Thanks to Tom Lent for his commentary on the subject of ingredient disclosure. I also note the stated preference to focus first on interior finishes. As the person responsible for product environmental certification and hazard communication for a coatings and sealants company, I have concerns about the actual potential for manufacturer buy-in and outcomes for the credit language as written. This comment is specific to ingredient disclosure requirements and I would appreciate anyone adding their perspectives.

The (abbreviated) stated intent of the credit is to increase disclosure on chemical ingredient data and reduce the concentrations of chemical contaminants. As written, the former is to be accomplished by requiring 100% public ingredient disclosure and the latter involves banning any quantity of certain chemicals from a prescriptive list; the starting point being the California Proposition 65 list of chemicals.

Ingredient disclosure is a particularly sensitive topic for the coatings and sealants industry. In many manufactured processed materials, the chemicals utilized in intermediate steps as well as equipment utilized, chemical transformations, and heat and pressure applied represent the true intellectual property of a manufacturer. Disclosure of end of process components may or may not give away any business sensitive information.

In the formulated products industry, the ingredient list itself is the intellectual property of the manufacturer and has intrinsic value in a competitive market place. Formulators take risks on new technologies in order to be superior competitors. Within the context of commercial and institutional construction, that means creating high-performance products with lower environmental and health risks. Ideally, our products also must contribute properties that enhance building performance and assure substrates and assemblies don’t fall apart.

Without protection of bona fide trade secrets, my industry has no incentive to innovate. Why should a company invest intellectual capital if we’re just going to hand our formulations to competitors? Would a consultant or architect willingly hand out their Outlook client contact lists? Should Google open source/free share its algorithms? This is the same level of critical business information that my industry works to protect.

Certainly, a LEED Credit is an honor system designed to reward certain behaviors. No entity is intrinsically entitled to contribute to every LEED credit. My concern is that an excessively stringent ingredient disclosure standard has the very real potential to cause coatings and sealants manufacturers to simply opt out of helping attain the credit. If, as Tom suggests, future iterations of LEED were to mandate disclosure for all materials, manufacturers will react in the only way possible to assure protection of critical business assets: offer the LEED market commodity products using older formulary technologies and depend on marketing to increase the product profile.

I agree with Tom’s concerns that a 20% project threshold will simply reward bulk materials. As an example, concrete mix design is specified by consultants at the behest of the design team. Absent spectrographic analysis of every mineral component, the ingredient list is part of the building specification.

I contend that ingredient disclosure requirements that do not respect intellectual property rights represent a lost opportunity for additional, substantive transparency efforts that can lead to selection of lower impact formulated products. I believe there are certain ingredients that should always be disclosed, but that will need to be a subject of more in depth stakeholder discussions.

Tom suggests the use of the Design for the Environment (DfE) ingredient disclosure requirements as a model. I think this is a better starting point than the current generic credit language as DfE at least attempts to address trade secrecy and intellectual property rights. The DfE program requirements are currently designed around a relatively limited product universe. It’s very much focused on household and janitorial products found in the EBO&M standard. It is not a perfect fit for coatings and sealants, but it is a positive starting point for discussion.

I appreciate Tom’s concern regarding the cost of third-party certifications to small companies. However, I think a more basic question is how we resolve fundamental trust issues. From my perspective, any company engaged in environmental marketing is essentially putting their brand equity on the line. Reputable companies that are interested in long term survival do not engage in self-certifications lightly. Conversely, third-party review does not guarantee absolute conformance. A bad actor can cheat with those programs as well. Third-party certification requires good faith efforts on the part of all participants.

However, I believe we have an opportunity to discuss streamlined third-party reviews with entities that can be trusted to impartially examine ingredient information within the framework of confidential business information protection agreements.

I want to clarify information regarding the degree to which third party certifiers are entitled to, and demand, ingredient information. From personal experience, I can say that SCS and NSF require 100% ingredient disclosure. NSF, for its registrations and acting as a DfE reviewer, also requires full ingredient disclosure from each raw material supplier which it obtains under separate confidentiality agreements as necessary. I can’t speak from direct experience on Greenguard and Green Seal certifications, but as I recall they also require 100% ingredient disclosure as part of their reviews.