EDITIONEN·FR·ქართ
ASF Logo

Accréditation Sans Frontières

International Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities

Start accreditation  
ASF Standards · Fitness & Wellness · Standard 10

Standard 10 — Sustainable Care

5 criteria · 0 core · 5 standard-level · Version 1.0 · Aligned to ISQua EEA Principle 6, 6th Edition

Criteria in this standard

10.1 — Environmental Impact Is Genuinely Assessed, Appropriate to the Facility
10.2 — Procurement Genuinely Considers Environmental Impact
10.3 — Energy and Water Use Are Genuinely Monitored and Reduced Where Possible
10.4 — Members and Staff Are Genuinely Engaged in Sustainability Practice
10.5 — Sustainability Commitments Are Genuinely Reviewed, Not Static
10.1

Environmental Impact Is Genuinely Assessed, Appropriate to the Facility

Standard

The facility genuinely assesses its environmental impact — energy, water, and consumables — proportionate to its scale as a fitness or wellness facility, not assumed unnecessary given its non-clinical operation.

In plain terms: The facility has actually looked at its real environmental footprint, scaled sensibly to what a gym or wellness facility actually uses.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

A fitness or wellness facility’s environmental footprint is genuinely driven by different things than a clinical facility’s — pools, saunas, showers, and equipment power use rather than clinical waste. A real assessment reflects what this facility actually consumes, not a template borrowed from a healthcare setting.

What good looks like

  • A genuine assessment exists, scaled appropriately.
  • It genuinely covers energy, water, and consumables like towels.
  • It’s genuinely revisited periodically.

Common failure modes

  • No assessment has ever been conducted.

Worked example

In practice
A gym with a pool and sauna that had never reviewed its utility use.
BeforeUtility bills were paid with no breakdown of what the pool, sauna, and general gym floor each actually consumed.
ActionA simple baseline was compiled breaking down consumption by area.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the baseline. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Compile a baseline covering energy, water, and major consumables.
The most common mistake: Assuming a non-clinical facility has no meaningful environmental footprint worth assessing.

Self-assessment questions

1. Has the facility genuinely assessed its environmental impact? — A real, documented assessment.
Evidence: Baseline assessment document
2. Does this genuinely cover energy, water, and laundry where relevant? — Real coverage of the facility’s actual main resource uses.
Evidence: Multi-dimensional data
3. Is the assessment genuinely revisited periodically? — Real, periodic review.
Evidence: Review schedule

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Overall utility cost is tracked but not broken down by area.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1-2 Compile a baseline assessment.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Baseline review Reviews the baseline for genuine coverage.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask about pool/sauna energy use specifically if present.

Evidence base

World Health Organization. WHO Guidance for Climate-Resilient and Environmentally Sustainable Health Care Facilities. Geneva: WHO; 2020.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

10.2

Procurement Genuinely Considers Environmental Impact

Standard

Procurement decisions genuinely factor in environmental impact alongside cost — equipment, cleaning products, towels and consumables — not sustainability treated as an afterthought with purchasing decided purely on price.

In plain terms: When the facility buys cleaning products, towels, and equipment, it actually thinks about environmental impact — not purely the cheapest option.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

Cleaning products used throughout a fitness facility’s daily operation genuinely add up in environmental impact over time, and genuine consideration here — even at modest scale — is what distinguishes real sustainability practice from a stated value with no actual purchasing decision behind it.

What good looks like

  • Environmental impact is genuinely weighed.
  • A real instance shows this influencing a purchase.
  • Cleaning products are genuinely reviewed for alternatives.

Common failure modes

  • Purchasing is decided purely on cost.

Worked example

In practice
A gym reviewing its cleaning supply contract.
BeforeCleaning products were chosen purely on cost with no review of their environmental profile.
ActionA lower-impact cleaning product line was adopted at a comparable price.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the documented decision. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Review the cleaning supply contract for genuine environmental consideration.
The most common mistake: Cleaning products chosen purely on cost with environmental impact never actually discussed.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does procurement genuinely weigh environmental impact? — Real, documented consideration.
Evidence: Procurement criteria
2. Is there a real, documented instance of this genuinely influencing a purchase? — A concrete, real example.
Evidence: Purchasing decision record
3. Are cleaning products genuinely reviewed for lower-impact alternatives? — A real, ongoing review.
Evidence: Review record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Environmental impact is discussed informally but never documented.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1-2 Add environmental criteria to supply evaluations.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Procurement review Reviews a purchasing decision for documented consideration.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask about the cleaning supply contract specifically.

Evidence base

NHS England. Delivering a Net Zero National Health Service. London: NHS England; 2022.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

10.3

Energy and Water Use Are Genuinely Monitored and Reduced Where Possible

Standard

The facility genuinely monitors its energy and water consumption — including pool, sauna, and shower facilities where present, which represent a genuinely significant resource use in this setting — pursuing real, achievable reductions.

In plain terms: The facility actually tracks energy and water use, especially pools and saunas if it has them, and takes real steps to reduce it where genuinely possible.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

Pool heating, sauna operation, and shower water use are genuinely among the largest resource consumers a fitness facility has, and tracking consumption specifically for these areas surfaces real, achievable savings that an aggregated utility bill never reveals.

What good looks like

  • Consumption is genuinely tracked, including pool/sauna where present.
  • At least one real improvement has been pursued.
  • Progress is genuinely reviewed.

Common failure modes

  • Pool and sauna consumption is never separately tracked.

Worked example

In practice
A facility with a pool heated continuously regardless of occupancy.
BeforeThe pool was heated at a constant temperature 24 hours a day, with no scheduling adjustment for low-occupancy periods.
ActionA scheduled temperature reduction was introduced during overnight closed hours.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the energy data showing a genuine reduction. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Track pool/sauna energy use separately from general facility use.
The most common mistake: Pool and sauna energy use lumped into general utility bills, hiding the genuinely largest savings opportunity.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is energy/water consumption genuinely tracked, including pool/sauna? — Real, ongoing tracking.
Evidence: Consumption tracking record
2. Has the facility genuinely pursued at least one real improvement? — A real, concrete improvement.
Evidence: Specific improvement record
3. Is progress genuinely reviewed periodically? — Real, periodic review.
Evidence: Review schedule

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Tracking exists but pool/sauna isn’t separately broken out.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1-2 Set up area-specific tracking.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Tracking review Reviews consumption data by area.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask specifically about pool/sauna scheduling if present.

Evidence base

International Finance Corporation. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction in Healthcare Facilities. Washington DC: IFC; 2021.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

10.4

Members and Staff Are Genuinely Engaged in Sustainability Practice

Standard

Staff genuinely understand and participate in the facility’s sustainability practices, and members are genuinely made aware of relevant initiatives where appropriate — not a sustainability policy known only to management.

In plain terms: Staff actually know what the facility is doing to be more sustainable, and members are told about it where that’s genuinely relevant.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

Fitness facility members often genuinely value and actively engage with sustainability practices — many choose facilities partly based on this — making genuine staff awareness and member communication a real, practical benefit rather than only an internal policy matter.

What good looks like

  • Staff can genuinely describe a real practice.
  • Members are genuinely made aware where appropriate.
  • Staff input is genuinely sought.

Common failure modes

  • Staff are unaware of any specific practice.

Worked example

In practice
A facility whose sustainability efforts were known only to the owner.
BeforeA switch to refillable water stations had happened with no staff or member communication.
ActionA brief staff briefing and a small member-facing sign explained the change.
AfterThe Monitor asked a staff member who could describe the change. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Brief staff on current sustainability practices.
The most common mistake: Sustainability decisions known only at owner/management level.

Self-assessment questions

1. Can staff describe a genuine practice? — Real, demonstrated awareness.
Evidence: Staff interview
2. Are members genuinely made aware where appropriate? — Real, visible communication.
Evidence: Member communication
3. Is staff input genuinely sought? — Real, two-way engagement.
Evidence: Staff suggestion record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Some staff are aware but awareness isn’t consistent.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Brief all staff.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
ASK Staff interview Asks a staff member to describe a specific practice.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask a non-management staff member.

Evidence base

Health Care Without Harm. Global Green and Healthy Hospitals Agenda. Reston: HCWH; 2020.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

10.5

Sustainability Commitments Are Genuinely Reviewed, Not Static

Standard

The facility’s sustainability goals and practices are genuinely reviewed and updated as circumstances change — not a document written once and never genuinely examined for whether it still reflects the facility’s actual practice.

In plain terms: The facility’s sustainability goals actually get revisited — not written once and left to go stale.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

A document written once and filed away stops genuinely reflecting the facility’s current practice as equipment, suppliers, and circumstances change. Real, periodic review is what keeps the commitment meaningful.

What good looks like

  • Goals are genuinely reviewed.
  • A real revision instance exists.
  • Responsibility is genuinely assigned.

Common failure modes

  • A document was written once and never revisited.

Worked example

In practice
A facility whose statement predated a cleaning supplier switch.
BeforeThe statement referenced a supplier no longer used.
ActionA named person was assigned annual review responsibility.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the updated, dated document. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Assign named review responsibility.
The most common mistake: A document nobody is specifically responsible for revisiting.

Self-assessment questions

1. Are goals genuinely reviewed? — A real, periodic review.
Evidence: Review schedule
2. Is there a real revision instance? — A concrete example.
Evidence: Revision history
3. Is responsibility genuinely assigned? — A real, named accountability.
Evidence: Assigned responsibility documentation

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • A schedule exists but hasn’t been followed consistently.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Assign review responsibility and conduct the first review.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Revision history review Reviews the document’s revision history.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask who is specifically responsible for review.

Evidence base

United Nations Environment Programme. Sustainable Healthcare Facilities Guidance. Nairobi: UNEP; 2022.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

← Fitness & Wellness Standards — all standards
Self-assess against these criteria →
Standard 11 — Digital Care & AI →
© 2026 Accréditation Sans Frontières · PHIG · Sheni Network