This credo drives Interface’s strategic focus as it competes in the highly competitive floor-coverings industry.

Interface was started in 1973 by Ray Anderson to fill the need to manufacture flexible floor coverings for commercial customers. Started as a joint venture between British-owned Carpets International and a group of American investors, Interface began its operations in LaGrange, Georgia. Today, Interface is the largest producer of soft-surfaced modular floor coverings in the world. But what makes Interface unique is its ability to ship custom-designed flooring around the world while having environmental sustainability interwoven into every decision of the company, much like the fibers in its carpets.

Dan Hendrix, president and chief executive officer, stated, “I believe that not only must we do our best, but we must be the best at everything we do.” This underlying commitment to excellence in whatever it does helps drive Interface as it climbs “Mount Sustainability.” Interface considers the sustainability impact of every operational decision from the raw materials that are selected to the best method used to recycle the flooring after the customer has finished with the product.

The Road to Sustainability

When Anderson started Interface more than 30 years ago, sustainability was not part of the strategic decisionmaking process. Over time, however, he realized that his company could reduce its environmental footprint on the earth while setting an example for other companies. In 1994, Anderson read Paul Hawken’s book The Ecology of Commerce (1993) and Ishmael (1992) by Daniel Quinn. After reading those books, Anderson created the “Eco Dream Team” made up of some of the best-known experts on sustainability. From this starting point, Interface became fully competent in becoming a completely sustainable company. The first challenge was to define sustainability. Anderson proposed that a viable definition for sustainability would be “a dynamic process which enables all people to realize their potential and to improve their quality of life in ways that simultaneously protect and enhance the Earth’s life support systems.”

Furthermore, Anderson stated that sustainability is not just an option, but a responsibility of everyone to protect the environment for future generations:

“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable—to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

To climb Mount Sustainability, Interface has proposed that there are seven faces (or fronts) of the mountain:

(1) eliminate waste, (2) benign emissions, (3) renewable energy, (4) closing the loop, (5) resource-efficient transportation, (6) sensitizing stakeholders, and (7) redesigning commerce.

Elimination of Waste

The sustainability challenge of eliminating waste is to reverse the enormous amount of waste that is generated when manufacturing products. Because there is only a finite amount of resources available on the planet, Interface was determined to eliminate waste wherever it was possible. The process began by first identifying what the current sources of waste at Interface were, then initially reducing the waste, and eventually eliminating the waste. Interface defines waste as any cost that does not produce value to its customers.6 Therefore, waste is not only a by-product of production but also any activity that is not done correctly the first time, such as a misdirected shipment, an incorrect invoice, or a defective product.

The reduction of waste has been accomplished at Interface by redesigning products and the processes used to manufacture the products. In addition, what was previously considered to be a waste product was remanufactured into additional resources that could be used in the next step in the production cycle.

To help use opportunities that could occur to reduce waste, Interface established the QUEST program. QUEST stands for “Quality Utilizing Employee Suggestions and Teamwork.” Through the QUEST program, Interface was able to save $300 million in 2005. An example of the simple way cost savings were generated at Interface occurred when the Interface manufacturing facility in Maine installed a brass nozzle, which cost $8.50. This nozzle reduced the amount of water needed in the plant by 2 million gallons annually.

Benign Emissions

The sustainability issue on this mountain face is to identify areas within the company that could reduce, or even eliminate, emissions into the ecosphere. The ultimate goal of this challenge is to have only products, clean air, and clean water being released from the Interface plants.

Interface monitors and evaluates all of the 247 air emissions stacks and the 19 wastewater effluent pipes in its global manufacturing ring operations. Instead of just trying to control emissions, Interface reviews the plant facilities to see if the air emission stack and effluent pipes are needed. By December 2004, Interface had reduced the number of air emission stacks in its facilities by 35% and the number of effluent pipes by 53%.

To evaluate the impact Interface’s emissions have on global pollution, Anderson requested that Interface compile a list of emission standards from around the world and determine which standards were the most stringent. After that determination had been made, the emission releases for each emission stack and effluent pipe at Interface were evaluated using those standards as the benchmark.

In the area of water management, Interface examined how wastewater can be naturally treated and reused. At its Fabrics Division, Interface was able to reduce the number of gallons used per production unit by 30% by reusing the water in the production process.

In the area of toxic chemicals, Interface has established an initiative to eliminate the use of materials that are ecologically damaging in the production process. In 1996, Interface established the Toxic Chemical Elimination Team, which was responsible for analyzing the manufacturing processes in each of Interface’s plants with the goal of eliminating the use of all toxic chemicals. The chemicals were defined as toxic based on the definition given by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (ERCRA), which is also known as SARA 313, referring to Section 313 of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act. The steps used to eliminate toxic chemicals included the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and other ozone-depleting substances in the manufacturing process and the elimination of all volatile chlorinated chemicals, which are used primarily in the cooling and refrigeration stage in the manufacturing process. Interface also reduced the number of suppliers that provided chemicals in the manufacturing process so the company was able to better track and control what types of chemicals were coming into the manufacturing facilities.

An example of how the levels of chemicals were reduced in the manufacturing process occurred at Interface’s Guilford, Maine, Dyehouse facility. The Dyehouse manager believed that Interface was using too much of the antistatic chemicals in the dye process. The manager felt that the amount of the chemical could be reduced without affecting the quality of the product and would result in cost savings as well as the reduction of chemicals used. The plant managers discovered that the manufacturing process would be the same with only 17% of the amount of the antistatic chemicals used in the dyeing process. Because of this result, Interface now tests all process chemicals before they are used in the manufacturing process.

Interface has developed numerous methods to evaluate the indoor air quality challenge that affects the products manufactured by Interface. It has developed a nonprofit partnership with other companies called the EnviroSense Consortium that evaluates indoor air quality issues. In addition, Interface’s research and development department focuses on design products that have a minimal impact on indoor air quality. Furthermore, Interface integrates its toxic chemical elimination commitment by manufacturing products that have benign chemical properties.....

Questions

1. Identify the companies that are part of the EnviroSense Consortium. Do you believe that any of these companies are as committed to sustainability as Interface?

2. Interface makes its commitment to sustainability issues seem so simple. Why don’t other companies follow its example?

3. Define sustainability. What’s so important about sustainability from a business perspective?

4. Compare and contrast Interface’s environmental actions with a Fortune 100 company.