Meeting — February 22, 2024

The GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee convened for a public meeting at 3:00 PM on February 22, 2024, virtually via Zoom, with David Wagger, Co-Chair, presiding. 
In accordance with FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the meeting was open to the public from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST.

Meeting agenda

Committee members present:

David Wagger — Co-Chair Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 
Richard Beutel — George Mason University 
Nicole Darnall — Arizona State University 
Antonio Doss — Small Business Administration 
Mark Hayden — State of New Mexico 
Stacy Smedley — Building Transparency 
Kimberly Wise — White American Chemistry Council

Absent:

Luke Bassis, Leslie Cordes, Amlan Mukherjee, Jennie Romer, Steven 
Schooner, Nigel Stephens, Anish Tilak

Guest speakers and presenters:

Ilona Kivimäki — Sievo 
Ossi Karali — Sievo 
Peter Arbuckle — National Agricultural Library, Department of Agriculture

GSA staff present:

Boris Arratia — Designated Federal Officer 
Stephanie Hardison — Deputy Designated Federal Officer 
David Cochennic — GAP FAC Support 
Bianca McIntosh — GAP FAC Support 
Caryn Broome — Closed Captioner 
Debra Lakebring — ASL Interpreters 
Heidi Cooke — ASL Interpreters

Call to order

Stephanie Hardison, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, opened the public meeting by welcoming the group before reminding the public that there will be time for comments and statements at the end of the meeting. She then performed a roll call to confirm attendance and a quorum. After the quorum was met, she turned the meeting over to Co-Chair, David Wagger.

Introductory remarks

David Wagger expressed gratitude to the attendees and introduced the speakers for the session, Ilona Kivimäki and Ossi Karali from Sievo, as well as Peter Arbuckle from USDA. He contextualized their presentation by referring back to the previous meeting in January where colleague Amlan Mukherjee had outlined four ideas for recommendations and tools related to sustainability. These ideas included:

1. Developing a principles-based framework (PBF) that is quantitative, objective, and standards-based.
2. Adopting iso type 3 labels, such as Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and product carbon footprints.
3. Developing a robust data infrastructure for consistency and reliability, including lifecycle inventories (LCIs) and integrating reporting tools.
4. Creating a sustainable curriculum accredited by a third party, potentially housed in a center for sustainability excellence.

Today’s presentations focused on the second and third recommendations regarding iso type 3 labels and robust data infrastructure. David mentioned that Ilona and Ossi would showcase the system they maintain for their clients as an example, and Peter Arbuckle would also be presenting later in the session. 
Following the presentations, there would be discussions and opportunities for questions. Then, the Subcommittee would engage in a broader discussion about key takeaways and how to progress towards making recommendations by May.

Guest speaker discussion

Ilona Kivimäki and Ossi Karali of Sievo 
Ilona Kivimäki and Ossi Karali are representatives from Sievo, a procurement analytics company based in Finland. Ilona introduced herself as a sustainability sales executive, while Ossi is the VP of sales and also the managing director of the company’s US office in Chicago. They expressed gratitude for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on decarbonization.

Ilona Kivimaki shared that Sievo has over 360 employees, with teams in Europe, the US, and Bucharest, serving large global customers with complex supply chains and vast data volumes. They emphasized the urgency of sustainability efforts, noting that every five weeks represented 1% of the decade, highlighting the need for swift action.

Ilona discussed the challenges faced by procurement professionals in integrating sustainability into their work, especially with increasing regulatory pressure. Despite resource constraints, companies are turning to automation and AI to optimize their sustainability efforts.

The main focus areas for companies include improving Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions management, engaging with suppliers, and reducing GHG emissions. Many are starting programs to set science-based targets and incentivize sustainable behavior among suppliers. Collaboration with suppliers is key to reducing emissions through initiatives such as optimizing packaging, product design, and using renewable energy.

Ilona emphasized the importance of data in sustainability efforts, advocating for data extraction, cleansing, classification, and enrichment to lay the foundation for emission mapping and calculation. She also stressed the significance of incorporating supplier-specific factors and engaging with third-party data providers like Ecovadis.

Case studies of Hikma and Deutsche Telekom demonstrate how companies are automating their emission calculations, setting strict agreements with suppliers, and utilizing platforms like CDP for supplier engagement and reporting. Ilona provided a live demo showcasing their platform’s ability to analyze emissions data, identify hotspots, and create reduction initiatives in collaboration with suppliers.

Questions 
Q: Mark Hayden - Would a cement/concrete manufacturer be measured on the emissions when the product is used or just on the energy used in its initial creation as a powder? 
A: Ilona Kivimäki - Yes, it depends on the data available from the specific manufacturer. Typically, if the manufacturer provides emission factors on the product level, it encompasses the entire lifecycle of the product. This includes aspects such as raw material extraction, energy consumption during production, end-use emissions, and potential recycling. Therefore, emissions would be measured holistically, taking into account the entirety of the product’s life cycle rather than just the energy used during initial creation.

Q: Stacy Smedley - Are you seeing a trend towards improving data quality among your customers or in the regulations you’re helping them comply with? Are you leveraging EPD data for the construction sector, given its increasing prevalence as a verified source of LCA (lifecycle assessment) data? 
A: Ilona Kivimäki - Yes, companies are placing significant emphasis on enhancing their data quality. Currently, about 80% of them utilize spend-based calculations, while approximately 15% use quantity-based calculations, and only around 5% incorporate supplier-specific factors. However, with the emergence of science-based targets, there’s 
a growing emphasis on setting emissions targets based on quantifiable methods rather than spend. This is an area where many companies are directing their focus. I anticipate that the market will undergo significant changes in the next two to three years, where it may no longer be feasible to calculate emissions using the spend method. It’s crucial to 
consider the maturity level of suppliers in this context.

We are indeed leveraging EPD (Environmental Product Declarations) data within the construction sector. Companies have the ability to request more detailed information from their suppliers regarding materials or products at the EPD level. Suppliers can provide various documentation, including emission certificates and EPDs. This is a practice that many companies are adopting, recognizing the value of such data.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that some EPDs now include emission factors for products, although this is not yet universal across all EPDs.

Q: Nicole Darnall - Do you have any clients that are exclusively government at this point? 
A: Ilona Kivimäki - Unfortunately, not yet. While we are in discussions with a few government clients, we do not currently have any references to provide.

Q: Nicole Darnall - What do you see as unique barriers for public sector clients compared to those in the private sector? 
A: Ilona Kivimäki - Based on our discussions with public sector clients, one of the biggest challenges and barriers they face is ensuring data security and access. Accessing and sharing data can be particularly challenging in the public sector. While the overall sustainability challenges and regulations apply to both public and private sector clients, the unique aspect for the public sector lies in the ability to access and work with data from various sources effectively, especially before performing any emission mapping or calculations. 
A: Ossi Karali - Overall, I think that’s a pretty good summary. Public sector engagements often entail a wider scope of spend categories compared to private sector organizations focused on production. This broader scope presents unique challenges, and each government entity may have its own specific focuses and challenges to address.

Peter Arbuckle of National Agricultural Library, USDA 
Peter Arbuckle, the Chief of the Scientific Data Management Branch at the National Agricultural Library within the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, began his presentation by introducing himself and his role in managing scientific data. He acknowledged the previous session’s focus on progress in environmental data management and the pursuit of better practices. Arbuckle introduced the concept of EPDs and product-level LCAs, emphasizing the Federal LCA Commons’ role in advancing these initiatives.

He drew an analogy between EPDs and nutrition labels, suggesting that EPDs serve as a mechanism for communicating a product’s environmental attributes, similar to how nutrition labels provide information about the nutritional content of food products. Arbuckle highlighted the importance of standardized measurement, reporting, and communication to ensure the reliability of EPDs, drawing parallels with the evolution of nutrition labels over the past century. EPDs did not contain baseline values or daily recommended values like nutrition labels but are instead a specific form of LCA results. They are becoming central to integrating product and lifecycle marketing decisions.

Nutrition labels emerged in response to the proliferation of processed food in the early 1900s and over time, collaboration between government agencies, industry, and NGOs led to the development of quantitative nutrient reporting deployed in the mid-1990s. Like nutrition labels, EPDs require collaboration among stakeholders to standardize measurement, reporting, and data management. There is a need for background data, such as energy, transportation, and waste, in EPD development, and the Federal LCA Commons plays a role in addressing this gap. There are challenges associated with accessing public background data, including gaps in available data sets and outdated information. This makes the importance of open data models and infrastructure in facilitating collaboration crucial to reducing the burden on industry.

The Federal LCA Commons as an interagency community of practice focused on coordinating and aligning government LCA capacity to improve data, research, and information systems. While the initiative was informal and unfunded, it aims to advance LCA data and research through collaboration among agencies and national labs. Key products developed by the Federal LCA Commons include the US electricity baseline and the management of elementary flow lists and data platforms. Progress in building an integrated background data set was still in its early stages.

Arbuckle explained the concept of background data and its importance in making products comparable and reducing the cost of EPD generation for industry. He advocates for open data models to support transparency and collaboration, contrasting them with fee-based databases in Europe. He discussed the challenges associated with current background data, including gaps and outdated information and emphasized the need for a collaborative approach to address these challenges and ensure the reliability of EPDs.

The knowledge management infrastructure developed by the National Agricultural Library allows for collaboration on data development and management. The use of a common data model and machine-readable exchange formats facilitate data sharing and dissemination. The platform’s distributed approach to data development and management, treating data as code and applying git-style management, enable collaboration among research groups and background data sources.

The Federal government’s role in providing transparent and standardized foundational data for EPDs\ acknowledges the challenges ahead and advocates for continued progress through incremental steps. In conclusion, informatics and automation in streamlining data access and usage are very important to collaborative efforts to advance EPDs and product-level LCAs.

Questions

Q: Nicole Darnall - What do you see as low-hanging fruit that could trailblaze sustainability efforts in the Federal government, particularly in GSA procurement? 
A: Peter Arbuckle - While I don’t have a clear answer, I believe that information is paramount for driving sustainability efforts in GSA procurement. I admire the idea of developing a reference list, similar to a food matrix, which could simplify self-assessment and reporting for industry players. Personally, I’ve observed the labor-intensive nature of current practices and believe that methodological innovations are necessary to streamline processes. I also recognize the ongoing challenges with consistency in methods and data, particularly in industries like asphalt and concrete.

Overall, I stress the importance of continuous improvement and exploration of alternative measurement and reporting approaches to further sustainability goals.

Q: Stacy Smedley - How do we secure funding for your initiatives and why is there currently a lack of funding? 
A: Peter Arbuckle - We’ve received some funding from EPA through the IRA and NREL through last year’s omnibus bill to support the Federal Commons. However, it’s not substantial. We’re starting to make progress with this funding, particularly in building background data. As for our specific situation, I’m not entirely sure. We operate under USDA, which lags behind in terms of EPDs and life-cycle labeling compared to industries like construction. We haven’t had the same policy drivers in agriculture yet, which explains the lack of major funding. Despite this, we’re preparing for the changes we anticipate in the future.

Q: David Wagger - Regarding the asphalt EPD’s data gap and approximation tolerances, do you consider it significant in terms of carbon relevance? Is there a way to approximate it to avoid getting stuck on relatively immaterial issues hindering progress elsewhere? 
A: Peter Arbuckle - Our focus is on providing open and free data for tools like Sievo. We acknowledge the challenge of developing US-specific data amidst the global nature of supply chains. Collaborations with the Canadian government and discussions about international integration are underway. 

Q: David Wagger - In relation to third-party data providers like Sievo, which offer background data, have you compared your data sets to see if they are consistent? Is there a need for a US-specific data set versus a globally averaged one, especially concerning recommendations to GSA? 
A: Peter Arbuckle - We haven’t yet compared our data sets with others. While there’s a preference for US-specific data, it’s a complex issue given global supply chains. Our current focus is on US-specific data development, but we remain open to international collaboration.

Subcommittee business

The group moved to the Jamboard for discussion of key takeaways from the presentations.

• The nutrition labeling process could serve as a good model to follow for sustainable procurement data processes.
• Data access and data security.
• Democratization of LCA/LCI information (via LCA Commons) to reduce barriers to potential suppliers in developing EPDs, etc. (This connects with Industry Partnerships).
• Question: What are the IT infrastructure needs for collecting, analyzing, and evaluating data (assuming that we know what data is needed)?

David Wagger initiated a discussion on synthesizing the information shared during the meeting, emphasizing the importance of identifying challenges, opportunities, and actionable recommendations for GSA. Stacy Smedley highlighted successes in the construction sector regarding EPDs and suggests leveraging similar approaches for GSA.

The conversation extended to budgeting for sustainability initiatives and the need for rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Richard Beutel raised questions about assessing the effectiveness of EPDs in procurement, prompting discussion on measuring outcomes and defining success.

Nicole Darnall underscored the significance of data access and proposed establishing dedicated resources, such as an office of data, to address data-related challenges. Boris Arratia and David Wagger emphasized the role of data in decision-making and continuous improvement, suggesting the adoption of maturity models and iterative approaches to address sustainability goals effectively.

Public engagement

David Wagger opened the discussion up to the public for comments, but there were none.

Closing remarks

David Wagger concluded the meeting by expressing gratitude to the attendees, including Ilona, Ossi, Peter, Stephanie, and Luke for their contributions to the presentation. He encouraged everyone to consider the discussed topics before the next meeting and invited volunteers to present at the next session.

Adjournment

Stephanie Hardison adjourned the meeting at 5:00 P.M. EDT. 

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate 
and complete.

Digitally signed by Luke Bassis 9/19/2024 
Luke Bassis 
Chairperson 
GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee

Digitally signed by Dr. David Wagger 9/17/2024 
Dr. David Wagger 
Co-Chairperson 
GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee