By Matthew Spieler
Hicksville, N.Y.—If the past 18 months were not already difficult enough for the industry, those in the carpet category feel like they got a few extra slaps to the head as 2007 ended when it comes to how carpet is perceived concerning indoor air quality (IAQ).

From the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) rewarding builders extra credit if they only use hard surface flooring materials to a major health insurance company advising members to “replace carpeting (if possible) with wood or tile…” And stories in respected magazines stating consumer concerns over IAQ issues that “have pushed [them] in the direction of all natural fibers…” to certain hard surface floors “considered a natural product,” carpet executives are trying to figure what happened, why and how to reverse this misconception based on the myriad of scientific evidence saying otherwise.

“This has been an issue since the early 1990s with Rosalind Anderson,” said Steve Bradfield, director of environmental affairs for Shaw Industries. “The industry did a good job attacking it, but it never went away.” The problem for mills he added, is knowing “how keen is the perception by consumers. The jury is still out.”

Muddying the waters is the contract sector, where carpet is spoken of highly in environmental circles, including USGBC’s commercial LEED systems, “There’s not a misconception in the contract market,” noted, Catherine Minervini, vice president of marketing at Bentley Prince Street. “But for some reason this understanding has not transferred to the residential side.”

What makes Minervini’s observation along with the recent spurt of negative publicity more confusing is the category as a whole—from individual companies to a concerted effort through the Carpet & Rug Institute (CRI)—has been educating the public and private sectors—including the Environmental Protection Agency , local governmental officials, medical professionals and so on—on the myriad of third-party scientific studies that show carpet is not a health detriment.

“We’ve been trying to be proactive,” said Bill Gregory, Milliken Floor Covering’s director of sustainable strategies. “But are we doing enough? There are many studies on carpet and IAQ, and we as an industry can unequivocally say carpet is not a trigger for allergies and asthma. And, when it comes to volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) there are more in a new car than a new house, yet in cars the smell is romanticized as special.”

He added that about three years ago, the industry reached out to all registered doctors in allergy/asthma and “it felt like we were turning the tide but there is obviously still a lot of work to be done.”

Despite these efforts, Gerard O’Keefe, vice president of broadloom for Nourison, feels “the boat’s been missed.” He admits it’s a “tough decision” for mills on where to invest marketing dollars, especially when it comes to whether to spend it collectively via an industry-wide effort.

Since the company began offering more mid-range carpets, “we are emphasizing the health/green aspects more than we’ve done at the upper level. We need to be more educational. As a mill in China, we need to be even more proactive. We now have over 20 collections certified with CRI’s Green Label Plus. It’s not only a way to differentiate, but it helps us tell the story that our carpets are not harmful to the home or the environment.”

Bob Peoples, executive director of the Carpet America Recovery Effort ( CARE) and part of CRI, agreed with both sides, noting “The carpet industry has been aggressive about countering negative information. However, it has tended to be reactionary. We are looking at this from a new perspective in 2008, and there may be some new programs.”

He added the industry has “a great database of information and we need to find a way to share it. How we do it is the question.”

Ralph Boe, president, and Jeff Meadows, executive vice president of Beaulieu of America Residential, feel the time has come for the carpet segment to band together. “We would be very interested in a press campaign united with other carpet manufacturers to negate [these stories] and submit a positive and accurate portrayal of carpet and its true benefits.”

They added, “A strong press campaign featuring articles and images embracing carpet along the lines of ‘Breathe Again, Don’t You Just Love Carpet’ would awaken industry and consumer interest and set the record straight. Carpet benefits are numerous: noise reduction, energy efficient, cost, comfort and safety—a big issue for our baby boomer nation.”

In this age of environmentalism, Minervini said it is important for everyone to be on the same page. “Maybe we should put our efforts into promoting carpet’s health benefits.”

Shaw’s Bradfield, added, “CRI has done a good job but I think the industry needs to get out in front of this issue. CRI committees have been working on it the but the LEED thing jumped in the face of the industry. We may need to take a harder look at the whole issue because we certainly don’t want carpet to have a negative stigma attached to it.”

Lack of LEED time

While the recent spat of negative stories has caused the category to rethink its position, it is the ordeal surrounding LEED for Homes that has executives perplexed and upset.

Despite claims by USGBC it followed protocol and notified those involved with the organization of the various stages of the residential rating system, everyone spoken to by FCNews claims to never have received anything (see related story on page 35).

Interestingly, a number of people questioned whether it was intentional saying “this is not the first time something like this has happened.”

The reason? “Carpet is an easy target,” they say. There is so much information available it is easy to twist and manipulate things, as well as bring up old, misguided information.

Bradfield added “There are still Web sites saying carpet has such things as formaldehyde in it. Part of the problem is the green movement is coming on strong and people perceive wood and other hard surfaces as being better. They don’t really seem to have a reason other than remembering something from years ago about emissions and carpet and therefore feel it’s bad.”

Whatever strategy is chosen, Peoples said one thing is for sure: “The industry has been and will continue to be a leader from an environmental perspective—the commitment has been there since the original Green Label program in 1991.”

He added the new Green Label Plus program “is much more rigorous” than California’s 01350—the standard by which all others are measured against. “Carpet is the only industry to push the envelop in all aspects of product stewardship in an integrated fashion.”

No other industry has voluntarily initiated a take back program, Peoples concluded. “The closet thing is electronics, and that has been driven by such things as regulatory demands. It’s still amazing to me the degree of cooperation of our industry by ferocious competitors when it comes to doing what is right by the environment and our communities.”