Waste 2025
General Introduction
Waste from industrial processes and manufacturing operations have the potential to impact the environment, human health, and local ecosystem.
As governments and industry stakeholders continue to focus on reducing waste and promoting more sustainable manufacturing practices, more stringent requirements and regulations may be imposed. New materials and technologies are also being developed to reduce and recapture waste and work towards a circular economy that is more sustainable. By proactively managing and working to minimize waste generated from your facility, you can reduce impacts on the environment, exposure to regulatory risks or new requirements from business partners and contribute to a more sustainable future.
In general, the Higg FEM Waste section encourages you to:
- Identify and understand the types of wastes that are generated at your facility.
- Ensure all wastes are appropriately managed onsite (e.g., storage and disposal)
- Understand how your wastes are treated/disposed of after leaving your facility.
- Track and report the quantity of wastes generated at your facility.
- Evaluate, plan for, and adopt solutions to reduce waste through better manufacturing practices, recycling/reuse, and preferred waste treatment solutions.
- Implement leading practices to divert wastes from landfill and into the circular economy.
Additional details on the intent and criteria for each Higg FEM waste question is provided in the guidance below along with useful technical guidance and resources to support your facility in the management and reduction of waste.
Waste At Your Facility
Waste is any material or substance that has no further use and is discarded from a facility which can pollute or contaminate the environment and surrounding communities. In the FEM, wastes are categorized as follows:
- Non-hazardous Waste: is any waste that causes no harm to human or environmental health. Non-hazardous waste usually includes both non-hazardous production waste as well as domestic waste. Examples of non-hazardous waste include:
- Non-hazardous production waste such as textile, leather, plastic, paper, metal, or packaging waste, etc.
- Domestic waste such as food waste and sanitary wastes including household waste from the office and/or dormitory areas (e.g., toilet paper, yard/garden waste, glass, and food packaging), etc.
- Hazardous Waste: is any waste that could cause harm to public health and/or the environment because of its chemical, physical, or biological characteristics (e.g., it is flammable, explosive, toxic, radioactive, or infectious). Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, or gases. Examples of hazardous waste include:
- Hazardous production waste such as used chemicals, chemical containers/drums, waste oils, contaminated materials (e.g. materials that contain other substances that are hazardous waste such as rags containing solvents), etc.
- Waste from facility operations such as wastewater treatment sludge if hazardous, fly ash, fluorescent light bulbs, electronic waste, batteries, etc.
Note: For all companies manufacturing or distributing in or to the European Union, the WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directive is an important directive to follow. The WEEE directive governs the reduction and separation of electronic waste.
Reportable Wastes in the FEM
The Higg FEM requires that facilities track and report waste generation data for several specific waste categories listed below. Additional details on reporting waste quantities in the FEM are provided in the relevant questions.
| Non-hazardous Wastes | Hazardous Wastes |
|
|
Note: The legal classification of hazardous waste may differ from one country or jurisdiction to another. Facilities should, at minimum, follow local regulatory requirements and definitions for classifying wastes as hazardous or non-hazardous. If legal requirements do not exist, it is recommended that facilities use industry guidelines or internationally recognized definitions of hazards wastes (such as those listed in the Basel Convention http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/1275/Default.asp). Additionally, where industry guidelines are more stringent than local requirements, it is recommended that facilities follow industry guidelines.
Waste to be Excluded from the Higg FEM Reporting Scope:
The following waste materials should not be reported in the FEM, as these types of waste are not generated from a “business as usual” situation:
- Medical waste
- Major construction and demolition projects waste
- Waste from natural disasters such as flood, fire, tornado, hurricane.
Waste Disposal Methods in the Higg FEM
The Higg FEM requires facilities to indicate how their wastes are currently being disposed of and plans or targets for improving waste disposal methods. The FEM includes several predefined waste disposal methods that can be selected. The table below provides a description of the available waste disposal method options in the FEM. These are categorized into Preferred, Less Preferred and Least Preferred options based on their associated environmental impacts.
| Waste Disposal Method | Description |
| Preferred Options (Material Recovery) | |
| Reuse | Pre or post-consumer wastes are reused to make new or second hand products without modification or additional manufacturing steps before using the waste. |
| Recycle (including Upcycle) | Pre or post-consumer wastes are reprocessed to produce new items of equal (or better) quality (e.g., textile to textile recycling or processing plastic bottles into fabric). |
| Downcycle | Pre or post-consumer wastes are recycled and processed to produce material or products of lesser economic value (e.g., recycled textiles used for rags, carpet padding, or sound insulation products). |
| Less Preferred Options (Energy Recovery or Non-valorized Disposal) | |
| Incineration with energy recovery for Non-Recyclables only | Energy recovery from the process of incinerating non-recyclable waste. Note: Recycling infrastructure and capabilities may differ among regions and countries. |
| Energy Recovery – Residual Management (e.g., Physical / Chemical / Biological Treatment) | Energy Recovery as a form of residual management, ie. Sludge Treatment that leads to Biogas Generation, heat generation from biological treatment (composting), energy generation from any such activity that does not include “Incineration” |
| Onsite incineration without energy recovery for Non-Recyclables | Incineration of non-recyclable wastes onsite at the facility that does not recover energy from the incineration process. |
| Offsite incineration without energy recovery for Non-Recyclables | Incineration of non-recyclable wastes offsite at a third-party facility that does not recover energy from the incineration process. |
| Non-valorized disposal – Other Treatment | Any disposal method that does not recover usable materials or attributes of the waste such as converting them into more useful by products like raw materials, fuels, or other sources of energy. |
| Non-valorized disposal – Responsibly Managed Landfills (for waste that cannot be managed in any of the options under Preferred options or Less Preferred Options) |
In the Higg FEM, responsibly managed landfills aligns with the ZDHC Disposal Pathways definitions for landfills with significant control measures as defined in the ZDHC Sludge Management Document Version 1.0. available here: https://www.roadmaptozero.com/output, and as described below: Landfills with Significant Control Measures are landfills that control both leachate and gas produced from the materials placed in the landfill and are engineered to store waste in a manner that is safe to the surrounding environment. For purposes of the WW Guideline, significant control measures are defined as:
Landfills with Limited Control Measures are landfill types that do not meet the description requirements specified in the Landfill with Significant Control Measures section. The permeability, leachate and gas control, and documentation are generally less restrictive. Leachate control may be non-existent or consist of simple collection and drain to local sewer lines. Gases may be vented versus stored, treated and used. Monitoring requirements for these types of landfills are less stringent – requiring less frequent sampling, inspections, and records for a shorter time depending on the local laws and regulations. |
| Least Preferred Options | |
| Energy Recovery (e.g., Incineration with energy recovery for Recyclables) | Energy recovery from the process of incinerating of recyclable waste. Note: Material recovery is the preferred method for recyclable wastes. Note: Recycling infrastructure and capabilities may differ among regions and countries. |
| Landfill/Dumping with No Control Measures | In the Higg FEM, landfill/dumping with no controls aligns with the ZDHC Disposal Pathways definitions for landfills with limited or no control measures as defined in the ZDHC Sludge Management Document Version 1.0. available here: https://www.roadmaptozero.com/output, and as described below: Landfills with Limited Control Measures are landfill types that do not meet the description requirements specified in the Landfill with Significant Control Measures section. The permeability, leachate and gas control, and documentation are generally less restrictive. Leachate control may be non-existent or consist of simple collection and drain to local sewer lines. Gases may be vented versus stored, treated and used. Monitoring requirements for these types of landfills are less stringent – requiring less frequent sampling, inspections, and records for a shorter time depending on the local laws and regulations. Landfills with No Control Measures are landfills constructed with no control measures. Any landfill that has not been designed to contain waste, limit percolation, or control leachates from exposure or entering the environment is considered a landfill with no control measure. This includes dump piles and holes with no lining or packing to limit waste exposure to the ground and/or groundwater. There may be few or no monitoring requirements for these types of landfills. In many cases, these types of landfills are constructed by simply digging a hole and then filling the hole with waste, or it may consist of filling a naturally occurring depression with waste. |
| Onsite Incineration without energy recovery for Recyclables | Incineration of recyclable wastes onsite at the facility that does not recover energy from the incineration process. |
| Offsite incineration without energy recovery for Recyclables | Incineration of recyclable wastes offsite at a third-party facility that does not recover energy from the incineration process. |
| Other | Any other waste disposal method that does not fit the description of the above noted methods. Note: A detailed description of the other methods should be provided. |
Waste Data Quality
Accurately tracking and reporting waste data over time provides facilities and stakeholders with detailed insight into opportunities for improvement. If data is not accurate, this limits the ability to understand a facility’s wastes and identify the specific actions that will help reduce environmental impacts and drive efficiencies.
When establishing a waste tracking and reporting program, the following principles should be applied:
- Completeness – The tracking and reporting program should include all relevant sources (as listed in the FEM). Sources should not be excluded from data tracking and reporting should be based on materiality (e.g., small quantity exceptions).
- Accuracy – Ensure that the data input into the waste tracking program is accurate and is derived from credible sources (e.g., calibrated scales, invoices, established scientific measurement principles or engineering estimates, etc.).
- Consistency – Use consistent methodologies to track waste data that allows for comparisons of waste quantities over time. If there are any changes in the tracking methods, waste sources, or other operations that impact waste data, this should be documented.
- Transparency – All data sources (e.g., invoices, weighing records, etc.), assumptions used (e.g., estimation techniques), and calculation methodologies should be disclosed in data inventories and be readily verifiable via documented records and supporting evidence.
- Data Quality Management – Quality assurance activities (internal or external data quality checks) should be defined and performed on waste data as well as the processes used to collect and track data to ensure reported data is accurate.
Higg FEM Level Progression
If your facility did not achieve Level 1 in this section, you will have the option to complete Level 2 and 3 questions and will be asked the following question:
Your facility has not achieved Level 1 within this section, the maximum score for this section will be limited to your answers in Level 1, You now have the option to answer Level 2 and Level 3 questions, would you prefer to proceed answering these additional questions?
If you Answer Yes: Level 2 and 3 questions will be available to answer in this section.
If you Answer No: Level 2 and 3 questions will not be available in this section.
Notes:
- If your facility did not achieve Level 1 in this section, answering Level 2 and 3 questions will not result in additional score beyond what you have already achieved in Level 1
- It is recommended that facilities consult with their business partners on whether they require responses to Level 2 and Level 3 questions, even though you have not achieved Level 1 in this specific section.
Facilities are encouraged to complete Level 2 and Level 3 questions when possible as these can provide valuable insights on your facilities environmental performance and opportunities for improvement with the advanced Higg FEM aspects in Level 2 and 3
Level 2
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has set a baseline for one (1) or more of your non-hazardous waste streams.
Note: In the FEM, baselines must be based on data from within the past 5 years. (e.g. For FEM 202X the earliest possible baseline is 202(X-5).)
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a series of tables to provide details on your non-hazardous waste baselines for each applicable waste stream (All applicable waste streams selected in the applicability questions will be pre-populated in the table):
- Complete the following questions to provide details on your non-hazardous waste baseline during this reporting year.
- Have you set a baseline for this non-hazardous waste stream?
- Is this a normalized or absolute baseline?
For all wastes streams that have baselines, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions based on whether the baseline is absolute or normalized:
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the baseline was established for each waste stream (e.g., waste quantity tracking and production data from the baseline year, supporting calculations or assumptions used to determine the baseline).
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established baselines for non-hazardous wastes generated at the facility so that future reduction efforts can be quantified.
Technical Guidance:
A “baseline” is a starting point or benchmark that a facility can use to compare changes over time and quantify any reduction efforts.
Baselines can be absolute or normalized. For example:
- Absolute: The total amount of waste produced over a period of time (for example, 1,500 tons per year)
- Normalized: The amount of waste produced while making a unit of product (for example, 0.15 kg per pair of shoes produced or the amount of food waste per worker).
Note: It is recommended to use the ‘Normalized’ method to account for operational fluctuations. Normalized baselines provide more accurate and useful comparisons over time.
When establishing a baseline, be sure to do the following:
- Confirm the waste source data is stable, and sufficient to be used to determine a baseline. In the Higg FEM, a baseline should generally comprise of a full calendar year’s data.
- Notes: If your factory has undergone major structural or operational changes such as acquisitions, new buildings or production areas, or significant changes in production, equipment or materials used, the baseline should be reviewed and revised, if needed, after the changes have been completed.
- In the FEM, baselines must be re-evaluated and reset at least every 5 years to ensure they represent current operations. (e.g. For FEM 202X the earliest possible baseline will be 202(X-5).)
- Determine if the baseline is Absolute or Normalized (normalized baselines are preferred).
- Verify the source data and normalizing metric data is accurate.
- Waste quantities and production volume data from previous Higg FEM verifications, internal or external audits conducted by qualified personnel are acceptable sources of data verification.
- Apply the appropriate baseline metric (i.e., per year for absolute OR divide by the chosen normalizing metric 1,500,000 kg per 1,000,000 pieces = 1.5kg/piece)
- Note: For waste sources that is not related to production, other normalizing metrics should be used where appropriate (e.g., food or other domestic wastes can be normalized per meal served or per worker)
- Hardgoods guidance: For hardgoods production, normalizing metrics per product piece, or per kg of product may be relevant.
Note: If the baseline is used to evaluate performance against a target, the baseline should remain unchanged.
Reporting baseline data in the Higg FEM:
Do:
✔ Review source data and raw normalizing metric data (manifests/invoices, weighing records, production quantity, etc.) against aggregated totals to ensure they are accurate.
✔ Select the appropriate baseline type in the FEM – Absolute or Normalized.
✔ Ensure the proper units are reported and verify any unit conversions from source data to reported data (e.g., converting kg to tons).
✔ Enter the baseline year. This is the year the baseline data represents.
✔ Provide sufficient details on how the baseline was calculated (e.g., waste quantity is normalized per meter of fabric produced or per kg of product).
✔ Only select ‘Yes’ to the question “Was the baseline verified?” if the baseline data was fully verified in a previous Higg FEM verification or by an internal or external audit conducted by qualified personnel.
Do Not:
X Report inaccurate data (including if the data has not been verified).
X Report a baseline that is based on insufficient data (e.g., not a full year’s data).
X Report an estimated baseline if it is not supported by verifiable and accurate estimation methodology and data.
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s baselines, Verifiers must review:
- Source data (e.g., manifests, invoices, weighing records, production quantities, etc.) and aggregated data totals for the baseline year.
- Records of baseline data verification where available (e.g., previous Higg Verification, data quality review, internal or external audits, etc.)
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected, where possible, and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has established baselines for all non-hazardous waste streams.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports how the baseline was established for each waste stream. This may include: o Waste quantity tracking and production data from the baseline year
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the baseline.
- Supporting evidence to demonstrate how baseline data was validated (e.g., verified Higg FEM data for the baseline year, external or internal data validation process or report).
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the baselines were determined including any normalizing metrics used or any assumption made in the calculation methodology.
- Relevant staff are able to describe the facility’s process to validate the accuracy of baseline data.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are consistent with the facility’s reported methods for determining baselines (e.g., weighing of wastes if applicable, waste segregation, etc.)
- Observations on-site do not indicate that there have been significant changes at the facility that could impact the appropriateness of the baseline (e.g., new production areas, changes to products, new buildings, etc.)
Partial Points:
- Partial points will be awarded if the facility has established baselines for one (1) or more non-hazardous waste stream.
- Complete the following questions to provide details on your non-hazardous waste baseline during this reporting year.
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has set a baseline for one (1) or more of your hazardous waste streams.
Note: In the FEM, baselines must be based on data from within the past 5 years. (e.g. For FEM 202X the earliest possible baseline is 202(X-5).)
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a series of tables to provide details on your hazardous waste baselines for each applicable waste stream (All applicable waste streams selected in the applicability questions will be pre-populated in the table):
- Complete the following questions to provide details on your hazardous waste baseline during this reporting year.
- Have you set a baseline for this hazardous waste stream?
- Is this a normalized or absolute baseline?
For all wastes streams that have baselines, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions based on whether the baseline is absolute or normalized:
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the baseline was established for each waste stream (e.g., waste quantity tracking and production data from the baseline year, supporting calculations or assumptions used to determine the baseline).
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established baselines for hazardous wastes generated at the facility so that future reduction efforts can be quantified.
Technical Guidance:
A “baseline” is a starting point or benchmark that a facility can use to compare changes over time and quantify any reduction efforts.
Baselines can be absolute or normalized. For example:
- Absolute: The total amount of waste produced over a period of time (for example, 1,500 tons per year)
- Normalized: The amount of waste produced while making a unit of product (for example, 0.15 kg per pair of shoes produced).
Note: It is recommended to use the ‘Normalized’ method to account for operational fluctuations. Normalized baselines provide more accurate and useful comparisons over time.
When establishing a baseline, be sure to do the following:
- Confirm the waste source data is stable, and sufficient to be used to determine a baseline. In the Higg FEM, a baseline should generally comprise of a full calendar year’s data.
- Notes: If your factory has undergone major structural or operational changes such as acquisitions, new buildings or production areas, or significant changes in production, equipment or materials used, the baseline should be reviewed and revised, if needed, after the changes have been completed.
- In the FEM, baselines must be re-evaluated and reset at least every 5 years to ensure they represent current operations. (e.g. For FEM 202X the earliest possible baseline will be 202(X-5).)
- Determine if the baseline is Absolute or Normalized (normalized baselines are preferred).
- Verify the source data and normalizing metric data is accurate.
- Waste quantities and production volume data from previous Higg FEM verifications, internal or external audits conducted by qualified personnel are acceptable sources of data verification.
- Apply the appropriate baseline metric (i.e., per year for absolute OR divide by the chosen normalizing metric 1,500,000 kg per 1,000,000 pieces = 1.5kg/piece)
- Note: For waste sources that are not related to production, other normalizing metrics should be used where appropriate.
Note: If the baseline is used to evaluate performance against a target, the baseline should remain unchanged.
Reporting baseline data in the Higg FEM:
Do:
✔ Review source data and raw normalizing metric data (manifests/invoices, weighing records, production quantity, etc.) against aggregated totals to ensure they are accurate.
✔ Select the appropriate baseline type in the FEM – Absolute or Normalized.
✔ Ensure the proper units are reported and verify any unit conversions from source data to reported data (e.g., converting kg to tons).
✔ Enter the baseline year. This is the year the baseline data represents.
✔ Provide sufficient details on how the baseline was calculated (e.g., waste quantity is normalized per meter of fabric produced or per kg of product).
✔ Only select ‘Yes’ to the question “Was the baseline verified?” if the baseline data was fully verified in a previous Higg FEM verification or by an internal or external audit conducted by qualified personnel.
Do Not:
X Report inaccurate data (including if the data has not been verified).
X Report a baseline that is based on insufficient data (e.g., not a full year’s data).
X Report an estimated baseline if it is not supported by verifiable and accurate estimation methodology and data.
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s baselines, Verifiers must review:
- Source data (e.g., manifests, invoices, weighing records, production quantities, etc.) and aggregated data totals for the baseline year.
- Records of baseline data verification where available (e.g., previous Higg Verification, data quality review, internal or external audits, etc.)
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected, where possible, and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has established baselines for all hazardous waste streams.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports how the baseline was established for each waste stream. This may include: o Waste quantity tracking and production data from the baseline year.
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the baseline.
- Supporting evidence to demonstrate how baseline data was validated (e.g., verified Higg FEM data for the baseline year, external or internal data validation process or report).
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the baselines were determined including any normalizing metrics used or any assumption made in the calculation methodology.
- Relevant staff are able to describe the facility’s process to validate the accuracy of baseline data.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are consistent with the facility’s reported methods for determining baselines (e.g., weighing of wastes if applicable, waste segregation, etc.)
- Observations on-site do not indicate that there have been significant changes at the facility that could impact the appropriateness of the baseline (e.g., new production areas, changes to products, new buildings, etc.)
Partial Points:
- Partial points will be awarded if the facility has established baselines for one (1) or more hazardous waste stream.
- Complete the following questions to provide details on your hazardous waste baseline during this reporting year.
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has set a baseline for one (1) or more of your waste disposal methods.
Note: In the FEM, baselines must be based on data from within the past 5 years. (e.g. For FEM 202X the earliest possible baseline is 202(X-5).)
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions to provide details on your waste disposal method baselines for each applicable method:
- Have you set a baseline for this method?
- What is the baseline quantity?
- Unit of Measure.
- Enter baseline year.
- How was your baseline calculated?
- Was the baseline verified?
- Provide any additional comments.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the baseline was established for each waste disposal method (e.g., waste disposal and quantity tracking data from the baseline year, supporting calculations or assumptions used to determine the baseline).
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established baselines for waste disposal methods for facility wastes so that future improvement efforts can be quantified.
Technical Guidance:
A “baseline” is a starting point or benchmark that a facility can use to compare changes over time and quantify any improvement efforts. Waste disposal method baselines are different from the waste source baselines. Disposal methods baselines focus on the percentage of total facility wastes being disposed of by a specific method (e.g., 60% of all waste generated at the facility is disposed of by landfill with significant controls or 40% sent for recycling).
When establishing a baseline, be sure to do the following:
- Confirm the waste disposal method data is stable, and sufficient to be used to determine a baseline. In the Higg FEM, a baseline should generally comprise of a full calendar year’s data.
- Notes: If your factory has undergone major structural or operational changes such as acquisitions, new buildings or production areas, or significant changes in production, equipment or materials used, the baseline should be reviewed and revised, if needed, after the changes have been completed.
- In the FEM, baselines must be re-evaluated and reset at least every 5 years to ensure they represent current operations. (e.g. For FEM 202X the earliest possible baseline will be 202(X-5).)
- Calculate the total amount of waste generated at the facility (from all sources) including hazardous and non-hazardous sources.
- Calculate the total amount of wastes being disposed of using a particular disposal method (e.g., landfill, recycling, incineration)
- Divide the total amount of waste disposed of using the same method by the total amount of waste generated. For example:
- Total waste generated from all sources: 460,555 kg per year.
- Baseline quantity of waste recycled: 255,000kg/year.
- Baseline percentage of recycled waste: 55.3% (255,000kg/460,555kg)
- Verify the baseline data accuracy. o Waste disposal method data from previous Higg FEM verifications, internal or external audits conducted by qualified personnel are acceptable sources of data verification.
Note: If the baseline is used to evaluate performance against a target, the baseline should remain unchanged.
Reporting baseline data in the Higg FEM:
Do:
✔ Review source data (manifests/invoices, weighing or disposal records, etc.) against aggregated totals to ensure they are accurate.
✔ Ensure the proper units are reported and verify any unit conversions from source data to reported data (e.g., converting kg to tons).
✔ Enter the baseline year. This is the year the baseline data represents.
✔ Provide sufficient details on how the baseline was calculated.
✔ Only select ‘Yes’ to the question “Was the baseline verified?” if the baseline data was fully verified in a previous Higg FEM verification or by an internal or external audit conducted by qualified personnel.
Do Not:
X Report inaccurate data (including if the data has not been verified).
X Report a baseline that is based on insufficient data (e.g., not a full year’s data).
X Report an estimated baseline if it is not supported by verifiable and accurate estimation methodology and data.
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s baselines, Verifiers must review:
- Source data (e.g., manifests, invoices, weighing or disposal records, etc.) and aggregated data totals for the baseline year.
- Records of baseline data verification where available (e.g., previous Higg Verification, data quality review, internal or external audits, etc.)
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected, where possible, and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has established baselines for one (1) or more waste disposal methods.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports how the baseline was established for each waste disposal method. This may include: o Waste quantity tracking and total quantities of waste for each disposal method from the baseline year.
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the baseline.
- Supporting evidence to demonstrate how baseline data was validated (e.g., verified Higg FEM data for the baseline year, external or internal data validation process or report).
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the baselines were determined including any assumption made in the calculation methodology.
- Relevant staff are able to describe the facility’s process to validate the accuracy of baseline data.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are consistent with the facility’s reported methods for determining baselines (e.g., weighing of wastes if applicable, waste segregation, etc.)
- Observations on-site do not indicate that there have been significant changes at the facility that could impact the appropriateness of the baseline (e.g., new production areas, changes to products, new buildings, etc.)
Partial Points: N/A
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has set a target to reduce waste generation for one (1) or more of your non-hazardous waste streams.
Note: If your facility has not conducted a formal evaluation of waste reduction opportunities and calculated how much waste can be reduced to support your target, you should select No for this question.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a series of tables with the following questions to provide details on your non-hazardous waste targets for each applicable waste stream:
- Does your facility set formal targets to reduce non-hazardous waste generation?
- Have you set a target for this non-hazardous waste?
- Is this a normalized or absolute target?
For all wastes streams that have targets, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions based on whether the target is absolute or normalized:
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the target was established and demonstrates the target is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities (e.g., calculations, waste quantity data and baselines, new/proposed equipment specifications or work practices, etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established formal targets to reduce non-hazardous wastes generated at the facility.
Technical Guidance:
Targets can use absolute or normalized metrics to drive quantifiable improvements by a set date compared to the baseline. For Higg FEM, reduction targets may be normalized to the production volume unit or another appropriate operational metric. A normalized target shows you when progress is real, rather than being a result of business changes such as reductions in production. An example of a normalized target is kilograms (kg) of a waste generated for the production of one unit of sellable product (kg/unit).
When establishing formal improvement targets, be sure to do the following:
- Base the target on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities and actions (e.g., change of raw materials/packaging, process modifications or equipment replacement) to calculate the amount of waste that can be reduced.
- For example: Setting a target based on an evaluation of the purchase of laser cutting machines that is expected to reduce fabric or metal waste by 15% per meter of fabric or metal that was calculated based on a formal review of equipment specifications and planned operations.
- Define the exact target quantity, expressed as a percent (e.g., reduce normalized fabric waste per piece by 5%). This must be based on a formal evaluation as noted above.
- Determine if the target will be Absolute or Normalized to a production or operating metric.
- Define the start date (i.e., “baseline”) of the target.
- Define the end date of the target, meaning the intended completion date of the required improvements.
- Define the appropriate measurement units.
- Establish procedures to review the target. This review should include an evaluation of the actions taken and progress on reaching the defined target. Quarterly reviews are recommended.
- Ensure the target is relevant to reducing the site’s waste (e.g., focuses on the most significant waste sources at the site)
Reporting Targets in the Higg FEM:
Do:
- Review the target to ensure all aspects noted above are covered and that the information is accurate.
- Enter the targeted reduction as a percentage. Make sure to enter a negative percentage for a reduction target (e.g., -5 for a 5% reduction)
- Provide sufficient details on how the target will be met in the “Describe the measures planned to achieve this target:” field (e.g., Achieve a 3% reduction in normalized cardboard waste generated by switching to reusable cartons for raw material deliveries).
Do Not:
- Report a target that is not accurate (e.g., the data source is unknown or has not been verified)
- Report a target that is based on insufficient data. (e.g., a reduction target that is not based on a formal evaluation of options such as process/equipment modifications or change of materials used to meet the stated target OR actions to meet the target have not been defined.)
- Report an estimated target if it is not supported by verifiable and accurate estimation methodology and data (e.g., engineering calculations).
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s targets, Verifiers must review:
- All supporting evidence (e.g., calculations, waste quantity data and baselines, new/proposed equipment specifications, etc) to verify target is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities.
- Facility operations in relation to its waste sources to ensure targets and opportunities evaluated are relevant to the site’s wastes.
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected where possible and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has established targets for all waste streams and the targets cover greater than 90% (by total waste quantity) of all non-hazardous wastes generated at the facility.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports how the target was established for each waste stream and is based on a formal evaluation of reduction opportunities. This may include:
- Waste quantity tracking and production data.
- Documented evaluations of new/proposed equipment specifications, modifications to production processes or work practices that will result in waste reduction.
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the target.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the targets were determined including any calculations or assumptions made in the target setting methodology.
- Relevant staff are able to describe the facility’s proposed actions to achieve the target and how progress is monitored and tracked.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are appropriate in relation to the established targets (e.g., tracking of waste quantity if applicable, waste segregation, etc.)
Partial Points:
- Partial points will be awarded if the facility has established targets for one (1) or more waste streams and the targets cover 50% to 89% (by total waste quantity) of all non-hazardous wastes generated at the facility.
- Does your facility set formal targets to reduce non-hazardous waste generation?
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has set a target to reduce hazardous waste generation for one (1) or more of your hazardous waste streams.
Note: If your facility has not conducted a formal evaluation of waste reduction opportunities and calculated how much waste can be reduced to support your target, you should select No for this question.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a series of tables with the following questions to provide details on your hazardous waste targets for each applicable waste stream:
- Does your facility set formal targets to reduce hazardous waste generation?
- Have you set a target for this hazardous waste?
- Is this a normalized or absolute target?
For all wastes streams that have targets, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions based on whether the target is absolute or normalized:
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the target was established and demonstrates the target is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities (e.g., calculations, waste quantity data and baselines, new/proposed equipment specifications or work practices, etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established formal targets to reduce hazardous wastes generated at the facility.
Technical Guidance:
Targets can use absolute or normalized metrics to drive quantifiable improvements by a set date compared to the baseline. For Higg FEM, reduction targets may be normalized to the production volume unit or another appropriate operational metric. A normalized target shows you when progress is real, rather than being a result of business changes such as reductions in production. An example of a normalized target is kilograms (kg) of a waste generated for the production of one unit of sellable product (kg/unit).
When establishing formal improvement targets, be sure to do the following:
- Base the target on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities and actions (e.g., process modifications or equipment replacement) to calculate the amount of waste that can be reduced.
- For example: Setting a target based on an evaluation of the purchase of automated printing machines that is expected to reduce chemical waste by 15% per unit of production that was calculated based on a formal review of equipment specifications and planned operations. OR
- Setting a target based on an evaluation of the substitution with water-based solvents to reduce solvent usage and thereby hazardous waste generation by 10%; calculated based on a formal review of equipment specifications and planned operations.
- Define the exact target quantity, expressed as a percent (e.g., reduce normalized chemical waste per piece by 5%). This must be based on a formal evaluation as noted above.
- Determine if the target will be Absolute or Normalized to a production or operating metric.
- Define the start date (i.e., “baseline”) of the target.
- Define the end date of the target, meaning the intended completion date of the required improvements.
- Define the appropriate measurement units.
- Establish procedures to review the target. This review should include an evaluation of the actions taken and progress on reaching the defined target. Quarterly reviews are recommended.
- Ensure the target is relevant to reducing the site’s waste (e.g., focuses on the most significant waste sources at the site)
Reporting Targets in the Higg FEM:
Do:
- Review the target to ensure all aspects noted above are covered and that the information is accurate.
- Enter the targeted reduction as a percentage. Make sure to enter a negative percentage for a reduction target (e.g., -5 for a 5% reduction)
- Provide sufficient details on how the target will be met in the “Describe the measures planned to achieve this target:” field (e.g., Achieve a 10% reduction in normalized chemical waste generated by switching laser finishing for denim instead of potassium permanganate spray).
Do Not:
- Report a target that is not accurate (e.g., the data source is unknown or has not been verified)
- Report a target that is based on insufficient data. (e.g., a reduction target that is not based on a formal evaluation of options such as process/equipment modifications or change of materials used to meet the stated target OR actions to meet the target have not been defined.)
- Report an estimated target if it is not supported by verifiable and accurate estimation methodology and data (e.g., engineering calculations).
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s targets, Verifiers must review:
- All supporting evidence (e.g., calculations, waste quantity data and baselines, new/proposed equipment specifications, etc) to verify target is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities.
- Facility operations in relation to its waste sources to ensure targets and opportunities evaluated are relevant to the site’s wastes.
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected where possible and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has established targets that cover greater than 90% (by total waste quantity) of all hazardous wastes generated at the facility.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports how the target was established for each waste stream and is based on a formal evaluation of reduction opportunities. This may include:
- Waste quantity tracking and production data.
- Documented evaluations of new/proposed equipment specifications, modifications to production processes or work practices that will result in waste reduction.
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the target.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the targets were determined including any calculations or assumptions made in the target setting methodology.
- Relevant staff are able to describe the facility’s proposed actions to achieve the target and how progress is monitored and tracked.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are appropriate in relation to the established targets (e.g., tracking of waste quantity if applicable, waste segregation, etc.)
Partial Points:
- Partial points will be awarded if the facility has established targets that cover 50% to 89% (by total waste quantity) of all hazardous wastes generated at the facility.
- Does your facility set formal targets to reduce hazardous waste generation?
-
Answer Yes if: If your Facility has set a formal target to improve the waste disposal methods used by your facility.
Answer Not Applicable if: Your facility disposes of all wastes using the preferred methods of waste disposal. These are: reuse, recycle (including upcycle) or downcycle.
Note: If your facility has not conducted a formal evaluation of waste disposal improvement opportunities to support your target, you should select No for this question.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a series of tables with the following questions to provide details on your waste disposal method targets:
- Have you set a target to switch from this waste disposal method?
- Which waste disposal method under Preferred or Less Preferred options your facility will switch to?
- What is your target for change (in %) in improving this disposal method? (Enter negative for reduction target ; Enter positive for increasing target)
- Enter the target year.
- Describe the measures planned to achieve this target:
- Provide any additional comments.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the target was established and demonstrates the target is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities (e.g., review of local waste disposal options, waste quantity data and baselines, etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established formal targets to improve the waste disposal method for wastes generated at the facility.
Technical Guidance:
Minimizing the environmental impact of waste can be achieved by using a disposal method results in less environmental impact. Examples of improvements to disposal methods can include:
- Increasing the quantity of waste sent to external recycling contractors and biological treatment (e.g., non-hazardous production waste recycling and food waste biological treatment) to divert waste from landfill or incineration without energy recovery.
- Switching to a disposal/treatment method that recovers usable aspects of the waste (e.g., using incineration with energy recovery as opposed to landfilling)
Note: Improving waste disposal methods will often require collaboration with waste treatment vendors to evaluate which preferred disposal methods are available.
When evaluating opportunities to improve waste disposal or treatment methods the list of Preferred and Less Preferred methods listed in the Introduction section of this guidance can be referenced to evaluate which options are likely to reduce environmental impacts.
When establishing formal improvement targets, be sure to do the following:
- Base the target on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities and actions (e.g., a review of the available disposal alternatives with waste treatment vendors) to calculate the amount and types of wastes that can be treated by the preferred method.
- For example: Setting a target based on an evaluation of sending all fabric and plastic packaging to a recycling vendor as opposed to sending it to landfill is expected to result in a 25% increase in waste sent for recycling. OR
- Setting a target to send metal sludge to recycling as opposed to landfill, resulting in a 10% increase in waste sent for recycling.
- Note: It should be confirmed that the vendor is able to recycle the materials and has applicable technology and operating permits to do so.
- Define the exact target quantity, expressed as a percent (e.g., Increase waste treated by incineration with energy recovery by 15%). This must be based on a formal evaluation as noted above.
- Define the start date (i.e., “baseline”) of the target.
- Define the end date of the target, meaning the intended completion date of the required improvements.
- Establish procedures to review the target. This review should include an evaluation of the actions taken and progress on reaching the defined target. Quarterly reviews are recommended.
- Ensure the target is relevant to improving the facility’s waste disposal methods (e.g., new disposal methods result in less environmental impact)
Reporting Targets in the Higg FEM:
Do:
- Review the target to ensure all aspects noted above are covered and that the information is accurate.
- Enter the targeted reduction as a percentage. Make sure to enter a negative percentage for a reduction target (e.g. -5 for a 5% decrease in disposal method), and a positive percentage for an increased target (e.g. 5 for a 5% increase in disposal method)
- Provide sufficient details on how the target will be met in the “Describe the measures planned to achieve this target:” field (e.g. Achieve a 10% increase in waste being recycled by sending fabric scrap to a verified fibre recycling vendor).
Do Not:
- Report a target that is not accurate (e.g., the data source is unknown or has not been verified)
- Report a target that is based on insufficient data. (e.g., a reduction target that is not based on a formal evaluation of options such as new waste treatment vendors OR actions to meet the target have not been defined.)
- Report an estimated target if it is not supported by verifiable and accurate estimation methodology and data (e.g., engineering calculations).
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s targets, Verifiers must review:
- All supporting evidence (e.g., calculations, waste quantity data and baselines, new/proposed waste treatment methods, etc) to verify the target is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities.
- Facility operations in relation to its waste disposal to ensure targets and opportunities evaluated are relevant to the site’s wastes.
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected where possible and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has established targets to improve one (1) or more of its waste disposal methods.
If the criteria for Not Applicable is met, meaning the facility disposes of all wastes using preferred disposal methods, full points will be awarded for this question.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports how the target was established for each waste disposal method and is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities. This may include:
- Waste quantity tracking and production data.
- Documented evaluations of new/proposed waste treatment methods (e.g. waste vendor capacity evaluations).
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the target.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the targets were determined including any calculations or assumptions made in the target setting methodology.
- Relevant staff are able to describe the facility’s proposed actions to achieve the target and how progress is monitored and tracked.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are appropriate in relation to the established targets (e.g., tracking of waste quantity if applicable, waste segregation, etc.)
Partial Points: N/A
-
- Waste mapping – understanding waste flows from different processes. Includes: textile waste, sludge, emissions, discharge, etc.
- Waste segregation – segregate waste materials so they are clean/controlled. For textile waste: separate into different material types, such as cotton / nylon / polyester / specific blend/ specific metal types/sludge or blends.
- Waste training – training specific team members to correctly segregate (textile or any other material) waste so it remains clean and retains value for recycling.
- Waste storing – store waste materials separately
- Waste labelling/bagging – label/bag separate waste materials
- Waste tracking & digitized reporting – to offer information/insights to waste solution providers and traceability.
- Waste matching to solution providers for recycling/upcycling/downcycling/service providers that can valorize the waste streams.
- Working with stakeholders, such as recyclers and product creators to create fully circular business models. Such as re-introducing (recycled) waste streams back into new products.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports your facility is performing the action selected (e.g., waste maps, processes for handling wastes onsite and training workers, waste tracking, evaluation or collaborative assessments with waste solution providers etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to indicate which practices are included in their waste management programs and processes.
Technical Guidance:
Adopting good practices, such as those listed in this question, for managing wastes will support your facility in accurately identifying and tracking waste streams to better understand waste generation as well as help with identifying opportunities to prevent or reduce wastes and evaluate preferred solutions for waste treatment or disposal.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has implemented all of the listed practices.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports the action(s) selected by the facility. This may include:
- Waste maps.
- Processes for handling wastes and storage and training workers.
- waste tracking records and digital/online platforms used to manage or find solutions for waste.
- Evaluation or collaborative assessments with waste solution providers to identify alternative waste solutions that reduce impacts to the environment.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the facility implements the selected actions.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are consistent with the facility’s selected actions.
Partial Points:
- Partial Points will be awarded if the facility has implemented one (1) or more of the listed practices.
-
Answer Yes if: Your facility has a current documented plan and are working on all defined actions in the plan to switch one of the Preferred or Less Preferred waste disposal methods listed in the Higg FEM.
Answer Partial Yes if: Your facility has a documented plan in place with defined actions and has started work on at least one (1), but not all of the listed actions in the plan.
Answer Not Applicable if: Your facility disposes of all wastes using the preferred methods of waste disposal.
Note: If your facility has not conducted a formal evaluation of waste disposal improvement opportunities to support your plan, you should select No for this question.
If you answer Yes or Partial Yes to this question, you will be asked to upload a copy of your plan.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how the plan was established and demonstrates the plan is based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities (e.g., review of local waste disposal options, waste quantity data and baselines, etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have established formal plans to improve the waste disposal method for wastes generated at the facility.
Technical Guidance
Creating an implementation plan includes the process of reviewing and evaluating available options to switch to a more preferred method of waste disposal. The key steps of creating an implementation plan should include the following:
- Identify available options for switching waste disposal methods through engaging with waste service providers or other parties that may be able to utilize waste generated at the facility (e.g., recyclers, other industry that could utilize waste materials)
- Evaluate available options to determine the most suitable options (e.g., feasibility studies, cost benefit analyses)
- Approve funds/budget for chosen options.
- Create a timeline and define the actions needed to switch the waste disposal method (e.g., additional segregation or onsite waste processes measures)
Resources:
A link to an implementation plan template that can be used is provided below:
- Implementation plan template: https://howtohigg.org/resources/resources-library/#templates
How This Will Be Verified:
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has an implementation and has started work on all the action items listed in the plan.
Documentation Required:
- An implementation plan that includes details of the specific actions the facility plans to take to switch to a preferred disposal method. This may include:
- Documentation of the calculated waste volume that will be switched to the preferred disposal method.
- Supporting documentation that confirms the waste will be disposed of or treated with a preferred treatment method (e.g., evaluation report or proposal/agreement with third party who will accept and treat or utilize the waste, if available).
- Implementation timelines (i.e., the planned start and completion dates for actions listed in the plan).
Note: If the facility has completed all actions in the plan prior to reporting year and does not have an implementation plan switching to a preferred waste disposal method in the reporting year and beyond, a No response should be selected (i.e., points are not awarded for historical plans that were implemented prior to the reporting year).
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for the implementation plan can explain the facility’s process for evaluating waste disposal opportunities and the facility’s implementation plan to switch to a preferred waste disposal method.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The actions listed in the implementation plans directly relate to the observed waste sources at the facility.
Partial Points:
- Partial Points will be awarded if the facility has an implementation plan that meets the above requirements and has started work on at least one (1), but not all of the listed actions in the plan.
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has reduced non-hazardous waste generation for one (1) or more of your non-hazardous waste streams compared with your baseline.
Note: Reductions in waste quantity generated due to reductions in production volume should not be considered reductions in waste generation as time as this will not result in sustainable improvements.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions to provide details on your non-hazardous waste reductions for each applicable waste stream:
- This is your reported baseline quantity.
- This is your reported unit of measure.
- This is your reported baseline year.
- Note: The above data will be auto-populated in the table based on your reported baseline data.
- Has your facility reduced waste generation for this stream compared with its baseline?
- What is your achievement for change (in %) in non-hazardous waste reduction from this stream compared to its baseline? (Enter negative for reduction %)
- Describe the strategies used to achieve this improvement.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports a reduction in waste generation was achieved and that the reduction was related to specific actions taken by the facility to reduce waste (e.g., waste quantity data and baselines, evidence of process modifications, new equipment or work practices that resulted in waste reduction).
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have reduced the quantity of non-hazardous waste generated.
Technical Guidance:
Waste reductions can be absolute or normalized. However, it is recommended that you show normalized reductions (e.g., kg of waste per product was reduced by 50%). This is because normalized metrics data often provides a better indication of actual reductions whereas absolute improvements can be impacted by factors beyond the facility’s control such as reductions related to business changes or reduced production.
When evaluating your waste reductions, be sure to do the following:
- Review the waste data to ensure the data and any automated calculations are accurate.
- Review the actions taken to make improvements and determine if they have resulted in measurable improvements by comparing the data with historical waste data to determine the improvement quantity. Note: Historical data accuracy should also be verified.
- For example: The installation of 5 laser cutting machines produced a reduction of 0.02kg of fabric waste per unit made, which is an 8% reduction from the baseline waste data, OR
- The installation of a CAD system that reduced the metal waste by 5% compared to the baseline data.
Reporting Improvements in the Higg FEM:
Do:
- Review the improvement data to ensure all aspects noted above are covered and that the information is accurate.
- Input the percent (%) change in the waste quantity from the baseline year. (e.g., -5 for a 5% reduction)
- Provide sufficient details in the “Describe the strategies used to achieve this improvement:” field (e.g., Normalized waste generation was reduced by switching to reusable packaging containers for raw materials).
Do Not:
- Report improvements that are not accurate (e.g., the data source is unknown or has not been verified)
- Report an improvement that is absolute and relates to a decrease in production or reduced facility operations. This is why data normalization is important.
- Report an improvement that is based on insufficient data. (e.g., an overall reduction was achieved but this was not related to measurable or defined actions taken to achieve the reduction). This is particularly important when the improvements are marginal (e.g., less than 1-2%) and possibly attributable to measurement/ tracking errors and/or operational variability.
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s improvements, Verifiers must review:
- All supporting evidence (e.g., waste quantity data and baselines, etc.) to verify the reported improvement quantity is accurate and attributable to measurable actions taken to reduce waste.
- The implemented changes or actions taken to achieve the improvements.
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected where possible and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has achieved reductions from the baseline quantity and achieved year over year reductions for all waste streams.
Note: Points are automatically calculated in the Higg FEM and awarded for a reduction of any amount (i.e., scoring is not based on the amount of the reduction achieved).
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that demonstrates reductions were achieved for each applicable waste stream and result from specific actions taken by the facility to reduce waste. This may include:
- Waste tracking reports and quantity records showing reductions of waste generated.
- Documented evidence of facility actions to reduce waste (e.g., evidence of process modifications, new equipment or work practices that resulted in waste reduction).
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the reduction.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how reductions were achieved including any calculations or assumptions made determining the reductions.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- Onsite observations that indicate the facility has implemented the noted actions to reduce waste (e.g., process modifications, new equipment or work practices).
Partial Points: N/A
-
Answer Yes if: Your Facility has reduced hazardous waste generation for one (1) or more of your hazardous waste streams compared with your baseline.
Note: Reductions in waste quantity generated due to reductions in production volume should not be considered reductions in waste generation as time as this will not result in sustainable improvements.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions to provide details on your hazardous waste reductions for each applicable waste stream:
- This is your reported baseline quantity.
- This is your reported unit of measure.
- This is your reported baseline year.
- Note: The above data will be auto-populated in the table based on your reported baseline data.
- Has your facility reduced waste generation for this stream compared with its baseline?
- What is your achievement for change (in %) in hazardous waste reduction from this stream compared to its baseline? (Enter negative for reduction %)
- Describe the strategies used to achieve this improvement.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports a reduction in waste generation was achieved and that the reduction was related to specific actions taken by the facility to reduce waste (e.g., waste quantity data and baselines, evidence of process modifications, new equipment or work practices that resulted in waste reduction).
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have reduced the quantity of hazardous waste generated.
Technical Guidance:
Waste reductions can be absolute or normalized. However, it is recommended that you show normalized reductions (e.g., kg of waste per product was reduced by 50%). This is because normalized metrics data often provides a better indication of actual reductions whereas absolute improvements can be impacted by factors beyond the facility’s control such as reductions related to business changes or reduced production.
When evaluating your waste reductions, be sure to do the following:
- Review the waste data to ensure the data and any automated calculations are accurate.
- Review the actions taken to make improvements and determine if they have resulted in measurable improvements by comparing the data with historical waste data to determine the improvement quantity. Note: Historical data accuracy should also be verified.
- For example: The installation of automated printing machines reduced chemical waste by 15% per unit of production from the baseline waste data.
Reporting Improvements in the Higg FEM:
Do:
- Review the improvement data to ensure all aspects noted above are covered and that the information is accurate.
- Input the percent (%) change in the waste quantity from the baseline year. (e.g., -5 for a 5% reduction)
- Provide sufficient details in the “Describe the strategies used to achieve this improvement:” field (e.g., Normalized waste generation was reduced by switching to laser finishing for denim from potassium permanganate spraying).
Do Not:
- Report improvements that are not accurate (e.g., the data source is unknown or has not been verified)
- Report an improvement that is absolute and relates to a decrease in production or reduced facility operations. This is why data normalization is important.
- Report an improvement that is based on insufficient data. (e.g., an overall reduction was achieved but this was not related to measurable or defined actions taken to achieve the reduction). This is particularly important when the improvements are marginal (e.g., less than 1-2%) and possibly attributable to measurement/ tracking errors and/or operational variability.
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s improvements, Verifiers must review:
- All supporting evidence (e.g., waste quantity data and baselines, etc.) to verify the reported improvement quantity is accurate and attributable to measurable actions taken to reduce waste.
- The implemented changes or actions taken to achieve the improvements.
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected where possible and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has achieved reductions from the baseline quantity and achieved year over year reductions for all waste streams.
Note: Points are automatically calculated in the Higg FEM and awarded for a reduction of any amount (i.e., scoring is not based on the amount of the reduction achieved).
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that demonstrates reductions were achieved for each applicable waste stream and result from specific actions taken by the facility to reduce waste. This may include:
- Waste tracking reports and quantity records showing reductions of waste generated.
- Documented evidence of facility actions to reduce waste (e.g., evidence of process modifications, new equipment or work practices that resulted in waste reduction).
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the reduction.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how reductions were achieved including any calculations or assumptions made determining the reductions.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- Onsite observations that indicate the facility has implemented the noted actions to reduce waste (e.g., process modifications, new equipment or work practices).
Partial Points: N/A
-
Answer Yes if: If your Facility has improved one (1) or more of the waste disposal methods used by your facility compared with your baseline.
Notes:
- Improvements are defined as:
- For Preferred Options – An increase in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline
- For Less Preferred Options – An increase in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline if the original waste type was disposed of previously with a least preferred option or a reduction in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline if the original waste type was disposed of previously as a less preferred option.
- For Least Preferred options – A reduction amount/percentage compared to the baseline
- Improvements in waste disposal methods due to reductions in production volume should not be considered reductions in waste generation as time as this will not result in sustainable improvements.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked to complete a table with the following questions to provide details on your waste disposal methods improvement for each applicable disposal method:
- This is your reported baseline quantity.
- This is your reported unit of measure.
- This is your reported baseline year.
- Note: The above data will be auto-populated in the table based on your reported baseline data.
- Has your facility improved (increased or reduced) this waste disposal method compared with its baseline?
- What is your achievement for change (in %) in improving this waste disposal method compared to its baseline? (Enter negative for reduction %; Enter positive for increased %)
- Describe the strategies used to achieve this improvement.
Suggested Uploads:
- Documentation that supports how improvements were achieved (e.g., waste quantity data and baselines for waste disposal methods, agreement with third party who will accept and treat or utilize the waste, etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent of this question is for facilities to demonstrate that they have improved the waste disposal method for wastes generated at the facility.
Technical Guidance:
Improvements in waste disposal methods can be demonstrated by diverting wastes to a preferred disposal/treatment method that results in less impacts to the environment. Examples of improvements in disposal methods can include:
- Increasing the quantity of waste sent to external recycling contractors and biological treatment (e.g., non-hazardous production waste recycling and food waste biological treatment) to divert waste from landfill or incineration without energy recovery.
- Switching to a disposal/treatment method that recovers usable aspects of the waste (e.g., using incineration with energy recovery as opposed to landfilling)
Waste Disposal Improvements in the Higg FEM:
The Higg FEM defines waste disposal improvements as the following based on the Preferred, Less Preferred, and Least Preferred methods listed in the Higg FEM:
- For Preferred Options – An increase in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline.
- For Less Preferred Options – An increase in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline if the original waste was disposed previously with a least preferred method or a reduction in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline if the original waste type was disposed of previously as a less preferred option.
- For Least Preferred options – A reduction in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline.
When evaluating your waste disposal improvements, be sure to do the following:
- Review the waste data to ensure the data and any automated calculations are accurate.
- Review the actions taken to make improvements and determine if they have resulted in measurable improvements by comparing the data with historical waste data to determine the improvement quantity. Note: Historical data accuracy should also be verified.
- For example: By sourcing a new material recycling vendor using advanced technology, the facility was able to increase the amount of total waste recycled by 25%.
Reporting Improvements in the Higg FEM:
Do:
- Review the improvement data to ensure all aspects noted above are covered and that the information is accurate.
- Input the percent (%) change in the total waste quantity for the respective disposal method from the baseline year. (e.g., -5 for a 5% reduction or 5 for a 5% increase)
- Provide sufficient details in the “Describe the strategies used to achieve this improvement:” field (e.g., Both fabric and leather waste are now being sent to material recyclers instead of landfill).
Do Not:
- Report improvements that are not accurate (e.g., the data source is unknown or has not been verified)
- Report an improvement that is absolute and relates to a decrease in production or reduced facility operations. This is why data normalization is important.
- Report an improvement that is based on insufficient data. (e.g., an overall reduction was achieved but this was not related to measurable or defined actions taken to achieve the reduction). This is particularly important when the improvements are marginal (e.g., less than 1-2%) and possibly attributable to measurement/ tracking errors and/or operational variability.
How This Will Be Verified:
When verifying a facility’s improvements, Verifiers must review:
- All supporting evidence (e.g., waste quantity data and baselines, etc.) to verify the reported improvement quantity is accurate and attributable to measurable improvements in waste disposal methods.
- The implemented changes or actions taken to achieve the improvements.
If any inconsistencies or errors are noted, the reported information must be corrected where possible and detailed comments should be included in the Verification Data field.
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has improved the amount/percentage of waste disposed of using a Preferred or Less Preferred Option.
Notes:
- Improvements are defined as:
- For Preferred Options – An increase in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline
- For Less Preferred Options – An increase in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline if the original waste type was disposed of previously with a least preferred option or a reduction in the amount/percentage compared to the baseline if the original waste type was disposed of previously as a less preferred option.
- For Least Preferred options – A reduction amount/percentage compared to the baseline.
- No points will be awarded if there is a reported increase in any Least Preferred option.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that supports the improvement for each waste disposal method and that they are based on a formal evaluation of improvement opportunities. This may include:
- Waste quantity data and baselines tracking for waste disposal methods.,
- Agreement with the third party who will accept and treat or utilize the waste using a more preferred method.
- Supporting calculations methodologies or assumptions used to determine the improvement.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how improvements were achieved including any calculations or assumptions made determining the improvements.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- The observed waste management practices on-site are appropriate in relation to the reported improvements (e.g., tracking of waste quantity, waste segregation, etc.)
Partial Points: N/A
- Improvements are defined as:
-
Answer Yes if: Your facility works with your waste contractors to validate the final disposal and how all hazardous wastes are treated. This means a formal evaluation or assessment has been conducted within the last three (3) years to validate the disposal and treatment of all hazardous wastes.
Answer Partial Yes if: Your Facility has established formal plans and procedures to work with your facility’s waste contractors to validate the final disposal and how all hazardous wastes are treated. However:
- No formal evaluations or assessments have been conducted; or
- Validations are greater than 3-year-old or do not cover all hazardous wastes disposed of by the facility.
If you answer Yes to this question, you will be asked the following sub questions:
- Upload a supporting documentation.
- Describe how you work with your facility’s waste contractors to ensure appropriate disposal during the waste treatment.
Suggested Uploads
- Documentation that demonstrates how the facility validates waste disposal and treatment with its waste contractors (e.g., documented procedures for validation reviews and assessments, completed validation assessment reports of waste contractors, etc.)
What is the intent of the question?
The intent is to ensure facilities are validating the final disposal and treatment of all hazardous waste.
Technical Guidance:
Hazardous waste poses serious risks to the environment when improperly treated and disposed of. Facilities should take steps to confirm that their waste contractors are properly transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes from the facility.
Facilities should evaluate their waste contractor(s) during the contractor selection process and conduct regular assessments to ensure that contractors have obtained and are maintaining all required permits and legal authorizations, and that they are operating within legal compliance and with the terms of any contracts or agreements relating to waste disposal and treatment. Ongoing assessments should be conducted at least once every 3 years.
When evaluating waste management contractors, facilities should review and evaluate:
- Waste contractor qualifications (e.g., business license, environment permits, reports) of the contractor.
- Waste contractor due diligence and legal environment performance (e.g., historic violations)
- Overall environmental performance
After approving and working with contractors, facilities should conduct regular assessments of waste contractor facilities and work practices to review and evaluate if:
- The contractor continues to operate in compliance with all permits and legal obligations.
- The transportation of wastes is traceable and secure (e.g., proper waste manifesting and appropriate vehicles).
- The contractor utilizes good work practices for the handling and storage of wastes at its facilities including:
- Proper segregation of waste.
- Proper labelling of waste and transportation vessels.
- Storage on impermeable surfaces.
- Proper security and fire/flood protection.
- No illegal dumping or burning.
- Human health and safety practices, such as providing personal protective equipment, training, and machine safety.
- Where possible, contractors use optimized waste disposal methods (such as recycling hazardous waste or incinerate hazardous waste with energy recovery) that reduce impacts to the environment.
How This Will Be Verified:
Full Points:
Full Points will be awarded if the facility has validated the treatment and final disposal of all hazardous wastes within the last 3 years.
Documentation Required:
- Documentation that demonstrates how the facility validates waste disposal and treatment with its waste contractors. This should include:
- Procedures to work with your facility’s waste contractors to validate the final disposal and how all hazardous wastes are treated.
- Records of validation reviews or assessments of contractors responsible for final disposal or treatment of all hazardous wastes.
- Notes: Records must show that the validations occurred within the past 3 years.
Interview Questions to Ask:
- Staff responsible for waste management are able to describe how the facility screens waste contractors and conducts regular reviews of contractors to validate treatment and final disposal of all hazardous wastes.
Inspection – Things to Physically Look For:
- Evidence that shows the facility has validated their waste contractor’s waste treatment facilities in the past 3 years.
Partial Points:
- Partial Points will be awarded if the facility has established formal plans and procedures to work with your facility’s waste contractors to validate the final disposal and how all hazardous wastes are treated. However:
- No formal evaluations or assessments have been conducted; or
- Validations are greater than 3-year-old or do not cover all hazardous wastes disposed of by the facility.