3Rd NATIONAL PRODUCT STEWARSHIP FORUM FULL COMPILATION of EVALUATIONS

3rd NATIONAL PRODUCT STEWARSHIP FORUM SAN FRANCISCO, CA – May 30-31, 2007 FORUM EVALUATION COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY

Evaluation Forms collected: 39 (about 1/3 of attendees)

Scale: (5 - Excellent 4 - Good 3 - Average 2 - Fair 1 - Poor)

Overall Quality of Forum: 4.76  Great!  Great work – very informative  Very informative  Keep up the good work!  Best conference I’ve ever been to  Excellent – great dialogue/much food for thought  Very educational, useful and inspiring  Great balance  Great variety of subjects and perspectives. I really appreciate the attention given to staying on time. Food was very good, too.  Excellent agenda. So many diverse perspectives led to tremendous ideas. 1st day was very interesting. 2nd day sessions very powerful.  Well done overall – never seen a workshop with this quality of participant information and topics  Excellent improvement on opportunity for participation in discussions. Best part of forum  First day jam packed with useful information. Second day very useful discussions  It was great! Wonderful way to learn what’s going on and meet the players  Great choices for speakers – especially the FLOR model. Great to see working models  Covered a lot of topics in a short time; generally good job tying everything together although it does seem to lack some consensus because of the lack of federal leadership  Main problem was too short. Also more participants from industry?  I really liked the conference, but don’t rate 5 because there is always room for improvement

Quality of Plenary Sessions: 4.62  Excellent  Excellent new information, e.g. spiritual dimensions of product stewardship.  Very interesting topics and good speakers—very exciting.  Diverse topics (surprising!)  Nice variety, good range of speakers  Thanks for not doing multiple sessions!  Fantastic! Learned a ton.  Educational and interactive – interesting and informative  The quality varied but overall it was very good.  The plenary sessions offered the opportunity to have the input and exchange from all participants—a real plus! Promotes great synergy.  What there was is good, but room for more, and getting into details more of schemes and business drivers  The plenary sessions were very good and the speakers very impressive and knowledgeable. The keynote speaker was a great addition and he was quite informed and shared a unique perspective I don’t usually get to hear – great choice.  Decent inclusion of industry but would like to see more – lots was discussed of collaboration but room was mostly government so more diversity on panel/attendance needed

Quality of Facilitated Panels: 4.67  Great group of people, brilliant minds  Overall, excellent. Food for thought.  Design for interaction worked well.  Right group of people  Chaotic but productive – “in chaos there is opportunity.”  Wonderful to hear the intelligence and insight of the various participants  Both panels made good progress.  I really enjoyed and benefited from the facilitated panels – hearing different ideas and voices and having the opportunity to meet new participants  Time keeping very important. Scott, I know you worked with state speakers to clearly summarize their programs. The presentations were clear, concise, exciting.  Though challenging, very valuable to learn from peers, hear many points of view  Was not thrilled with the format. Needed more direction. Tough to do in time frame. Would be good to group folks by interest.  More review of what each table said, but pretty well done anyway  Found panel did build some consensus w/plan for future but brain dump seemed very scattered

Favorite Plenary Session or Facilitated Panel

International Product Stewardship Programs – Corporate Responsibility Perspective 11  This was brilliant pairing! Worth the price of admission  I really liked hearing the international perspective. I don’t have access to those people Facilitated Panel Forum on Pharmaceuticals 8  I really appreciated the interactive treatment of the issue Great panelists! Motivation for Taking Action 6  (Specifically “Religious Considerations”: 3).

3rd National Product Stewardship Forum 2 Evaluation Comprehensive Summary – June 7, 2007 Chemical Policy and Product Stewardship 5 Facilitated Panel Forum on Product Stewardship Policy 4 Project Updates 4 Keynote Speaker 3  Keynote speaker was wonderful! State/Regional Product Stewardship Councils 2

Other Comments:  All of the 2nd day seminars were terrific  All were really good – too hard to pick one  Facilitated Panels  They were all great

Least Favorite Plenary Session or Facilitated Panel

Facilitated Panel on Product Stewardship Policy 4  May have gone a little a field. (Tough to get folks to think big but stay on point, too.) Motivation for Taking Action 4 (Specifically religious aspect: 1)  But there is need for more empowering of consumers, groups smaller than state gov’t International Product Stewardship Programs – Corporate Responsibility Perspective 2 Chemical Policy and Product Stewardship 2 Facilitated Panel Forum on Pharmaceuticals 1 Keynote Speaker 1  The keynote, but only because I’ve heard the story and it was the only one dimensional session

Other Comments:  All interesting  All were very useful!  N/A. All were good and worthwhile  They were all very good  They were all great

Length of Forum: 4.53

Accommodations: 4.72  I stayed at a youth hostel, and accommodations were comfortable and probably with minimal impact  5 – not green though!  Great, except no recycling!

Meals and Refreshments Provided: 4.49  Would have liked dessert at lunch – I need sugar!  Phase out disposables

3rd National Product Stewardship Forum 3 Evaluation Comprehensive Summary – June 7, 2007  Would have liked gluten-free vegetarian.  Yogurt for breakfast appreciated!  Tasty and good awareness of vegetarian desires  Soft drinks during breaks  $8.75 for a glass of wine – yikes!

Other products or issues to be addressed in 2008 Forum:  Progress on initiatives adopted this year  Bring in some activist attempts at product redesign like Cosmetics Campaign  More on pharmaceutical issue  Continued interest in Pharmaceuticals  More on local action or leadership opportunities for local level  Student involvement, possibilities/partnerships with higher education, more on connection to Climate Change  Interaction of product stewardship with other tools/environmental issues, climate change, RoHS and landfill bans, government procurement, manufacturing and use laws, competition laws, etc.  More on collaboration  Public education of EPR; need consumer buy-in  Principles for Organizing the Development and Delivery of EPR programs  Consistent message. How to get product stewardship and precautionary principles included in business’s Research and Development policies.  Toxics reduction/source reduction  Sharps  Framework legislation like British Columbia’s Recycling Regulation that provides guidelines but isn’t prescriptive and includes DfE elements.  Bring in partnering organizations—breast cancer fund, AARP – to discuss how it works  Move this to the next level by bringing in people who can talk about DfE!  Packaging reduction/take-back  Personal care products, role of social marketing and education  Bottle bills, deposit systems. Plastics in general  Plastics/bioplastics in Hawaii  Get a speaker from State of National Legislators on the best approach to educate high level elected officials; How to best influence this policy to higher levels

Additional Comments/Suggestions: Forum location  Come back to SF!  Boston next year would be great  Next location – I probably can’t travel out of state (CA), but think another region of the country (Midwest?) a good idea.  I suggest a West Coast Forum on a regular basis; you may not get the same municipal representation at a forum so far away (Boston). Monterey, CA? Forum frequency

3rd National Product Stewardship Forum 4 Evaluation Comprehensive Summary – June 7, 2007  Frequency of national forum: annual, please.  Do this every year. Thanks!  Forum each year  Another conference next year  Annual forums – developments have accelerated since last year and will likely continue to accelerate. We need to catch up, step away from the fray for a time, and get recharged.  Recommend and support annual Forums. Boston would be a great next location – or Texas to motivate them to join!  I would suggest every other year. PSI should stay focused on producer responsibility and not try to do everything.  I would advocate for conference every 2 years. Forum structure  More facilitated panels  Some sessions too long.  I liked the sessions that had us move around and interact – helped us stay awake, keep thinking, and build personal relationships.  More breaks between sessions! Have some roundtable discussions. Next year—Hawaii  Mix-up plenary and participatory sessions – too much sitting on first day. A board or some strategy for participants to ID areas they’d like help in or models or people they’d like to meet. Good addition to have facilitated/working sessions.  Overall great! Need more time built in for networking. I think this should be at least a 3- day conference. Need more breaks. Might be good to break folks up at some meals by interest area to facilitate networking. I support the idea of more public consumer education resources. Changes happening so fast that I think annual conferences are key.  Connect with other complimentary organizations. This was so awesome! Thank you so much. I got such a shot in the arm; I was so grateful that Victoria came, that Bill Sheehan and all other leaders were here. Great Frisbee guy. Way to go on all fronts!  It would be great if PSI could get on the agenda of the National Association of Counties or National Assoc. of Mayors (or some association of higher-up officials) to present the basics of product stewardship. This would do a lot to help the local governments and local PS councils.  Important to develop shared principles that each organization can reinforce as they do their individual projects.  Even an additional day or ½ day would be a good idea…the sessions could have been a little longer. Would have liked to have heard much more from Hans and Neil.  My first forum – excellent job! Would really like transcripts and/or PowerPoints from as many of the speakers as possible (even 20 pages of notes wasn’t enough to capture all of the facts, figures, and points made!) Other  Great stuff!  Nice job!  I thought Scott was a terrific facilitator. You and your staff did an outstanding job organizing and facilitating this forum.

3rd National Product Stewardship Forum 5 Evaluation Comprehensive Summary – June 7, 2007  Excellent speakers and presentations overall – very well orchestrated – and everything kept on time.  Also maybe a heads-up of emerging product issues – maybe no schemes anywhere but public or scientific concern.  Further integration of this who’s who; smaller discussions on the 2nd day was a great way to hear different experiences and viewpoints. Thank you!  Keep focus on implementing programs and achieving early successes and leave reforming the consumer society to others or later date  Enlist celebrity endorsements? Of the welcome speakers, only Jared Blumenfeld seemed to be speaking on the same level as this crowd.  Does the Hyatt recycle? Were the notepads provided by the Hyatt “green”? Glad to see that most attendees used their own pen and paper. Hope to see a “green” event practicing being “green”! Glad that you printed double-sided

3rd National Product Stewardship Forum 6 Evaluation Comprehensive Summary – June 7, 2007