GIGA Ranking Criteria V2.1

  • Posted in Default
  • By admin
  • Date March 19th, 2012 14:02
  • Follow
  • Incremental improvement is a value we both believe in and practice. Since our launch in 2008, our RESET Ranking Criteria have been publicly published and open for community comment and feedback. In 2008 our V1.0 Criteria included 13 RESET Criteria. In 2010, our V2.0 Criterial expanded to include 53 RESET Criteria. Today, we are excited to release our V2.1 Criteria which has improved upon previous explanations and has eliminated V2.0 criteria which are not achievable today. All changes have been made to optimally move product design and manufacturing towards regeneration. All Criteria prioritize material life cycle, regeneration and health.

    What's changed?
    1. Sustainable sourcing criteria, previously S1 and S2 have been combined into S1. Previously points were awarded for sustainably harvested rapidly renewable and sustainable harvested non-rapidly renewable materials. These have been combined into one criterion though still consider certifications from before (FSC, SFI, and PEFC).
    2. Our chemical health screen has become more robust and now considers over 270,000 chemicals and 240 regulatory lists and marked in alignment with Green Production Action's benchmark system. Manufacturers should note that screening chemicals automatically covers 5 criteria - your best opportunity to score points. The accuracy, speed and authority of our health impact have all improved immensely as a result.

    3. Self Documentation. Perhaps the largest change in V2.1 is the increase in self-documentation. In all cases, self-documentation only achieves MNI-C as we view this as the minimum level that all manufacturers should be complying to. Manufacturers who are found to misreport will be penalized and flagged as such. This move has been made to enable more engagement (practicality) with manufacturers and to encourage additional information to be submitted.
    4. 3rd Parties. Our RESET Criteria now recognizes an increased number of 3rd party auditors including UL, BV, ERM, Sci-Vera, SGS, ect.

    The above changes are driven by user demand for Reliability, Transparency, and Practicality. We look forward to, and encourage your feedback. Do let us know what you think. Is the content less confusing? What criteria needs to be unpackaged or explained more? Which criteria do you most want Manufacturers to answer? 


server error: