Framework Design Conversation — Verbatim Archive

Let me research comparable industry standards and the luxury spa/hotel certification landscape to ground this properly.

Search: Michelin star criteria — how established credibility in luxury hospitality awards

Search: Green certification for hotels & spas — LEED, BREEAM, wellness certification credibility

Search: UHNW wellness tourism demands & real health escalations

Excellent — the Star framework is interesting and will evolve over the next few months prior to pilot. What I'm conscious of is the money and revenue gained from the mainstream toxic cosmetic and conventional spa methods. Hotel infrastructure and superficial in-room, house and establishment changes are easy to implement — the costs associated to dining experiences are often met by third party culinary businesses and this may be a stumbling block for the property/brand as a whole. I guess that's their problem to have… we need a fair score with 'intention' of the business when it comes to cosmetics and spa treatments — the education of the masses will take time and non switched-on people will take time to accept that their hyper mainstream and expensive cosmetic is doing them harm… we need to think about the proportion of non-toxic product versus acceptable…

This is the single most important design decision in the whole framework, and you're right to flag it now. A standard that ignores commercial reality gets ignored by commercial reality; a standard that bends too far becomes a pay-to-play badge nobody respects. Here's how I'd resolve each tension you've raised.

The core shift: score three things, not one

Right now the framework implicitly scores current state — what % is toxin-free today. That's too blunt for an industry mid transition. Instead, score three independent dimensions and combine them:

1. •Current state — the actual proportion of toxin-free vs. acceptable vs. mainstream today
2. •Intention — documented procurement policy, staff training, public commitment, contract renegotiation timeline
3. •Trajectory — measurable improvement between annual audits

This is exactly how LEED and BREEAM survive in a real-estate industry that also profits from conventional materials: they reward "innovation credits" and "improvement over baseline," not just absolute perfection. Michelin does the same implicitly — a restaurant on a clear upward trajectory gets watched, not dismissed.

The proportion model — three tiers, not two

The binary "toxic / non-toxic" split is the problem. Replace it with three tiers so you can reward the middle — the businesses genuinely moving, not just the ones already at the finish line:

Then map stars to ratios of A : B : C, not just an absolute percentage:

The 1-star tier is deliberately accessible: 40% toxin-free + a documented plan gets you in. This is your on-ramp. It lets a five-star hotel that's been using the same designer amenity brand for 20 years enter the standard without ripping up its commercial model overnight — and it gives you a relationship to build on.

The "intention multiplier" — how to reward commitment fairly

A property scoring lower in absolute terms but demonstrating genuine commitment should not be locked out. I'd add an intention credit (capped, so it can't inflate a weak property to a high star):

• •Procurement policy formally updated to toxin-free-first → credit
• •Staff training programme delivered and documented → credit
• •Public disclosure of current toxin audit on the hotel website → credit (transparency is the single strongest credibility signal, per the Michelin model)
• •Third-party dining contract renegotiation in progress with documented timeline → credit
• •Annual re-audit completed with measurable improvement → trajectory credit

Cap the intention credits so they can lift a property by one star maximum. A 2-star property with extraordinary commitment can earn provisional 3-star status; it can never jump from 2 to 5 on intention alone. That protects the integrity of the top tiers while still rewarding the businesses you most want to keep engaged.

The outsourced-dining problem

You're right that this is often the hardest domain because the hotel brand frequently doesn't control the kitchen. Two mechanisms handle it cleanly:

1. Scope certification (phased)

Allow a property to certify Room & Spa separately from Dining in year one — a "Johansson Certified: Room & Spa" badge that's honest about what's been assessed. This is how LEED handles tenant-controlled vs. landlord-controlled areas, and it's why LEED adoption scaled: it met buildings where they were. In year two or three, full certification requires dining to be brought into scope, with the documented contract renegotiation as the bridge.

2. Intention-weighted dining scoring

Where dining is outsourced, score the domain on intention + contract timeline rather than current state, but cap its contribution — dining can contribute a maximum of, say, 60% of its full weight until the culinary contract is actually renegotiated and toxin-free sourcing is embedded. This stops a hotel from hiding behind "our kitchen isn't ours" forever, while not punishing them for a contract they genuinely can't break for another 18 months.

The cosmetic/spa revenue problem — the subtlest one

This is where the framework has to be smartest, because the hotel makes margin on the very products we want them to phase out. The mistake would be to score everything equally. Instead, weight by what's applied to the guest vs. what's offered for sale:

• •Treatment products (what's put on the guest's body during a spa treatment, in-room amenity kits, robes, towels) — score these heavily. The guest doesn't choose; they're exposed. This is where toxin-free must move fastest.
• •Retail products (what's sold in the spa boutique) — score these lightly in year one, with a rising bar each year. A hotel shouldn't be penalised for offering a mainstream brand alongside a natural one; it should be rewarded for adding the natural alternative. Over years 2–3, raise the required proportion of toxin-free retail.
• •"Natural alternative availability" as its own sub-score — every treatment menu and amenity offering that includes a toxin-free option, even alongside conventional ones, earns points. This respects the guest's right to choose while creating commercial pressure in the right direction.

The long-game logic: once a property offers toxin-free alternatives and sees guests choose them (which the UHNW data suggests they will), the commercial case for shifting the mainstream lines strengthens organically. The framework creates the conditions for the market to do the education work you mention — without the standard having to fight that battle directly.

What this means for the pilot

For your first five assessments, I'd run the framework as a shadow score — assess fully, publish the methodology, but award stars conservatively and publicly explain the intention credits. The first cohort sets the tone: if the world sees that a prestigious property earned 3 stars because it committed to a trajectory (not because it was already perfect), that's the credibility story. It says: this standard is achievable, evidence-based, and rewards genuine movement — not just deep pockets or a head start.