E60.80 - General Sustainability Standards

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Every system is subject to disruptive events and stressors. Events and stressors can occur at all life-cycle stages and affect systems in multiple ways and on a range of scales. It is imperative to define and understand the nature of the events and stressors that may affect a system in order to address the opportunities and challenges presented.  
4.2 A resilient system is better able to withstand an anticipated disruptive event or stressor.  
4.3 Knowledge from historic disruptive events can aid in the design of system resilience. However, assumptions based on historical events may not be indicative of future conditions or future system operations, or they may not be consistent with design criteria in codes and standards. Systems can be designed to withstand and limit damage and support health and safety; stressors and recovery of function can often be more robustly addressed in initial system design practice. Advancing resilience requires addressing all principles of resilience for applicable events and stressors during the design process and life of the system.
Note 1: Design practice is influenced by codes, standards, federal regulations, and other applicable industry best practices. Both resilience, particularly recovery of function and services, and stressors, are new concepts for design practice of many systems, and guidance is evolving.  
4.4 This guide provides general guidance but does not prescribe a specific course of action.  
4.5 This guide is intended to inform those associated with creating or managing a system when considering its resilience. This could be product development teams, designers, or assessment teams.  
4.6 The general principles of resilience are interrelated. However, to facilitate clarity, they are discussed individually as much as possible.  
4.7 The general principles in this guide are intended to identify the required performance of more resilient systems and to assist users in making decisions that advance resilience....
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers general principles related to the resilience of systems, including natural and anthropological systems.  
1.2 Resilience is defined by four general principles: planning and preparation, adaptation, withstanding and limiting impacts, and recovery of operations and function. This guide covers the fundamentals for each of the general principles.  
1.3 This guide recognizes that, in applying principles of resilience, decision makers often balance opportunities and challenges, as well as the safety and risk associated with each of the general principles and their interdependence.  
1.4 This guide recognizes that improved resilience may result from a variety of sources and potential solutions. Solutions and their associated impacts can span economic, physical, environmental, health and wellness, ecological, and other human aspects related to individuals, organizations, social systems, physical systems, and natural systems.  
1.5 The general principles identified in this guide are applicable to all types of systems, the boundaries of which are defined by the user based upon the system functions, uses, and impacts, as well as other natural, social, economic, or physical constraints for the specific situation.  
1.6 Applying the principles in this guide will require informed assessment and practical experience to determine if system resilience goals are advanced or achieved through application of the four principles and meeting project requirements.  
1.7 This guide acknowledges that the various contexts in which a system is used or operates directly affects its resilience.  
1.8 This guide recognizes that one or more components make up systems, requiring evaluation of each component individually, as well as being part of the relevant system, and in relationship to relevant externalities.  
1.9 This guide recommends four general principles to inform planning and design processes; it does not recommen...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemes and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemes include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemes include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemes that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 LCAs can help to identify some of the potential environmental impacts of products or services throughout the entire life cycle. In a life cycle inventory analysis, emissions into the air; discharges into the water and soil; and product, material, and energy flows at all stages of a product’s life cycle are compiled and quantified. The resulting life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) converts the quantified parameters into environmental impact categories.  
4.2 Options for managing products at their end of life (EOL) can include, but are not limited to, re-using, recycling, recovering, remanufacturing, converting to energy, incinerating, composting, combustion, digestion/respiration, or discarding as waste. Materials enter subsequent life cycle(s), either in the same or in other applications, reducing the input of primary raw material and impacting the amount of waste. LCA will be required to determine if environmental impact reductions are expected to be realized and to what extent for each specific application. The end-of-life management can impact the overall life cycle assessment.  
4.3 The application of an allocation method for recycling in life cycle assessments is useful in assessing potential environmental impacts, which may be either beneficial or adverse.  
4.4 As part of good LCA practice, practitioners should consider recycling in the sensitivity analysis.  
4.5 LCA practitioners are expected to ensure consistency and conformance with the relevant provisions of ISO standards.  
4.6 Allocation for recycling can split the flows and impacts between two different product systems.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide illustrates alternative allocation approaches that provide options for modeling secondary material flows and related recycling scenarios within a life cycle assessment (LCA) study. It helps practitioners characterize and understand materials recycling across industries; provides the available methodologies for consideration of the environmental impacts that are attributed to material and product flows in LCA; aids in assessment of the overall life cycle of systems and understanding of materials; and supports life cycle management.  
1.2 The guide is not intended to contradict or circumvent the LCA provisions of ISO 14025, ISO 14040, ISO 14044, ISO 14067, ISO/TR 14049, or ISO 21930. When conflicts arise related to LCA, the guidance of those ISO standards takes precedence.  
1.3 The following seven material-specific appendixes are included:    
Title  
Appendix  
Recycling of Copper  
Appendix X1  
Recycling of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum  
Appendix X2  
Recycling of Glass  
Appendix X3  
Recycling of Plastics  
Appendix X4  
Recycling of Post-consumer (PC) Gypsum  
Appendix X5  
Recycling of Stainless Steel  
Appendix X6  
Recycling of Supplementary Cementitious Materials  
Appendix X7  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 As the world's population increases, so does the need for water to meet various needs. Rainwater harvesting offers a viable, sustainable approach to satisfying various water needs.  
4.1.1 Rainwater harvesting may be the only source of water supply for many rural and remote households where no other water supply is available. In urban and suburban locations, rainwater harvesting may help public water systems reduce peak demands and help delay the need for expanding water treatment plants.  
4.1.2 Rainwater harvesting can reduce storm water runoff, nonpoint source pollution, and erosion in urban environments.  
4.1.3 Rainwater harvesting provides for redundancies and diversified systems that decrease security issues associated with centralized facilities.  
4.2 An assessment of rainwater quality is necessary for determination of appropriate uses for water collected and stored in rainwater harvesting systems. This practice identifies a set of research and reporting requirements that will permit the intended user to assess the rainwater quality of a particular site.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides a methodology for assessing rainwater quality.  
1.1.1 This practice identifies a set of research and reporting requirements that will permit the intended user to assess the rainwater quality of a catchment area of a particular site.  
1.1.2 This practice characterizes rainwater quality in general and identifies site conditions that may affect rainwater quality. Where site conditions affecting rainwater exist, additional assessment techniques may be required.  
1.1.3 Objectives guiding the development of this practice are (1) to synthesize and put in writing good commercial and customary practice for rainwater quality assessment; (2) to facilitate high quality, standardized water stewardship protocols; and (3) to clarify a standard of due diligence that is practical and reasonable.  
1.2 This practice does not establish design requirements for rainwater harvesting systems. However, it may provide information in support of decisions relative to design and implementation of rainwater harvesting projects.  
1.3 This practice does not identify use(s) of rainwater, commercial or otherwise. However, it may provide information in support of decisions relative to evaluation of property conditions and development options.  
1.4 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment.  
1.4.1 Water laws vary among governing jurisdictions. It is the responsibility of the user of this practice to determine regulatory requirements applicable to rainwater quality assessment and potential use(s).  
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Every system is subject to disruptive events and stressors. Events and stressors can occur at all life-cycle stages and affect systems in multiple ways and on a range of scales. It is imperative to define and understand the nature of the events and stressors that may affect a system in order to address the opportunities and challenges presented.  
4.2 A resilient system is better able to withstand an anticipated disruptive event or stressor.  
4.3 Knowledge from historic disruptive events can aid in the design of system resilience. However, assumptions based on historical events may not be indicative of future conditions or future system operations, or they may not be consistent with design criteria in codes and standards. Systems can be designed to withstand and limit damage and support health and safety; stressors and recovery of function can often be more robustly addressed in initial system design practice. Advancing resilience requires addressing all principles of resilience for applicable events and stressors during the design process and life of the system.
Note 1: Design practice is influenced by codes, standards, federal regulations, and other applicable industry best practices. Both resilience, particularly recovery of function and services, and stressors, are new concepts for design practice of many systems, and guidance is evolving.  
4.4 This guide provides general guidance but does not prescribe a specific course of action.  
4.5 This guide is intended to inform those associated with creating or managing a system when considering its resilience. This could be product development teams, designers, or assessment teams.  
4.6 The general principles of resilience are interrelated. However, to facilitate clarity, they are discussed individually as much as possible.  
4.7 The general principles in this guide are intended to identify the required performance of more resilient systems and to assist users in making decisions that advance resilience....
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers general principles related to the resilience of systems, including natural and anthropological systems.  
1.2 Resilience is defined by four general principles: planning and preparation, adaptation, withstanding and limiting impacts, and recovery of operations and function. This guide covers the fundamentals for each of the general principles.  
1.3 This guide recognizes that, in applying principles of resilience, decision makers often balance opportunities and challenges, as well as the safety and risk associated with each of the general principles and their interdependence.  
1.4 This guide recognizes that improved resilience may result from a variety of sources and potential solutions. Solutions and their associated impacts can span economic, physical, environmental, health and wellness, ecological, and other human aspects related to individuals, organizations, social systems, physical systems, and natural systems.  
1.5 The general principles identified in this guide are applicable to all types of systems, the boundaries of which are defined by the user based upon the system functions, uses, and impacts, as well as other natural, social, economic, or physical constraints for the specific situation.  
1.6 Applying the principles in this guide will require informed assessment and practical experience to determine if system resilience goals are advanced or achieved through application of the four principles and meeting project requirements.  
1.7 This guide acknowledges that the various contexts in which a system is used or operates directly affects its resilience.  
1.8 This guide recognizes that one or more components make up systems, requiring evaluation of each component individually, as well as being part of the relevant system, and in relationship to relevant externalities.  
1.9 This guide recommends four general principles to inform planning and design processes; it does not recommen...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Every system is subject to disruptive events and stressors. Events and stressors can occur at all life-cycle stages and affect systems in multiple ways and on a range of scales. It is imperative to define and understand the nature of the events and stressors that may affect a system in order to address the opportunities and challenges presented.  
4.2 A resilient system is better able to withstand an anticipated disruptive event or stressor.  
4.3 Knowledge from historic disruptive events can aid in the design of system resilience. However, assumptions based on historical events may not be indicative of future conditions or future system operations, or they may not be consistent with design criteria in codes and standards. Systems can be designed to withstand and limit damage and support health and safety; stressors and recovery of function can often be more robustly addressed in initial system design practice. Advancing resilience requires addressing all principles of resilience for applicable events and stressors during the design process and life of the system.
Note 1: Design practice is influenced by codes, standards, federal regulations, and other applicable industry best practices. Both resilience, particularly recovery of function and services, and stressors, are new concepts for design practice of many systems, and guidance is evolving.  
4.4 This guide provides general guidance but does not prescribe a specific course of action.  
4.5 This guide is intended to inform those associated with creating or managing a system when considering its resilience. This could be product development teams, designers, or assessment teams.  
4.6 The general principles of resilience are interrelated. However, to facilitate clarity, they are discussed individually as much as possible.  
4.7 The general principles in this guide are intended to identify the required performance of more resilient systems and to assist users in making decisions that advance resilience....
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes general principles related to the resilience of systems, including natural and anthropological systems.  
1.2 Resilience is defined by four general principles: planning and preparation, adaptation, withstanding and limiting impacts, and recovery of operations and function. This guide covers the fundamentals for each of the general principles.  
1.3 This guide recognizes that, in applying principles of resilience, decision makers often balance opportunities and challenges, as well as the safety and risk associated with each of the general principles and their interdependence.  
1.4 This guide recognizes that improved resilience may result from a variety of sources and potential solutions. Solutions and their associated impacts can span economic, physical, environmental, health and wellness, ecological, and other human aspects related to individuals, organizations, social systems, physical systems, and natural systems.  
1.5 The general principles identified in this guide are applicable to all types of systems, the boundaries of which are defined by the user based upon the system functions, uses, and impacts, as well as other natural, social, economic, or physical constraints for the specific situation.  
1.6 Applying the principles in this guide will require informed assessment and practical experience to determine if system resilience goals are advanced or achieved through application of the four principles and meeting project requirements.  
1.7 This guide acknowledges that the various contexts in which a system is used or operates directly affects its resilience.  
1.8 This guide recognizes that one or more components make up systems, requiring evaluation of each component individually, as well as being part of the relevant system, and in relationship to relevant externalities.  
1.9 This guide recommends four general principles to inform planning and design processes; it does not recom...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 LCAs can help to identify some of the potential environmental impacts of products or services throughout the entire life cycle. In a life cycle inventory analysis, emissions into the air; discharges into the water and soil; and product, material, and energy flows at all stages of a product’s life cycle are compiled and quantified. The resulting life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) converts the quantified parameters into environmental impact categories.  
4.2 Options for managing products at their end of life (EOL) can include, but are not limited to, re-using, recycling, recovering, remanufacturing, converting to energy, incinerating, composting, combustion, digestion/respiration, or discarding as waste. Materials enter subsequent life cycle(s), either in the same or in other applications, reducing the input of primary raw material and impacting the amount of waste. LCA will be required to determine if environmental impact reductions are expected to be realized and to what extent for each specific application. The end-of-life management can impact the overall life cycle assessment.  
4.3 The application of an allocation method for recycling in life cycle assessments is useful in assessing potential environmental impacts, which may be either beneficial or adverse.  
4.4 As part of good LCA practice, practitioners should consider recycling in the sensitivity analysis.  
4.5 LCA practitioners are expected to ensure consistency and conformance with the relevant provisions of ISO standards.  
4.6 Allocation for recycling can split the flows and impacts between two different product systems.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide illustrates alternative allocation approaches that provide options for modeling secondary material flows and related recycling scenarios within a life cycle assessment (LCA) study. It helps practitioners characterize and understand materials recycling across industries; provides the available methodologies for consideration of the environmental impacts that are attributed to material and product flows in LCA; aids in assessment of the overall life cycle of systems and understanding of materials; and supports life cycle management.  
1.2 The guide is not intended to contradict or circumvent the LCA provisions of ISO 14025, ISO 14040, ISO 14044, ISO 14067, ISO/TR 14049, or ISO 21930. When conflicts arise related to LCA, the guidance of those ISO standards takes precedence.  
1.3 The following seven material-specific appendixes are included:    
Title  
Appendix  
Recycling of Copper  
Appendix X1  
Recycling of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum  
Appendix X2  
Recycling of Glass  
Appendix X3  
Recycling of Plastics  
Appendix X4  
Recycling of Post-consumer (PC) Gypsum  
Appendix X5  
Recycling of Stainless Steel  
Appendix X6  
Recycling of Supplementary Cementitious Materials  
Appendix X7  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemas and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemas that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemas and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemas that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemas and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemas that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemas and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemas that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemas and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemas that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product.  
4.2 Methods exist for the evaluation of chemical hazards for product-chemical pairs. These methods are referenced in several regulatory, non-regulatory, and green building schemas and should be conducted as part of an analysis of this type.
Note 1: Evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals,5 The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment (DtE) Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazards Evaluation (Safer Choice) methodology and the National Academy of Sciences’ A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives.8 Regulatory schemas include laws such as the Safer Consumer Products Rule9 in California or the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACh)10 regulations in Europe. Green building schemas include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)11 system by the USGBC, which references these indirectly through third-party certifications. However, neither these assessment tools nor the various schemas that reference them have set guidance for using the data in making decisions on which products and ingredients are ultimately the most sustainable.  
4.3 Similarly, many tools exist for measuring economic viability, such as value-models and cost analysis. There are also many tools and techniques for measuring social acceptance of products such as sales trends, voice of the customer and many other types of surveys.  
4.4 This guide acknowledges the need for determining a baseline for comparing the performance (environmental, economic, and social) of an existing product-chemical pair in a product with the possible/potential alternatives. As such, when using this guide, companies shall use the same study boundaries for the original baseline case and for all alternat...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide outlines sustainability factors for product manufacturers to consider when comparing alternative chemicals or ingredients across the life cycle of a product. Such an analysis could be used in product development, answering customer inquiries, or replying to regulatory requests, among others.  
1.2 This guide integrates many of the principles of green chemistry and green engineering in evaluating the factors across the social (including human health), economic, and ecological attributes in the use of a particular material and potential alternatives in a particular product.  
1.3 This guide provides an outline for the contents of a report of the results of the analysis, including an executive summary, detailed report, and retrospective.  
1.4 This guide does not provide guidance on how to perform chemical risk assessment, alternatives assessment, life-cycle assessment, or economic analysis, or how the alternatives decision-making framework will be completed.  
1.5 This guide does not suggest in what order the social, ecological, or economic attributes of sustainability should be evaluated or which one is most important. This is a decision of the company performing the decision-making evaluation.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 There have been growing interests from dental professionals and dental service organizations in the United States and elsewhere in the world calling for a consensus-based practical guidance document in support of the cost-efficient integration of generally recognized sustainable development principles into day-to-day management of dental practices both for individual dental professionals as well as dental service organizations. Formation of ASTM Subcommittee E60.80.7 and development of this practice recognizes and fulfills such demand. While it is recognized that current interests expressed by most dental professionals are primarily limited to environmental impacts attributable to existing dental practices, or so-called “green dentistry,” it remains to be unclear as to what constitutes sustainable dentistry practice in principle and presents a challenge to incorporate a systematic and pragmatic management framework identifying, prioritizing, supporting, and addressing relevant sustainable development issues in a dental service provider’s practice. Given the breadth and extent of management commitment, this practice embodies emerging comprehension and procedural feasibility of practical realization of measurable sustainability performance in daily dental service activities without given preferential considerations or uneven weight to one or more existing claim of “green” in dental practice nor does it give favor to any particular group of dental equipment or product. Aligned with generally recognized principles of sustainable development, this practice provides a comprehensive guidance on managing sustainability issues in dental practices and offers a system approach and management framework assists dental professionals and dental service organizations to improve overall performance and effectiveness in their products and deliveries. It offers a concerted approach to managing social, economic, and environmental aspects of dental practice; stipulates minimum susta...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides a set of generally recognized activities governing management of sustainability in dentistry and related dental service practice and a management system framework that assists dentists and dental service organizations to enhance their respective organizational performance and effectiveness. It offers an integrated framework to managing social, economic and environmental aspects of an organization’s activities. While this practice is intended to be adopted and used by dental professionals and dental service organizations of any size and specializations including those being a part of large healthcare service organizations, the scope of this practice addresses the expectations of and is relevant to dental service provider organizations’ stakeholders.  
1.2 This practice is intended to be used with pertinent dental office management principles and guidance documents published by professional dental association in which dental services are delivered.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.