(MM hands out some documents explaining suggested criteria, impact points of a life cycle, followed by two lists of environmental and personal health issues)

MM: The initial idea for our testing and certification policy involved leveraging existing resources largely because the cost of testing materials is ridiculously prohibitive. We will be considering, within these criteria, what are the existing labels or resources out there for making environmental claims about the criteria. We will also ask 'can we use these?' and 'do we believe these people?' and 'Do we want to specifically list their label on the site, next to the product?'.

We realized that we would have to make certain assumptions - We are not trying to control population or limit consumption. We are trying to change consumption, make it greener and figure out what it means when we say that.

Even as we start now - creating a simple set of criteria, we still need to consider where we are going from an environmental standpoint. One thing that we need to consider is some kind of lifecycle analysis.

However, if we did a complete and utter lifecycle analysis of a product, by the time you brought the product to market, most of the targeted consumers would have died of old age. We need to strike a balance between rigor and success. We cannot be so rigorous that we are never able to implement our policy. We need a point to start from and one way we might do that is:

May to October - Limited Legitimate Claims
IN this first phase, we will have a set of limited, legitimate claims. We need to be right about what we say, give people a clear choice and offer them facts. Even in that world, we are already beginning to make a lifecycle analysis. Organic cotton (manufacture), energy efficient appliances (use), and biodegradable detergent (after-use) form a dim but definite outline of a lifecycle analysis. They represent different positive womb-to-tomb impact points.

As we develop the policy, we need to require that the policy and the advisory board continually bring the dim outline of the life-cycle analysis into greater relief. When we can offer a product with solid information about its benefits at various points in the impact chain - we win. No one else is doing this.

(MM begins getting people's ideas)
MM: Biodegradability - an SCS Certified biodegradable detergent, for example, certifies for biodegradability. Because they say it is biodegradable, we will believe them - that is good enough for us. We would put the product up - possibly next to the SCS log and we say "this is biodegradable and that is why we sell it".

JG: What about a biodegradable product is not certified? Biodegradability is a matter of chemistry - not certification.

MM: It is an issue of environmental labeling claims. That works if you believe what the manufacturer says is in it. It is sort of an issue of testing.

SS: But you cannot ask the manufacturer to test the product. The EPP program studied the effectiveness of certification for the EPA and they concluded that a lot of manufacturers can't afford it or don't like it. You need to get to the point where the manufacturer is able to self-certify (she brought information about this). There is a lot of guidance coming from the government.

MM: There is a whole world that has to do with labeling and labeling claims. The FDA, the consumer labeling initiative (from the EPA - does not have any teeth) that pushes for truth in advertising, the Attorney General's Green Task Force (which actually has some ability to enforce).

LC: It sounds like Marc is saying that on our first pass - we'll call it "between round 0 and round 1", we will go after the low-hanging fruit. After eight months of working with them, WE have certified SCS so we will go get the products they certify. This is a strategic decision.

What about the little guy who likes SCS or can't afford it? We also have a "sniff" test that would be in effect "between 0 and 1". If a product looks and acts like a green product - it goes up unless someone presents us with a reason it doesn't work. As we get more resources, we will become more capable, we will make more specific claims (like telling consumers what is in everything) and we will begin to get more rigorous.

JG: The sniff test is critical. You can find out about products anywhere. Green Co. looks at what is in a product. If they will not give us the full list of ingredients (often beyond what is in the material data safety sheet) Green Co. will not carry it. 98% of the companies Green Co. has approached has given them the list of ingredients.

MM: Full disclosure may be a good point to consider for criteria - though it is possible that manufacturers may want to protect some proprietary information. SS: But if someone is at that point (not willing to list the ingredients) they are probably not ready to sell to consumers anyway. JG: Some people such as those with allergies, need to know exactly what is in the products they use.

MM: We should add a little diamond under step 1 that says "toxicity in use" and underneath - where we have question marks or labels put "full manufacturer disclosure".

JG: Rather than focusing on certification, you should focus on the criteria upon which you make the judgement. The verification process is extraordinarily expensive and eventually it would be great to do it. But you are going from looking at the list of ingredients and running it by someone who knows something about it (which is easy and free) to questioning the manufacturer's claim that these are the ingredients. That is a very different step - for which there is its own sniff test.

MM: The sniff test helps us get the products that we will make further analysis of. Once they pass the sniff test we can say "ok, now how do we market this - what do we like about the product?".

LC: You are saying that (between rounds 0 and 1) every product we carry has to pass some kind of gating set of criteria - full disclosure of ingredients and/or carry an SCS label, and/or we will look at the manufacture of the product.

JG: SCS certifies attributes - not products. Their certification may be right but an SCS certified biodegradable product could still be made from formaldehyde under pressure with hydrochloric acid.

MM: The SCS certification helps us verify claims of biodegradability.

JG: People are interested in going from the marketing claim to the specificity of what is in it. People generally accept what a manufacturer says is in it. We should back away from.

SS: She would to see us go through the thought process that the consumer decides what is green. And we also need to consider what the alternatives are. Even if a product has problems - if there are no better alternatives - we need to put up the product with problems. We need to constantly focus on the consumer.

CG: Education is the key but we should take time to decide what is too light green. Although the idea is to target mainstream, we need to consider our base. Even if a company sold ONE bad product - that often means people won't go anywhere near the other products.

JG: There are always choices between what's out there - this is true to the concept of environmentally superior. If there are too many things in your universe - you lose credibility. If you put the bar too low, your mission will fail.

LC: And if we put the bar too high, our mission will fail.

MM: There are two issues:

1.	A harder science issue that focuses on attributes that will fall into the testing and certification process.
2.	The new and improved sniff test is more a function of the advisory board. If we are meeting and there a bunch of products calling through the cracks - we draw on the collective wisdom of the advisory board to make calls on more difficult products.

SS: We need people with a chemistry or science background to be part of the selection process.

LMH: What about the legal/liability issue?

SS: We just need to have a disclaimer on the site that says we cannot be held responsible for manufacturer claims.

JG: We are NOT the certifier.

LC: We are not the certifier, we are the arbiter. We need to list the criteria we are looking at for determining whether or not we carry a product and then rank them and decide how important each one of them is to us.

SS: It depends on the product. The electric car is a good example. The hybrid is something that works well enough for people to use. Even though it is not as green as the electric car, there is more of a chance people will buy it and use it.

LC: I am just trying to get some philosophical constructs - biodegradability, energy efficiency, recycled content - are these part of the top tier?

JG: It is easier to start looking at products to bring up important attributes, rather than trying to build a list of qualities / attributes first. (SS, CG and LC agree). It makes more sense to divide the world up into product categories and to then try to say what they (the criteria) are than it does to say what (the criteria) are and then decide where each product fits in. (LC agrees).

SS: You are trying to define this list that is not necessary.

LMH: (the beginning of what she says is cut off but it is clear that she would NOT look at products first)

LC: To say anything meaningful about what the green principles are - we need to be category and probably sub-category specific. By the same token - pollution prevention is a value that is out there and if there is any product or any category wherein that is achievable - then it applies to that category. Pollution prevention, therefore, and possibly other attributes, are uber attributes.

JG: It is important to start where the consumer starts - with what the product is. The customer is here to buy a product and a philosophy that goes with it - not the philosophy itself. We keep asking ourselves (at Green Co.) "what is the difference that makes a difference?". For cleaning products it is not biodegradability - they all are now - even Tide. It may be the difference between criteria and values…

LC: It may be a matter of defining the difference between meaningful and non-meaningful criteria. Biodegradability of cleaning products may not be a meaningful criterion but the source of the solvent (petroleum or non-petroleum-derived) is a meaningful criterion.

(recording the walk in the park - disc runs out)

(After the break) LC: If Walmart is going to launch a real superstore in 2000, wherein you can get any SKU there is for anything you want (at home or on-line) AND they are sensitive to green products, why would people come to Green Home? Because Walmart people won't understand and explain the products, the green products will be sitting on the shelf right next to the toxic -products (making it hard to trust Walmart's greeness), etc. We are not a boutique that sells just the green products we already know about - we will sell the environmentally superior alternative to any product. (editorial help on this last sentence from JG and MM).

How special does something have to be to be green?

JG: What if the product is already green (like paper clips, all of which are made from recycled steel). LC: We should sell them. MM: (agrees) If I went to Green Home, saw (paper clips) and read that all paper clips are made from recycled steel - I'd be glad to learn that - it is part of the education we will do.

LC: That kind of information - also telling people that all aerosol sprays are CFC-free - is marketing. The consumer will appreciate the honesty and information. Today as we walk through the list - these are exactly the kind of issues we want to come up with on these various categories. Something like "fluorescent light bulbs save energy but some are hard on the eyes". Even if there is an argument about it - we would present that. People love to know about the things they buy and we want to give them this information in the right way - without, as Susie mentioned last night, recommending products.

SS: Because the person recommending it has their own bias .

LC (also JG, MM, CG & LMH): We could also have staff picks and information about the employee (or advisor) who is recommending so that the consumer can find the person who's sensibility they share OR who's expertise you need. This avoids the problem of putting-off a particular manufacturer who's product is not recommended.

SS & LMH: They both get a lot of questions from consumers about products, about green issues, etc. Green Home will get those kinds of questions too.

MM: Even bigger than the green products are the green services, which can be as simple as how a product is installed or used. The questions that people ask us will help determine if they need a product / thing or if the also need service.

(After some discussion, the group decides to make a big list of issues - some personal health, some environmental, some which are subsets of others, some which may be "filter" issues and then group them when they are done.)


BIG LIST OF ISSUES
Pregnancy
Save the Rainforest
Air Quality
Recycled
Sustainable
Animal rights / testing
Corporate responsibility
Defense contractor
Child labor
Made in China
Made in Romania
Toxicity
Pesticides
Organic
Petroleum-free
Chlorine (as opposed to Chlorine-free)
Pregnancy
Asthma / allergy
Indoor air quality
Water quality
Energy efficiency
Nuclear power
Global warming

LC: We should compare this list with Marc's list of personal health and environmental issues (see hand-out). Everything on Marc's list represents something that someone will want to check off and they may not care about how we break the universe down. We may not have to delineate between environmental and health issues (JG and SS agree). SS: This is the first time anyone is doing this and there isn't previous research to rely on.

JG: For that reason, we should also add "other" to our list. SS: People should get to add their own issue. LC: We could say "add your thing" and if 10 (or some other number) people add that thing, and we think it is reasonable, it gets onto the list. LMH/SS: We do have to be careful of the REAL "kooks" who suggest thing MM: For those folks, we could just say "And in addition, none of our products are manufactured on Mars."

SS: She likes that - humor is missing from the environmental movement - we need to change that. We should have an emergency exit button on the site for people who want to call us, hate the site or think that there should be no products at all and everyone should make their own.

LMH: We can't be too "P.C." about the whole thing. We need to make it fun for people. (LC, MM, & SS agree)

LC:(about how the home page may look)
On the home page is a list of products in their categories. It should eventually be a list of categories and when you roll or mouse over the category name, that category opens up and shows what is in the given category. (MM and JG and LMH agree). We should also let the user control the interface by giving them the option of showing products by:

1.	Category or
	(LC hands out the list of Categories and Sub-categories)
2.	Products in alphabetical order by subcategory
3.	Or the person can use the search function

Also on the home page would be something that says who we are and then an area where the customer can answer the question "who are you?". JG/LC: Under that question we would have to explain how this area will help find what you are looking for and assures the consumer that we will not give out this information.

LC: The hand-out represents how we are now organizing the products (categories and subcategories)

(Discussion of going through the list of cats and subcategories and assigning which of the decision points listed above is going to affect a consumer's interest in what range - specifically rather than generally )