Forum discussion

Manufacturer transparency

We just heard from one of our more progressive clients that they are pulling Mohawk from their shelves and are no longer allowing it on their projects. Apparently there are some chemical ingredients they objected to, but more importantly the manufacturer "lied" to the client about the content. Does anyone have an idea what this might be about? Have you heard of this from other clients or manufacturers?

-Carolyn

0

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Fri, 04/05/2019 - 11:26

I have some inkling of the specifics behind this case but naturally, it's hard to discuss in a public forum. However, I'll highlight a couple broad issues here that we can all learn from:
  • Different inventory formats (Basic vs. Nested), thresholds (100 ppm, 1,000 ppm, etc.) and what the threshold is for (product level or material level) really impact what winds up on a disclosure report such as a Health Product Declaration (HPD). I've written a brief FAQ that touches on that.
  • If you're a firm or you represent an owner that has very specific objectives in terms of specific chemical avoidance (such as PFOS), it's not enough to ask for LEED-v4-compliant HPDs or Declare labels. Key chemicals of concern will commonly fall below thresholds reported on those. You have to specify thresholds. The most granular format specifiable on an HPD would be Nested, 100 ppm, and threshold disclosed per material.
  • It's seldom that  products don't come with optional colorants, treatments, caster styles, etc., etc. Different manufacturers, quite reasonably, have different ways of handling this. For example, the HPD reports on a base model. Colorants may be handled separately. If you want to be sure that you are getting a specific disclosure report on what you're specifying, think about the product category, and what your objectives are, and ask for it. (BG has always been great at offering category-specific product guidance—I wonder if they have a resource that touches on this?)
There is a lot of good work being done to build trust between the manufacturing and design communities. A little dose of Hanlon's razor doesn't hurt in most situations:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
To stupidity, of course, add busy-ness, lack of knowledge, inexperience, was up late binge-watching The OA season 2 on Netflix, etc. And yeah, there are companies who understand all of this quite well and choose their disclosure labels and thresholds intentionally to make their products look better. This needs to be called out... I would recommend using more specific "asks" per the thresholds above. If any of this resonates, please post your comments, or email me directly at troberts@hpd-collaborative.org.

Fri, 04/05/2019 - 14:47

Thank you, Tristan. This is very helpful. Over the last day I've had a number of conversations. I've come to the conclusion that sometimes in large organizations by the time the information gets down to the chain of command, misunderstandings are bound to happen. I feel in this case it applies to both sides both in terms of education and attitude. I can confirm that Mohawk is now working with this client to come up with products that they feel comfortable using. However, it is important that we continue to push, especially with larger manufacturers. Carolyn

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.