinese and English, and provides access to Taiwan's environmental law terminology database.

Site publishes laws and updates on emissions and substances and everything in between.  This is the Toxic Substances Control Act.   Upshot:  Taiwan is stepping up environmental law.  Something to keep an eye on, for manufacturers, lawmakers, consumers -- and those making software to bridge the gap between.

Taiwan produces a lot of electronics - in fact - here's a directory of manufacturers in Taiwan and China. It's an extensive list.

Here's a decent article on Taiwan and toxic substances control.

BASF and Dow agree: patent portfolios should be rated

Yesterday, Chemical Processing (.com) reported that BASF and Dow Chemical jointly announced support for the Patent Asset Index. 

The Patent Asset Index touts itself as a science-based metric.  It seeks to be a more holistic way to assess a patent. It's a good idea that would be better if there was an assessment score for environmental responsibility or corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The metric emphasizes patent assessments based on:
- global perspective
- transparency
- a "more robust quality measurement"

All a little vague, but you can't argue with it.

Quote from Index creator, Professor Holger Ernst:  "Patent Asset Index would be an important indicator for the sustainability of innovative strength, especially with regard to technology and R&D-oriented companies on a global level."

Quote from this blogger:  "It would be good if someone would provide an example, e.g., 'Patent A would have a higher Patent Asset Index than Patent B because of __, __, and __.' " 

Nevertheless, the thinking is correct.  A patent portfolio is itself a key asset and should demonstrate its strengths wherever possible.

BASF on patents (and on bolstering its image):

"The essential role that patents play in the chemical industry is often ignored, and we are happy that we now have a better method to compare the patent portfolios of global companies even more accurately," said Dr. Andreas Kreimeyer, member of the Board of Executive Directors and Research Executive Director of BASF SE. "The method is valuable not only to demonstrate the importance of our patent portfolio to investors, but also to internally evaluate our patent strategy over time."

So how do you lock it down, make the metrics mean something?  Can elements of assets be measured?  And compared with other measurements?

There are of course software tools that help -- actual data -- on reporting on emissions and so on for products and assets.  And the raw material disclosure product from Actio Corp.

An Index wouldn't hurt but sounds a little softer, more malleable.  Time will tell.

Chemical Processing can be found at:  http://bit.ly/AUKG3
The release can be read at: http://bit.ly/28aNFq
Patent Asset Index stuff -- including a graphic (woo-hoo!) -- can be found at:  http://bit.ly/2k2eTv