McDonough agonistes, redux

Dutch call on green guru to open up cradle-to-cradle certification 5

A while back I noted Fast Company‘s big expose on green guru William McDonough. Despite the hype and promise around McDonough’s intellectual work, it hasn’t done much to change the business world, for reasons having to do with what his critics characterize as ineptitude and vanity. Specifically, his cradle-to-cradle certification process has remained jealously guarded, run only through his firm, woefully behind on assessing products and responding to requests.

Now author Danielle Sacks has a short follow-up, about a Dutch attorney and several Dutch gov’t organizations pleading with McDonough to open up the C2C process, if not completely open source then at least to public-private partnerships.

It’s odd. The notion of keeping this stuff jealously guarded, proprietary, and for-profit seems so counter to the spirit of McDonough’s work. I can’t make sense of it.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. J. Walsh Posted 3:15 am
    02 Mar 2009

    C2Cignoring for a second the merits, both pro and con, of making C2C open source, are we to really take anything hatchet-woman Danielle Sacks writes about with a straight face?  she so clearly was acting like a jilted girlfriend in the last piece that it was beyond hard to take some of the valid and legitimate critiques of the man and his work seriously because they were buried beneath all her ad hominem issues.
  2. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 3:40 am
    02 Mar 2009

    Giving it awayCertainly McDonough should give it away --- after all, coal companies are turning away from coal and utilities are shunning coal because of the environmental consequences . . .  
    Why should environmental consultants be paid for their ideas when polluters are so willing to reduce their income?

    The 5% Project



    Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
  3. danielle sacks Posted 8:15 am
    02 Mar 2009

    response to optimatornow that's one interesting point you make, optimator, reducing rigorous journalism to some sexist rant. i prefer to deal with the facts, while you clearly are still dealing with some sort of emotional issue. i also find it telling that you comment anonymously. i imagine it's much easier to hide behind a cloak and criticize others. but then again, i stand by my reporting with my byline. i guess according to your line of thinking anyone who holds mcdonough accountable to his claims is also a jilted lover?
  4. anotherID Posted 5:47 am
    03 Mar 2009

    That is going to leave a markDanielle:
    Nice work on the article.  Someone has to check hubris.
    Take it easy on optimator he isn't very bright, but you knew that already.
  5. J. Walsh Posted 1:00 pm
    30 Apr 2009

    body {margin:8px} .tr-field {font:normal x-small arial}Danielle   project much?   wow.  just wow. I suppose you are like many journalists, great at
    lobbing grenades, twisting words, selectively publishing quotes,, bad at having
    the tables turned and the spotlight pointed the other way.  revealing no?   to
    revist that Fast Company piece, er brilliant journalism, there was so clearly an
    ax to grind there, and it labored so heavily on the ad hominems, and painting Bill
    McDonough as a buffoon that it is easy to dismiss away what could and should be
    a legitimate, and now twice stated as totally acceptable for the slow readers, take on McDonough's
    words and deeds and impact that are indeed worthy of much discussion and yes,
    much criticism.  and intersting that you call me a sexist, and know nothing of
    my gender.  working with whatever your wrong assumptions are, those are pretty
    retrtograde gender politics on your part, no?   and anotherID   shall we revisit some pithy comments from you?
      "Lawyers and neo-classical economists at the bottom of the sea would be a
    great start."   and   "All elected officials practice social engineering."   and   "Hubris is eventually punished even in today's society."   as worthy discourse?  really?  that's it?    pretty sure you dont know much about much, so
    zip it.  'k?
      Johnny Walsh (and guess what, Johnny's a girl's name here -
    whoops) 

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement