Tag Archives: carbon

How ‘Materiality Analysis’ Can Drive Corporate Social Responsibility & Sustainability in the Supply Chain- the Case of Conflict Minerals

19 Jan

By Dave R. Meyer (SEEDS Global Alliance)

Note: this is the first of a three-part series exploring “materiality” and the intersection of supply chain management, sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

As the ongoing Wikileaks controversy has made very clear, the political and business world is on information overload.  Some of the information that is disclosed can reveal damaging and often jaw dropping news- and somewhere, interested stakeholders either celebrate or shudder. If a company is questioned about its work practices, environmental impacts of its products or services, it’s too late to claim “it’s not my problem”.  By the time the conversation happens, it’s already a “material” issue.  We are (as former Beatle George Harrison penned) indeed “living in the material world”.

“Materiality” is a term that is frequently used in corporate financial circles, especially as it relates to corporate responsibility, risk and liability management.  A “material issue” is commonly understood in the financial industry as a factor that can have a significant financial impact on a company. These issues are generally disclosed to shareholders, quantified to a degree in annual financial reports, and addressed within the strategic planning process.

Tomorrow’s effective corporate social, environmental and economic reporting must communicate information that is ‘material’ to stakeholders in making coherent decisions and taking planned and timely actions relevant to their interests. An appropriate redefinition of materiality is therefore essential for business managers, for policy makers establishing tomorrow’s regulatory frameworks, and for those involved in their implementation and oversight.- excerpt from Redefining Materiality -Practice and public policy for effective corporate reporting (AccountAbility, 2003)

As sustainability meets supply chain networks, the issue of ‘materiality’ is taking on a new meaning.  Maintaining a “responsible supply chain” involves ensuring that human and labor rights are acknowledged along the supply chain.  Leading companies are engaging their stakeholders to assure that proactive institutional controls are in place to manage the environmental footprint of the value chain.  In addition, companies are increasingly promoting ethical business practices and fostering community based initiatives that support companies “social license to operate”.   As one example, on average, 40% to 60% of a typical consumer product manufacturing company’s carbon footprint is from its supply chain[1]. For retailers, the figure is closer to 80%, with an equally high supply chain exposure to human rights and social issues. By managing supplier and community engagement in a way that achieves and maintains the highest social and environmental standards, a company can achieve performance goals while creating a ripple effect that raises standards deep within the supply chain.

A recent report by Ernst and Young stresses a number of factors that are contributing to more companies expanding their supply chain initiatives in support of sustainability.  Key factors cited in the report are:

  • “Changing consumer preferences toward environmentally responsible (green) products
  • A call for better public availability of product data across the entire value chain
  • Major supply chain risks, including human rights, national security, environment  and  climate change, each of which individually can   collectively affect the nature of a companies sourcing activities.
  • Potential impacts of a products reputation and brand value associated with potentially harmful supply chain practices.”

It’s the last two points that touch most closely on the concepts and issues of ‘materiality’.

“Materiality” 101

As I noted above, ‘materiality’ analysis requires identifying the issues that are of high concern to your stakeholders and also of high strategic relevance to your company.  These are the issues that should be at the core of your corporate responsibility approach and communications strategy, both internally and externally. The concept of “materiality” for sustainable strategic planning widens the analytical spread to address significant environmental or social impacts—as understood by the company AND its stakeholders.

“Topics and indicators that reflect the organization’s significant economic, environmental, and social impacts, or that would substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders.” -Global Reporting Initiative G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, October 2006.

Stakeholders can generally be defined as: investors, employees, customers, communities, non-governmental organizations (NGO), regulators, and (of course), suppliers. Suppliers upstream of core manufacturing operations hold a critical place in operationalizing organizational sustainability initiatives.  They can serve a key external role in determining if an environmental, social or financial issue that can be encountered within the product value chain is great and unmanageable or small and can be contained.  If manufacturers can control or influence supplier behavior, the environmental footprint of the product before it enters the production cycle, its likely that the entire product life-cycle footprint can be narrowed downstream at the point of use and end of life. Also, in softening the environmental and social “load” the residual effect would likely be greater stakeholder confidence, enhanced financial assurance and managed reputation.

The Case About “Conflict Minerals” and Supply Chain Management

Photo by Mark Craemer

Making the rounds in sustainability and supply chain circles so far this year is closer examination of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010), signed into law last July.  Within the body of this voluminous Act (page 838 of the 848 page Act  to be exact) is a six-page section that may have a marked impact on the supply chain for companies across many industries. This law and the issue of conflict minerals (and other commodity driven issues like palm oil extraction, cocoa or coffee production) is a golden example of where supply chain management meets social responsibility and ethics.  This issue sits squarely in the world of materiality, both to internal operations and to external stakeholders.

Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act promulgates new requirements that will have companies reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the origins of many precious metals and minerals in their products, including gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten. The focal point of this legislation is targeted on so-called “conflict minerals”.  Most of these minerals are sourced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  Many of the proceeds from the sale of the minerals entering the supply chain are believed to be funding armed militia groups. The new provisions will create potential penalties for failing to comply with the SEC reporting requirements.  Also, the provisions require that companies respond adequately to customer or third-party requests for information about how these minerals are included in a company’s products or manufacturing processes.

According to a recent white paper on the Dodd-Frank Act by Supply Chain Executive and IHS, Section 1502 requires companies to make an annual disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding whether potential conflict minerals used in their products or in their manufactur­ing processes originated in the DRC or an adjoining country. If the minerals were sourced from these countries.  Companies must report on the due diligence measures used to track the sources of the minerals if they were derived from the DRC or neighboring nations. In addition, the Act will require a 3rd party audit to verify the accuracy of the company’s disclosure. Finally, a declaration of “DRC conflict-free” must be provided to support that goods containing minerals were not obtained in a manner that could “directly or indirectly … finance armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country”.

This Act and others like it are likely to create difficult, but attainable challenges for electronics manufacturers. The steepness of the challenge depends on the depth of the supply leading from initial extraction of materials to production and the frequency that the minerals exchange hands through the chain-of-custody.  Most surveys taken from manufacturers suggest a lack of confidence in being able to confidently trace conflict minerals to the source (excluding the likelihood that illegal extracted minerals are also blending into the marketplace).  So you could see the difficulty in companies demonstrating due diligence in tracing the chain of materials flows from point of origin.

Meanwhile, major manufacturers in sectors affected by the law already (electronics, cell phones etc) are starting to push new reporting requirements down their supply chains.  Also, a number of industry associations are working with their members to develop codes of conduct associated with conflict minerals.  They are also developing tracking tools and mechanisms to more accurately account for conflict mineral movement in compliance with Dodd-Frank.  And still other NGO’s continue to fight conflict minerals on the ground and through public action.

The second post in this series will look at the successes and challenges surrounding materiality in the supply chain and the intersection with corporate social responsibility.  I’ll present some industry leading examples of materiality analyses in corporate social responsibility reporting, and the criteria that went into determing levels of supply chain materiality .  The third part of this series will dive into how to conduct a detailed materiality analysis and best methods for engaging the supply network to create positive, verifiable benefits and leverage risk.


[1] Medical products manufacturer Baxter estimates that 38% of the company’s overall carbon footprint is represented by its suppliers. As part of its green supply chain initiative, Baxter “concentrates its efforts to green its supply chain on minimizing transportation-related emissions, procuring raw materials and other goods and services with reduced environmental impacts, and helping suppliers improve their environmental performance.”

Five Reasons that Sustainability and Supply Chain “Greening” Will Stick in 2011.

11 Jan

Hello, 2011.  Ten days in and already the supply chain chatter is in full force.  In a recent post, I noted how 2010 saw an incredibly marked increase in attention to supply chain ‘greening’ and sustainability (two different things I might add).  2011 looks to carry this trend to greater heights.  Why will there be increased traction in supply chain greening and sustainability?  For the following key reasons:

Economics- Contrary to popular belief, making the business case for making sustainability ‘operational” within an organizational supply chain is becoming easier, not harder.  With the availability of more data from ‘first movers’, procurement managers, environmental directors, design engineers, marketing/communications staff and operations managers (among others) are able now to make strong business cases in favor of looking at operations through a green lens. In addition, barriers to global trade brought on by increasing environmental regulations, more stringent restrictions on hazardous substances, greater emphasis on lean manufacturing, and increased supplier auditing and verification are creating the critical mass toward a new norm in supply chain management and expectations.  Seeking efficiencies in supply chain management and producing products while reducing waste continue to be a vital imperative in a recovering economy.  Those who neglect to critical evaluate their operations from a sustainability point of view this year will be cast to the side.

Climate Action- Supply chain sustainability is affecting shareholder value, company valuations and even due diligence during proposed mergers and acquisitions, the report said. It added that shareholder actions on sustainability performance and transparency were up 40% in 2009.  An article in the Environmental Leader last month described how climate change was playing an integral role in corporate supply chain decisions.  A very insightful report by Ernst and Young note that “As carbon pricing becomes established in various jurisdictions, organizations will face risks from compliance obligations.  This will impact cash management and liquidity, and carbon-intensive sectors may see an increase in the cost of capital.”  Still much work still remains to infuse green thinking in the C-Suite.   Little more than a third of those executives surveyed indicated that they were working directly with suppliers to reduce their carbon footprint, or have just started discussing climate change initiatives with their suppliers.  And now, the World Resources Institute is completing authoritative new supply chain and product lifecycle greenhouse gas protocols that will frame what’s expected to be a burgeoning wave of value chain sustainability accounting and reporting.   Stay tuned!

Disclosure and Accountability- As I’ve previously noted, supply chain management became widely recognized in 2010 as a key factor in measuring the true “sustainability” of an organizations practices and processes, and ultimately its product or service.   Increased attention will be paid this year on conflict minerals (because of the recent passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010), fair labor and other social aspects of sustainability, ongoing management of hazardous substances in toys and other consumer products, and looking at the supply chain to manage risks and liabilities from product recalls and other environmental impacts of products and services.  The concept of “materiality” in corporate social responsibility and product disclosure (FTC Green Guidelines) and SEC financial reporting is taking on new meaning from a supply chain perspective. ‘Materiality’ in terms of supply chain or network management will require more rigorous implementation and oversight of ethical business practices and practicing proactive environmental stewardship through-out a products value chain.  Suppliers play a key external role in managing the environmental, social or financial issues within the product value chain. I will treat the issue of sustainable supply chain management and materiality in an upcoming series. Watch for increased supplier requirements, third party verification (like ISO 14001, GS-GC1 and ULE 880) and more upstream accountability.

Innovation and Collaboration- the emergence of collaborative opportunities among larger manufacturers creates entry points in the market for smaller, intermediate products manufacturers as well.  Larger companies are identifying the critical supply chain partners that have the greatest product impact and begin seeking ways to collaboratively address the environmental and social footprint of their products through the value chain.   A new report even suggests that consumers will play a leading role behind greater supply chain collaboration.  The report, by CapGemini suggests that while suppliers are independently seeking more open, collaborative ways to move goods, consumers may be “… the trigger for an optimized collaborative supply chain flow: this next level of supply chain optimization is based on transparency and collaboration.”  More specifically, “Consumer awareness about sustainability demands a more CO2-friendly supply of products and services”, the report notes.

Life Cycle Design and End-of-Life Product Management- There are increased challenges that the waste management industry is facing, wider attention paid to greener packaging and increased emphasis on financial accountability is being felt in world markets.   Establishing a reverse logistics network that supports life cycle design, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and “demanufacturing” processes will take on higher meaning in 2011.   According to a recent white paper issued by sustainability expert and colleague Gil Friend, EPR is a market-based approach that effectively assigns end-of-life responsibility and product stewardship to producers, requiring them to meet specific targets for material recycling and recovery, relative to the total amount of packaging that they have put into the marketplace. EPR helps to shift the responsibility for collecting packaging and end of life products from financially tapped out local government to producers.  But upstream of the manufacturing process, EPR success can be achieved through incentives for companies to take a closer look at how they design products for better end-of-life management (life cycle design).  Producers are not alone in addressing the social and ecological impacts of their products. Manufacturers must engage their supply networks to help drive EPR upstream; however, downstream customers play a role too. So producers and consumers should strive in 2011 to continue a dialogue about what to do to improve the profile of consumer products in a way that’s a win-win for all affected stakeholders.

So there it is from my view of the world. Five sustainability and supply chain challenges that were framed out in 2010 and look to stick in 2011.

Did I miss any?  Please chime in and share your thoughts.

Solving the Sustainable Sourcing & Green Supply Chain Management Puzzle: A 2010 Rewind

22 Dec

2010 is nearly ‘in the books’, and I vowed that I would not fall prey to the endless lists and recounting of annual accomplishments.  However, never in my 30 years in the sustainability and environmental business has there been so much attention paid to the influence of supply chain management and its role in the greening of business.  2010 has been truly remarkable in a number of key areas of green supply chain management from a number of perspectives, including: policy and governance, operations and optimization, guidance and standardization and metrics.  The green pieces of the supply chain and sustainability puzzle appear to be nicely falling into place.  Key themes that I can glean from this most incredible year are:

Big Industry Movers and Government Green up the Supply Chain- over the past year, observers and practitioners read nearly weekly announcements of yet another major manufacturer or retailer setting the bar for greener supply chain management.  With a much greater focus on monitoring, measurement and verification, Wal-Mart, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, Kaiser Permanente, Puma, Ford, Intel, Pepsi, Kimberly-Clark, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Herman Miller among many others made a big splash by announcing serious efforts to engage, collaborate and track supplier/vendor sustainability efforts.  Central to each of these organizations is how vendors impact the large companies carbon footprint, in addition to other major value chain concerns such as material and water resource use, and waste management.  Even government agencies here in the U.S. (General Services Administration) and abroad (DEFRA in Britain) have set green standards and guidelines for federal procurement.  More and more companies are jumping on the green train and the recognition is flowing wide and deep.

Supply Chain Meets Corporate Social Responsibility- Adding to many companies existing concerns over environmental protection, large products manufacturers such as Nestle, Corporate Express, Danisco, Starbucks, Unilever and the apparel industry stepped up in a big way to address human rights, fair labor and sustainable development in areas in which they operate throughout the world. Each of these companies and others like WalMart have embraced the “whole systems” approach that I’ve previously written about in this space and that underscore transparency and collaboration the “value” in the supply chain.  Each company recognizes that to be a truly sustainable organization, it must reach deep beyond its four walls to its suppliers and customers.

Emerging Sustainability Standards Embrace Supply Chain Management- This year, the international Organization for Standardization (ISO) unveiled its ISO 26000 Corporate Social Responsibility guidance document.  In addition, two prominent organizations, UL Environment and Green Seal unveiled and vetted two sustainability focused product (GS-C1) and organization (ULE 880) standards, both of which may markedly affect supply chain behaviors in the future.  Central to all these standards and guidelines is how important supply networks are in supporting the entire product ‘value chain”, not only from an environmental perspective, but from a social and community focused perspective.

Transparency and Collaboration Take on a Green Hue- in April, I had the honor of addressing C-suite supply chain managers and practitioners at the Aberdeen Supply Chain Summit in San Francisco.  A central theme of this conference involved the critical importance of collaboration throughout supply networks to enhance efficiencies and optimize value.   My talk (linked here) focused on how the most successful greening efforts in supply chains (like those used by Unilever, Herman Miller and Hewlett Packard) were based on value creation through the sharing of intelligence and know-how about environmental and emerging regulatory issues and emerging technologies.  Suppliers and customers can collaboratively strengthen each other’s performance and distributing cost of ownership.  Practitioners have found “reciprocal value” through enhanced product differentiation, reputation management and customer loyalty. And the continuing Wikileaks controversy is boldly reminding the business world that accountability and transparency and corporate social responsibility is vital and may even be a game changer in how products and services are made and delivered to the global marketplace.

Logistics Turning to Greener Solutions- numerous studies and surveys conducted by peer organizations this year underscored how sustainability among carriers and shippers was central in the minds of most logistics CEO’s.  Whether it was by land, air or sea, shipping and logistics embraced sustainability as a key element of business planning and strategy in 2010.  I also had the pleasure of visiting briefly with FedEx’s Vice President, Environmental Affairs & Sustainability (@Mitch_Jackson) this fall and learned of the myriad of operational innovations and sustainability focused metrics that the company is tracking throughout its operations and maintenance activities. And UPS even mentioned its efforts to manage its carbon footprint in its catchy new brand campaign “I Love Logistics”.  Finally logistics companies are partnering with manufacturing to support reverse logistics efforts designed to manage end of life or post consumer uses of products or resources.

Lean Manufacturing Meets Green Supply Chain- as manufacturing continues its slow rebound from the Great Recession, companies are recommitting themselves to implementing less wasteful production as a way to leverage cost and enhance savings.  Parallel efforts are in play also to incorporate more environmentally sustainable work practices and processes.  Enhancing this effort to lean the product value chain is recognition of upstream suppliers and vendors work practices and possible impacts they may have on manufacturing outputs. Lean efforts have been demonstrated to yield substantial environmental benefits (pollution prevention, waste reduction and reuse opportunities) as well as leverage compliance issues.  More and more, companies are exploring the overlaps and synergies between quality-based lean  and environmentally based ‘green’ initiatives.

Supply Chain and Climate Action- Rounding out the year, the climate summit in Cancun (COP16) produced modest results (given the low expectations all around, what was accomplished looked huge by comparison to Copenhagen).  Activities at COP16, especially by the private sector were geared toward identifying key linkages between supply chain sustainability and climate change.   Perhaps the biggest news to emerge from the two-week conference was an effort by apparel manufacturers to enhance supply chain social responsibility and an internet database that will list the energy efficiency of most ocean-going vessels, in a scheme designed to reduce shipping emissions by nearly 25%.  As I noted, this effort is important not only because it recognizes shipping and transport as a backbone” of commerce (as other industry sponsored programs have recognized already), but because of the value of transparency in enhancing supply chain efficiencies.

Looking Forward to 2011

Yes indeed, it’s been a big year for supply chain management and its intersection with sustainability.  I see little for 2011 that will slow down this upward green trajectory, and naturally I am glad.  I am glad that more businesses “get it” and don’t want to be viewed as laggards in leaning towards a business ethic that values sustainability and socially influenced governance. I am glad that more companies are seeking out green innovation through new technologies and being ‘first movers’ in their respective business spaces.

And I am glad that you (my readers) and I am here to be part of the change.

Lean, Green Manufacturing Intersects with Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Creates Value

16 Dec

An efficient manufacturing process is the essence of sustainability…and is by its very nature, green.  This was the gist of the business case that I posted last year and that is captured in an article published in the MIT Sloan Management Review.   MIT presents two ways of thinking:

  • Old Thinking: Companies have long mistakenly thought that adopting environmentally friendly processes adds costs.
  • New Thinking: Green practices like recycling, reusing and reducing waste can cut costs because they make a company more efficient.

Recalling Michael Douglas’ character “Gordon Gecko “ in the 1987 film “Wall Street” statement that “Greed is Good”, MIT Sloan’s basic message is a bit of a twist- “Green is Good”.  Manufacturing is showing with increased frequency, that companies incorporating lean practices in manufacturing, are (by design or accident) becoming more “green”.  In fact a 2009 study by a research group suggested that “lean companies are embracing green objectives and transcending to green manufacturing as a natural extension of their culture of continuous waste reduction, integral to world class Lean programs.”  This is especially true for companies that integrate a number of proven methods e.g. ISO quality and environmental management systems, to meet environmental compliance and stakeholder needs.  This is more rapidly accomplished with a dedicated corporate commitment to continual improvement, and incorporating ‘triple top line’ strategies to account for environmental, social and financial capital.

What is “Lean”?

‘Lean’ Manufacturing is a set of continuous improvement activities closely connected with the Toyota Production System (TPS) and Just-In-Time Manufacturing systems.  One emerging working definition of Lean is “The elimination of waste everywhere while adding value for customers”.  This definition is a natural fit with sustainability and the “Lean and Green” business ethic.  Lean manufacturing has demonstrated how companies have saved or avoided enormous operating and maintenance costs and significantly improved the quality of their products.

Lean manufacturing looks at manufacturing from a systems perspective, which includes a thorough evaluation of upstream and downstream process inputs and outputs.  Viewed this way, suppliers and customers play a critical role in successful lean manufacturing.  Heavy emphasis is placed on design and innovation and obtaining  input of from supply chain partners, individuals and organizations through a process called ‘value-stream mapping’ (hey that’s my blog name too- ironic?…not).

The Lean, Green and Supply Chain Intersect

As I have previously said, even without specifically targeting environmental outcomes, lean efforts have been demonstrated to yield substantial environmental benefits (pollution prevention, waste reduction and reuse opportunities etc.). However, because environmental wastes and pollution are not the primary focal points, these gains may not be maximized in the normal course of a lean initiative. This is because lean waste is by its nature not always in sync with typical environmental wastes.[1] I argue that by looking deep into your your value chain (upstream suppliers, operations and end of life product opportunities) with a ‘green’ or environmental lens, manufacturers can eliminate even more waste in the manufacturing process, and realize some potentially dramatic savings

Where ‘lean’ creates a positive view (future state) of a process without waste, ‘green’ creates an alternative view of a sustainable future for organizations that play in the global marketplace or offer a unique disruptive innovation.  Lean and green approaches to manufacturing not only leverages compliance issues but also puts companies on the path to going beyond compliance. The graphic below from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency applies the key ‘lean waste’ types in an environmental context, and crosswalks how lean waste issues can have direct environmental impact on an organization.

Using an example set by Subaru of Indiana,the MIT study shows how there are many proofs to the axiom that prevention of pollution and continually improving efficiencies with an environmental benefit works even in lean economic times. Subaru found that:

1.      Profits come by increasing efficiency and reducing waste—but they don’t always come immediately.

2.      Management’s leadership is vital in setting goals and getting departments to cooperate.

3.      The front line workers have to be engaged to spot opportunities to reduce, reuse, recycle, and find other ways to create efficiencies.

4.      Sustainability initiatives achieve maximum benefit from involvement of their supply chain.

5.      All waste by-products are potentially new products

6.      Green initiatives foster creativity and can enhance competitive advantage.

 

Source: Green, Lean, and Global Supply Chain Strategies, Univ. of Tennessee

As previously mentioned, becoming a green organization as part of a lean initiative occurs sometimes by design, and sometimes by accident.  A research study from the Sustainable Supply Chain Group at the University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration found some interesting results when evaluating how lean manufacturing, sustainability and supply chain management may at times be complementary.   The study found, among other things that: 1) Firms tend to have more sophisticated lean strategies than green strategies, and because of this awareness of ‘sustainability’ in supply chain management circles is less mature; and 2) Lean and green initiatives overlap, where projects that meet lean objectives often provide unanticipated green benefits.

Extending Lean and Green to the Supply Chain

Establishing initial goals for manufacturing efficiencies include maximizing parts, machine and material utilization, human movement and of course reducing waste. This series of continuous improvement steps offer a cornerstone for reaching both a green and efficient supply chain. But how can manufacturers work beyond the ‘four walls’ of their organizations to green their supply chain?  A green focus in supply chain management requires working with upstream suppliers and downstream customers, performing analyses of internal operations and processes, reviewing environmental considerations in the product development process, and looking at extended stewardship opportunities across the life-cycle of one or more intermediate or final products.

Lean Tools You Can Use

So far, I’ve laid a foundation for Lean Manufacturing and the intersection with supply chain management. This next section presents a couple of widely accepted practices that are used in Lean design and manufacturing, which can be modified to capture supplier network considerations.

Value-Stream Mapping

A strategic approach to mapping  environmental and lean opportunities would be to map the ‘value-stream’  of one or more products as a way to seek where the greatest waste  reduction and environmental impact reduction opportunities are. Value stream mapping arrived on the business process landscape with the emergence of Lean engineering, design and manufacturing.  A process-and systems based methodology, value stream mapping can help organizations to identify major sources of non-value added time and materials resources i.e. waste that flow into the manufacturing of a particular product or (even) service; and to develop an action (or “Kaizen”) plan to implement less wasteful practices and processes.   From an environmental perspective, practitioners can also look at processes from an environmental, health and safety point of view, focusing on processes tending to use great amounts of resource inputs and that generate waste outputs.

To illustrate what I mean, a value-stream map example (presented below) in a report issued by the U.S. EPA on Lean and the Environment depicts how supply chain vendors can interact in the production of a product and the resource waste that can result.  The areas noted in green represent interaction points with environmental, health and safety and related environmental loads associated with intermediate production steps.  Clearly the four vendor points of interaction can carry their own environmental footprints just in the trucking and distribution of raw materials and products (air and waste emissions for instance).

Typical steps in value stream mapping include:

  1. Select a product or process(es)
  2. Through interviews and work observations, collect data on the ‘current state’ of the value stream (inputs and outputs)
  3. Using a cross functional team (CFT) of knowledgeable staff, develop a ‘current state’ value stream map; focus on identifying over consumptive or waste generating activities
  4. With the CFT in place, brainstorm ideas to improve resource use, production flow, waste capture and reduction, reuse and off spec material reuse, and labor/time management
  5. Create a future state’ value stream map that identifies areas, targets and key performance metrics for continual improvement.
  6. Develop a implementation plan, complete with authorizes and responsibilities
  7. Develop continual improvement measurement and monitoring program
  8. And last but not least…get started!


 

Vendor Survey and Qualification

Manufacturers also supplement their Lean efforts by surveying their supply chain partners and  asking a series of questions designed to identify where the resource consumption and waste management opportunities may lie.  These  questions will help determine if technology, operational practices,  enhanced training and awareness or other tools can make their company  more sustainable and lead them down the path to make the decision that  best meets their business needs. These questions include but are not  limited to:

  1. How can I leverage my manufacturing capabilities and processes in a way that optimizes per unit material resource consumption?
  2. Can I reduce waste generation through improving material use, scrap/off spec reuse and improved equipment maintenance?
  3. Can  I work collaboratively with my intermediate parts or materials  suppliers to use life cycle design practices and manufacture parts with  lowered environmental footprints?
  4. How  can I encourage suppliers to increase equipment efficiency, reduce  manufacturing cycle time, reduce inventories, streamline processes or  seek quick returns on investment?
  5. Can I improve my sales and operations planning to optimize production runs and reduce resource loads or generated wastes?
  6. How  can I work more closely with logistics and transportation partners to  optimize shipment schedules, customer deliveries, warehousing, routing  and order fulfillment?
  7. Can  I work with my customers and product designers to improve packaging to  optimize space reduce materials use and improve load management?
  8. How can I collaborate more closely with customers to enable reverse logistics and profitable product reusability?
  9. What  types of value-added training and development programs can I develop to  promote lean and green opportunities with my suppliers?

Lean-Green Synergies Are Not Without Challenges

The  same University of Tennessee authors who explored the intersect of  lean, green and supply chain also discussed found that some potential  conflicts with certain types of lean strategies leading to changes in  supply change management.  For instance, they noted that  “lean strategies that require just-in-time delivery of small lot sizes  require increased transportation, packaging, and handling that may  contradict a green approach. Introducing global supply chain management into the green and lean equation increases the potential conflict between the green and lean initiatives.”

So  as companies begin to implement lean and green strategies in supply  chains, especially large and complex global supply chains, manufacturers  need to explore the overlaps and synergies between quality-based lean  and environmentally based ‘green’ initiatives, and understand the  various trade-offs required to balance possible points of conflict.  If  your organization been reluctant to engage your supply chain or  implement or maintain environmental initiatives in your product  manufacturing because of the perception that you can’t afford it, then  think again.  It is more likely that you cannot afford to ignore it.


[1] Typical classifications of environmental ‘waste’ nodes include: Energy, Water, Materials, Garbage, Transportation, Emissions, and Biodiversity

Sir Bransons Climate Challenge to Sea Cargo Shippers- Carbon Accounting Successes & New Tools

7 Dec

In prior posts I have discussed the importance of transportation and logistics as critical elements in anchoring a sustainable supply chain (see separate posts here and here).  Last week I discussed the key linkages between supply chain sustainability and climate change.   No comes a bit of encouraging news from the Cancun Climate Summit (COP16), still in progress through this week.  A free internet database was announced over the weekend, the focus of which will list the energy efficiency of almost every ocean-going vessel, in a scheme designed to reduce shipping emissions by nearly 25%.  This effort is important not only because it recognizes shipping and transport as a backbone” of commerce, but because of the value of transparency in enhancing supply chain efficiencies.

“By eco-labelling clean and dirty ships, we hope to change the mindset in shipping and begin making gigaton-scale reductions in emissions,” said Peter Boyd, director of Carbon War Room.  The Carbon War Room was a co-founded by Sir Richard Branson.  Using publicly available data on the engine size and CO2 emissions of nearly 60,000 ships, exporters and importers, as well as holidaymakers on cruises, will be able to choose between ships that run on cleaner fuels and have other technologies designed to reduce environmental “loads”.

The initiative, called Shippingefficiency.org, rates ships on a scale from A to G in a similar fashion to ratings given to fridges or washing machines. According to the site, the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) ratings for an individual ship are calculated by assessing the values for that ship to overall average values for all ships of that type (e.g. bulk carriers) and to other ships of a similar size within this type. It will “allow supermarkets, oil and mining companies, food importers, retailers and manufacturers” to specify that their goods are sent from point to point by the least polluting ships.

The “Dirt” on Sea Shipping…

The shipping industry has been challenged for decades to find ways to efficiently deliver the majority of goods from point of manufacture to point of use.   Ocean transport carries more than 90 percent of the world’s traded goods and contributes between 3 percent and 4 percent of global emissions.  Shipping has been slow to address carbon emissions, choosing to focus on containment and control of other critical pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)[1]. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body that governs shipping, the industry has an opportunity to make substantial money by reducing the first 250 million tons of its CO2e.[2]

Shipping has a number of inherent institutional issues that hamper demand for widely available fuel-efficient technologies.  For instance, the worlds shipping fleet has been driven for years by engines designed to burn the cheapest, dirtiest “bunker” fuel, passing on the cost. Nearly 15% of the world’s ships account for about half of all the industry emissions.  In addition, most shipping lines traditionally pass on most of the fuel costs to charterers, providing few incentives to build more efficient ships (often referred to as the “landlord and tenant scenario”).  In addition, shipyards worldwide always charge an often cost prohibitive premium to operators for new designs and technologies

Also, its shipping-attributed pollution can pose serious human and environmental health risks.  For instance, particulate matter emissions from ships have been reported to contribute to an estimated 60,000 premature deaths annually (with most deaths occurring near coastlines in Europe, East Asia, and South Asia), as reported in a 2007 study published in Environmental Science & Technology.

…and What the Industry is Doing About It

Mr. Branson’s announcement in Cancun adds another initiative to the increased attention being paid to the transport industry in managing pollutants, including greenhouse gas emissions. As I recently noted in a recent post on shipping and logistics, Inbound Logistics Magazine earlier this year released its Top 50 Green Partners listing earlier this year.  Eight of the companies and organizations listed were ocean carriers.  These appear to be true leaders in implementing improved operational practices designed to lower the environmental impact of their operations.

Also, back in the early 2000’s, the Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) launched the Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG). The group consists of over 60% of the leading multinational manufacturers (shippers) and freight carriers and forwarders (carriers).  The group is dedicated to” integrating environmentally and socially responsible business principles into transportation management”.  Unlike the new EEDI rating, the CCWG methodology is the only existing standardized approach to calculate CO2 emissions for ocean going container vessels. The data is put in the form of emissions factors to enable shippers and liners calculate carbon emissions in a consistent manner.  This allows trade routes to be compared. In addition, the CCWG annually benchmarks member lines’ environmental performance, further increasing focus and reducing environmental footprint.

Other collaborative efforts that cover other transport modes include EPA’s SmartWay Transportation Partnership, Ecological Transport Information Tool, and the GreenShip Project.  Each of these and other transportation-focused groups have made strides in developing tools and methods for different parts of the sector.

Case Studies

Reducing emissions is technically feasible using current technology, and, in the case of efficiency measures to reduce fuel consumption, can contribute cost savings that make it economically attractive with appropriate financing of upfront costs. Of those emission reductions, the first approximate 25% of reductions could be achieved “profitability”, according to the IMO GHG Study.

Big Players Getting it Done: At a transportation conference convened this past summer by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lee Kindberg of Maersk Lines (one of the top 50 Green Partners reported by Inbound Logistics) reported that “… vessels are becoming more energy efficient and reducing emission. This is due to technologies, operations, the speeds we operate at, and the vessel sizes as there definitely are economies of scale. …Since 2002 [Maersk] reduced our CO2 emissions per container per kilometer by 20% and set a goal of an additional reduction of 25% by 2020.  In addition Kindberg indicated that the company was switching to a distillate fuel instead of the heavy fuel oil, resulting in sulfur oxide emission reductions of 95%, particulate matter emission reductions by 86% and the NOx emissions reductions by 6% to 12% depending on the vessels.  Reducing ship speeds, reducing ship drag, or ballast water optimization and treatment systems has also increased ship efficiencies along with improvements in ship procedures, crew training and performance measurement using independent third party environmental certifications like ISO 14001.

The Little (Hybrid) Tug That Can: Major cargo seaports are also collaborating with companies to introduce new technology to comply with stricter air quality regulations.  The world’s first hybrid electric tugboat, Foss Maritime’s Carolyn Dorothy which works in Southern California’s San Pedro Bay at the Port of Long Beach, California, emits 73 percent less soot (tugs are known high soot contributors), 51 percent fewer nitrogen oxides and 27 percent less carbon dioxide than a standard tug of comparable size.  The tug also can claim improved fuel efficiency and a quieter operation, all contributing to a lower environmental footprint.

Conclusions/Food for Thought

This past weekend’s announcement at Cancun and the slew of industry cross-sector, multi-modal collaborations are encouraging.  Whether it’s sea shipping, air cargo, rail or road transport, all modes play a vital key to solving part of the climate change puzzle.  As Maersks Kindberg stated this year at the FHWA conference, “We have to keep in mind that it’s the total lifecycle footprint that matters. Transportation is often only a small part of the total …If you focus on improvements and actually incorporate the carbon impact into business decisions, you can actually make real progress on both and perhaps also improve your business.’

It’s clear that all the nodes of a supply chain (from design to manufacturing and from point of use to end of life) and all the modal components in between want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.  Businesses are stepping up to the challenge.

As we head into the final week of climate negotiations at Cancun, are the world’s climate negotiators up to the task?


[1]According to the Carbon War Room, the shipping industry is the largest emitter of NOx and is also one of the largest emitter of SOx.  It’s been estimated by the IMO that demand will increase, and CO2e emissions from ships will reach 18% of all manmade Greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under “business as usual”.

[2] The IMO GHG Study 2009 estimates that eco-efficiency technologies could reduce CO2e emissions from shipping by between 25% and 75% with substantial monetary advantages.

Seeking Links Between Supply Chain Sustainability, Logistics & the U.N. Climate Conference (COP16)

30 Nov

As the world’s nations converge on Cancun this week for the two week UN Climate Change Conference (COP16) a few statistics are in order to put the supply chain and related logistics industry into perspective.  It’s a pretty sure bet (given poor results at COP15 in Copenhagen and recent Congressional elections here in the U.S.) that it’s unlikely that any major binding agreements will be reached on setting measurable and verifiable targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cuts for industrialized nations.  What is at least hoped for is that there will be some progress on establishing more robust means to appropriate and distribute micro-finance funds to support development of technologies in developing countries that lack the dollars themselves to manage their own greenhouse gas footprints.

Logistics and Transportation Share a Big Piece of the Carbon Pie

But the fact remains that logistics is a major source of CO2 emissions, accounting for 13.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) – although, this figure also includes passenger transportation.  The “transport sector’ sector as a whole is responsible for 24% of global CO₂ emissions!  So as the logistics industry grows and expands to respond to the ever changing demands by global commerce, so will energy consumption and GHG emissions related to daily logistics.  To that end, in a report issued this fall by Deutsch Post/ DHL, “Delivering Tomorrow: Towards Sustainable Logistics[1], a study of more than 3600 companies found that “two-thirds, i.e. 63 % of business customers, believe companies will regard transportation as a key lever to reduce their carbon footprint”. And while the report suggests that low-carbon logistics solutions and flexible transport modes are not yet widely available, there are a few market-ready technologies or solutions today that can meet the specific needs of the transport and logistics sector.

“We want to take a significant step forward to improving carbon efficiency and do our part to facilitate a low-carbon economy,” says Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Post DHL Frank Appel. Deutsche Post DHL was the first logistics company worldwide to commit to a carbon efficiency target – 30 percent improvement by the year 2020 compared with 2007.  Other companies such as UPS and FedEx are implementing similar programs designed to optimize operations in a sustainable manner.

The report also cited that “70 % of respondents believe that legislation is needed in order to bring about a substantial shift towards a sustainable logistics industry.” The study shows that carbon pricing mechanisms can likely accelerate a market-based dynamic toward more sustainable solutions. Once there is a real price tag attributed to carbon emissions, the environment will be an integral part of investment decisions.    Customers in Asia in particular appear quick to accept that sustainable solutions may cause higher prices, according to the study. For example, 84 percent of consumers in China, India, Malaysia and Singapore say they would accept a higher price for green products – compared to only 50 percent in Western countries.  This type of hesitancy on the part of Western countries falls in direct line with the ‘foot dragging’ that has occurred at past climate conferences.

The report concluded by suggesting seven key developments that are likely to take place that can largely be influenced by the ways that logistics can affect global commerce:

1. Logistics counts – it is not a commodity. Logistics is not only a chief catalyst of global trade and a defining component behind value creation – it is also a business of strategic importance in the move towards a low-carbon economy.

2. Technological change will be achieved through a concerted planning and implementation effort between private companies, governments and financial institutions.

3. Collaboration will increasingly be seen as an enabler to attain sustainability even between perennial competitors. This will especially be the case as greenhouse gas emissions reduction becomes a priority for suppliers, business customers and logistics companies.

4. Business models of logistics companies will change as sustainable innovations and technological advances create new opportunities.

5. Carbon labeling will become standardized. Carbon ‘tags’ offer ways for customers to compare environmental impacts of products. This increased product ‘transparency’ can raise confidence among logistics customers and end consumers when making climate-friendly choices.

6. Carbon emissions will eventually have a price tag, whether it’s mandated by law or not. Already, carbon accounting has become part of companies accounting, decision making and corporate reporting practices in many market sectors. Increasing movement in this direction, with possible government or free market intervention will only increase the demand for a price to be attached to CO2 emissions.

7. Carbon pricing will lead to more stringent regulatory measures.  However companies will only accept a price tag on carbon emissions if governments ensure a level playing field across industries (and more challenging will be across economies).

Companies are not Waiting Around

Already, big product manufacturers and retailers like Unilever and Walmart are reaching deep into their supply chain to stock shelves with less harmful products.  Gavin Neath, senior vice president for sustainability for Unilever says that this approach not only helps the company cut costs, but create new products that are less impacting to the environment and expand in developing-world markets that are likely to be hit hard by global warming, he said. With efforts to secure a global climate treaty barely inching forward “big companies like ours, which have very extensive supply chains, reaching across all continents and 60, 70 countries, can make a difference,” Mr. Neath explained.

That brings us back to COP16.

UPS Carbon Neutral Shipping Program (courtesy Logistics Management Magazine)

It’s been suggested by some practitioners and policy makers that at COP16, a binding agreement is more likely to occur when countries take ownership of their entire life-cycle emissions and when such agreements are based on data that attributes emissions fairly.   It’s also been proposed that national inventories be generated by adopting measurement tools that follow the principles established by existing carbon accounting methodologies already used by corporations and at a product level.   Supply chain wide carbon accounting (at the product design, manufacturing and distribution levels) is a vital ingredient to achieve this result.

I’ll be watching COP16 developments closely in Cancun these next two weeks and will offer additional insights about what potential policy driven outcomes these negotiations may have on supply chain logistics.


[1] The study on sustainable logistics was developed with experts from MIT, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, National University of Singapore and the Technische Universität Berlin, Deutsche Post DHL, and manufacturers/retailers like Fujitsu, Henkel, HP, Unilever, and Walmart.

Unilever & New Global Report: How Voluntary Sustainability Initiatives & Supply Chain Transparency Can Make a World of Difference

24 Nov

Two items caught my eye recently.  One is a new report called the State of Sustainability Initiatives (SSI) Review 2010.  This review was a collaborative effort by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the International Institute for Environment and Development, Aidenvironment, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and ENTWINED–Environment and Trade in a World of Interdependence.

The focus of the SSI Review 2010 is geared specifically to agricultural commodities, specifically the forestry, coffee, cocoa, tea and banana sectors.  What is interesting is that the review focuses on “voluntary sustainability initiatives” (VSI) and how they can impact overall market performance, governance, criteria coverage and implementation practices.  More interesting is how the report treats supply chain dynamics and decision-making.  In a nutshell (no pun intended!) the report reveals that major voluntary initiatives are altering the way supply chain decision-making is made by “providing civil society and developing country stakeholders with a more active role in setting trade rules and production practices”.  Further the report underscores how increased levels of stakeholder pressure and transparency in the marketplace are reshaping collaboration across and between supply chain networks.

Embracing the Triple Bottom Line

The SSI report indicated that companies are embracing triple bottom line aspects of their products in managing inputs and outputs along the value chain, focus within the three primary sustainability spheres:

  • Environmental criteria are strongest related to integrated pest management and use of restricted substances or prohibited chemicals, though less so on issues related to energy conservation and greenhouse gas management
  • Social criteria revolve less around gender, employment benefits, community involvement, and humane treatment of animals and more towards around International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, (mainly coverage of health and safety and employment conditions).
  • Economic criteria are less likely to be addressed across the agricultural sectors although focus on product quality requirements and minimum wage requirements are gaining steam.

Focus on “Radical” Transparency

Growth across voluntary sustainability initiatives is also being driven by growing demands for transparency in global supply chains. There are generally three types of transparency evaluated in this report[1]:

  • Information Transparency: the act of making accurate, useable and substantial information available to stakeholders.
  • Participatory Transparency: the act of selecting the information to be made available based on user needs and input (i.e., “participation”).
  • Accountability Transparency: the act of presenting information that is neutral, objective and balanced, allowing stakeholders to reach their own conclusions regarding performance or evaluation.

The SSI Review reveals that “voluntary initiatives are playing an important role in improving supply chain transparency by bringing more credible systems for monitoring, enforcing and reporting on good practice.”  Specifically, key findings include:

  • 70 per cent of the initiatives reporting compliance with ISO 65[2] or application of an independent accreditation system;
  • almost all of the initiatives surveyed applying an annual audit process to ensure compliance with specified criteria, although there is considerable diversity in the degree of flexibility with which such processes are implemented; and
  • 70 per cent of the initiatives surveyed managing a separate Chain of Custody standard and a majority of initiatives applying some form of segregation of compliant products to allow for traceability.

This tendency toward additional transparency in the supply chain is lessening the potential for false product claims, although ‘greenwashing’ remains a constant threat to consumers looking for the “real deal” when purchasing environmentally responsible or eco-friendly food or consumer products.

The report further goes on to state that “transparency improves what we know about markets and the institutions that drive them. Improved access to information helps everyone in the market better understand the implications of their investments and dealings within the market. By enhancing information flow, transparency can promote market efficiency, social welfare and cost internalization, all core principles of sustainable development. Improved information also allows stakeholders to participate more knowledgably in the governance processes—thereby promoting participatory governance, also a core principle of sustainable development.”

Unilevers “Big, Bold” Example

Almost simultaneously to the release of this report comes a huge announcement last week of Unilevers plan to reduce its environmental footprint by 50% by the year 2020.    According to the article in GreenBiz.com by @marcgunther, the Sustainable Living Plan “breaks new ground for a number of reasons.

  • It is comprehensive, setting more than 50 social, economic and environmental targets.
  • It is rigorous; the company says it has measured the carbon, water and waste footprints of 1,600 products, representing 70 percent of its volume.
  • It’s far-reaching, taking into account the full life cycle impact of its product, from “seed to disposal,” as one executive put it.”

Unilevers plan is big, “hairy” and audacious- just what companies need to do stay ahead of the competition by implementing VSI’s that respond to consumer needs.  As part of the plan, Unilever plans to source 100% of its agricultural raw materials “sustainably” by 2020.  This will include aggressive supply chain outreach, monitoring and measurement (the metric will be raw or packaging material sourced from verifiable (certified and some self verified sustainable renewable sources or materials made from recycled materials (% by weight)).  Tea and palm oil are already in the queue with additional materials to be added as part of a sustainability focused program in place for the past 12 years. They also began to assess their environmental impact across the supply chain from sourcing raw materials to production, distribution, consumer use, and disposal.   Unilever has also implemented a Business Partner Code to ensure their suppliers meet their expectations on social and environmental impacts.

Supply Chain Value Recognition

The SSI Review and companies like Unilever are motivated by recognition that improved understanding of customer behavior, recognition of sustainable development challenges faced in a global marketplace and effective policy initiatives are vital to business success and societal vitality.  Doing so in a deliberately transparent and collaborative way stimulates innovation, better design and effective flow of goods and services across and through networks, continents and communities (from resource extraction to production, to distribution, to consumer and back again if possible).

Great lessons and cues on supply chain sustainability practices can be taken from the SSI report and Unilever regardless of what market sector you operate in.  You don’t have to be a coffee producer or banana company to gain an understanding as to how voluntary sustainability initiatives can improve your business and how driving these initiatives through your supply chain can gain great competitive advantage.


[1] J. M. Balkin, 1999, “How Mass Media Simulate Political Transparency,” Cultural Values, 3(4), 393-413.

[2]ISO 65 is the International Standards Organisation (ISO) guideline ‘General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems’. It is a general guide for product certification and has been referenced or used as a base for most organic norms and regulations (especially in Europe, Japan, Canada etc.)

Comparing U.S. and U.K. Government Approaches to Green Procurement & Supply Chain Management- Which is Better?

21 Nov

Two news items caught my eye this week, not only for what they were attempting to achieve but for the (possibly?) vastly different approaches being taken.  Two governments- one the U.S, the other the U.K.  Both governments have been progressively stepping up efforts to engage federal contractors and vendors to support government green spending efforts, but by different approaches.  First let’s start stateside.

Last week’s GreenGov conference in Chicago generated a lot of buzz.  One notable outcome was the creation by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and US General Services Administration-led effort called the GreenGov Supply Chain Partnership and Small Business Pilot.  The primary goal of this voluntary collaboration between the federal government and its suppliers to enhance the federal governments compliance with Executive Order 13514 by creating frameworks for a greener, more efficient supply chain.  One primary goal of EO 13514 “to establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the Federal Government and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) a priority for Federal agencies.”  The EO goes beyond just focusing on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions though, encouraging suppliers and vendors to take a proactive approach to environmental management (even going so far as encouraging voluntary certification to standards such as ISO 14001)

According to Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, “The Federal Government purchases $500 billion in goods and services annually, so you could say the Federal supply chain represents an enormous opportunity to support a clean energy economy.  Through our new GreenGov Supply Chain Partnership, Federal suppliers can agree to voluntarily measure, reduce, and report their greenhouse gas emissions to help GSA design an incentive-based approach to developing contracting advantages for companies that share our sustainability goals.  We’ve already partnered with 60 small businesses for a pilot program that will explore the benefits and challenges of measuring greenhouse gas emissions for small business participants.”

Participating companies will share their experiences to help GSA develop a phased, incentive-based approach to developing contracting advantages to companies that track and disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.  Small Business Pilot Program participants will receive technical assistance through GSA to measure, report and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as a part of the effort. More information on the GreenGov program is available at www.whitehouse.gov/greengov.

Meanwhile, “across the pond” (I love saying that), the British government recently made a similar announcement, but the tactics are quite different.  In October, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published its “Action Plan for Driving Sustainable Operations and Procurement Across Government”. In this document they state that  “The Government is committed to becoming the ‘greenest ever’ and will lead by example in its operations and procurement”. This  is a sweeping program to green government (very much like the US. plan,  but going well beyond greenhouse gas emissions reduction).  In planning to achieve these goals, DEFRA has established “Government Buying Standards”.  The Suppliers guide provides detailed standards and best approaches to sell goods and services to DEFRA .  Other agencies in the British government have developed similar standards as well.  In  each case, robust approaches haven been developed to engage suppliers,  educate them on environmentally and socially responsible practices.  But thanks to information provided to me on a chance Twitter encounter with fellow Twitterer @garethkane,  many U.K. agencies are now scoring suppliers and giving them points (as  much as a 10% edge) for enhanced green practices as part of the tender  process.

Whereas the U.S. GSA approach on the surface appears collaborative and designed to create a robust procurement process, the downside in my view is that progress will be slow (I view this as the “carrot” approach).    The U.K. approach is more of the “stick”.  In both cases, transparency and collaboration are keys to success.  But I cautiously view the GSA approach as somewhat unnecessary and it does little more than slow down the inevitable.  As GSA says, it wants “design an incentive-based approach to developing contracting advantages”- OK, then do it, just like the British government did.  And while I like the small business “pilot”, is it really necessary to make efforts “voluntary” for larger businesses?

Perhaps the U.K has been at this a while longer, though I doubt it.  Greening of the U.S. government has been in slow motion (almost glacial) progress since President Clinton signed Executive Order 13123 in 1999.  What are your thoughts?  Are you in favor of the carrot or the stick?  As I recently said, private industry needs to stop procrastinating on green supply chain management or risk losing customers.  Why delay the inevitable so you can get it just right.  Perhaps my message to the GSA and U.S. policy makers is to also stop procrastinating and (as they say in Texas) “git ‘er done”.

2010 Green Supply Chain Awards Recognize Companies for Innovation, Efficiency, Environmental Performance.

17 Nov

Last week, the Supply & Demand Chain Executive magazine announced the recipients of its 2010 Green Supply Chain Awards.  These awards recognize companies that are making sustainability a core part of their supply chain strategies.

This is quite an impressive list and perhaps it shows that “green supply chain” as an integral function in business operations may be cementing itself as a new “business as usual”.  Why?  I have spoken repeatedly about how small to midsized companies are being pressured by primary customers, or original equipment manufacturers are seeing trade barrier blockage due to emerging rules and regulations, and how advancements in accounting for corporate social responsibility effort are on the rise, to name a few.

 “The purpose [of the Green Supply Chain Awards], according to Andrew K. Reese, editor, Supply & Demand Chain Executive is to “highlight a range of strategies and solutions that companies are employing to incorporate sustainability into the supply chain,” Reese said. “Our readers can use this information as a baseline to assess their own efforts in this regard.”  Through an online nominations process, submissions were reviewed based on the clarity and content of the sustainability and related supply chain management goals and strategies, implementation measures taken and performance results to date.

From among the nominated companies Supply & Demand Chain Executive selected those firms that “stood out for their projects to incorporate sustainability objectives into their own supply chains or to enable sustainability in their customers’ supply chains”.  Recipients ran the gamut from logistics and transportation companies (Maersk, DHL, YRC, CaseStack, Penske, Unisourse, Evergreen), , airlines and railways (Norfolk Southern, Cathay Pacific), clothing and footwear apparel (Timberland, Puma), healthcare (Kaiser Permanente), pharmaceuticals (Novartis), retail office supplies (OfficeMax), software and enterprise systems applications (Syspro, Cisco), among others.

Past recipients like Schneider Electric implemented a number of measures through its supply chain designed to manage the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH) law entered into force in the European Union in June 2007. Taking proactive action with its suppliers avoided costly disruptions in its operations.

At D.W. Morgan Co. last year, the company introduced iPhone-based mobile communications system, and with it managed to eliminate roughly 50,000 paper way bills annually.

Finally, 2009 winner Conexant Systems consolidated its hubs to two major locations in Singapore and Taiwan.  This consolidation allowed the company to allowing it to mix-and-match its chip sets at those locations, leading to significant reduction and reuse of packing materials, and reduced customer shipment frequency (by up to 75 percent).  Now that is efficient!

These examples  demonstrate how viewing at sustainability as a vital business risk management tool can be effective at all points in the product value chain- from Sourcing/Procurement, to Product Fulfillment/Logistics, Operations, Product Lifecycle Management Design , and other areas of the product value chain.

On top of the SDCE Green Awards list, Inbound Logistics named its Top 50 Green Partners list earlier this year (some of the third party logistics and freight companies are also listed on the more recent SDEC list I might add).  Visionaries every one of them for being innovative and sustainable without negatively impacting their bottom line.  I encourage you to look over the list and the great accomplishments each of these manufacturers and supply chain partners have achieved.

There are a myriad of “boots on the ground” examples where companies have tackled operational efficiency and optimization and managed to reduce their environmental footprint and pare costs of production and product distribution.  All it takes is innovation, a solid cross functional team, leadership support and the will to finish the job. Perhaps next year, your company will make the list.

ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Guidance May Offer Supply Chain Opportunities to Small-Mid Sized Manufacturing

4 Nov

Amid the pre- and post-election haze here in the U.S and the taking of the World Series by the San Francisco Giants (first since 1954), comes ISO 26000, Guidance on Social Responsibility. This guidance document from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) integrates international expertise on social responsibility (SR), detailing what it means, what issues organizations need to address to operate in a socially responsible manner, and what the best practices are for implementing SR effectively and efficiently. ISO 26000 is designed to assist public and private organizations, and Small to Mid-sized Enterprises (SME) in particular by establishing common guidance on social responsibility concepts, definitions,and methods of evaluation.

The core areas of ISO 26000 (see Figure 1, courtesy of http://www.desarrollohumanosostenible.org) address potentially contentious and volatile issues such as human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, and community involvement and development.   According to the ISO, ISO 26000 provides guidance for all types of organization, regardless of their size or location, on:

  1. Concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility
  2. Background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility
  3. Principles and practices relating to social responsibility
  4. Core subjects and issues of social responsibility
  5. Integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behavior throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence
  6. Identifying and engaging with stakeholders
  7. Communicating commitments, performance and other information related to social responsibility.

ISO 26000 is unique, not because it’s taken six years to get it finalized. It’s mainly because it’s a “guidance” and not a certification standard like the more well-known ISO 9001 quality management and 14001 environmental management standards.  That may be part of its weakness.  Most skeptics believe that ISO 26000 will not be the “magic bullet” which suddenly replaces all corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in the Supply Chain. While the guidance is not a certifiable standard, it attempts to harmonize itself with UN Global Compact guidelines for ethical business practices and a number of existing practices, principles and guidelines devoted to social responsibility, like the Global Reporting Initiative (see recent crosswalk). Other recent studies (admittedly a very small survey group of less than 60 entities) by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) prior to the final release established that ISO 26000 may increase awareness, provide definitions and add legitimacy to the social responsibility debate.  However, as stand-alone guidance, ISO 26000 may not contain the practical guidance to enable SMEs to turn theory in practice.

Another recent post by Business for Social Responsibility, entitled ISO 26000 Approved for Publication. Now What?while not holding out great hopes for ISO 26000 stated that the guidance:  “… has the potential to increase the adoption of responsible business practices by all types and sizes of organization around the world—not just corporate entities. In bringing social responsibility to all entities, it may be a useful guide for engaging your supply chain in social responsibility issues. ISO 26000 can provide a first point of call for companies to understand the concepts and implementation tools for a social responsibility program, such as advocating stakeholder engagement and issues assessment methods to define priorities.”

In fact, doing a cursory review of the Final Draft International Standard published in July found many references to supply chain management issues, especially in the areas of “environment” and “fair operating practices”.  I believe that innovative,leading SME’s can successfully apply some of these guidance materials in a productive and cost effective manner.  Doing so begins to institutionalize “triple bottom line” thinking into their supply chain practices.

Turning Theory into Practice- Tips for Supply Chain Integration

Environment

  1. Practice life-cycle management – consider all the steps of a manufacturing process, and all the links in the supply chain and value chain right to the end of a product’s life and how it is disposed of;
  2. Seek way to integrate sustainable resource use and management to make manufacturing steps as environmentally friendly as possible (especially with regard to electricity, fuels, raw and processed materials, land and water);
  3. Test innovative technologies as a way to reduce the product environmental footprint

Fair Operating Practices

Promote social responsibility throughout the supply chain; and stimulate demand for socially responsible goods and services:

  1. In procurement and purchasing decisions, use criteria that select ethically and socially responsible products and companies;
  2. Examine your value chain/supply chain and be sure that you are paying enough to enable your suppliers to fulfill their own responsibilities;
  3. Promote broader adoption of social responsibility through networks of manufacturing associations and business sector colleagues;
  4. Seek business to business and peer network support to collaboratively develop best methods and approaches, leverage resources and document benefits
  5. Treat suppliers and customers/consumers fairly and equitably.

Like my recent posts discussing the supply chain benefits of two other draft sustainability and green product specification standards (ULE 880 and GS-C1), large to small organizations can strive to be ISO 26000-compliant, stay ahead of the curve and grab the “leader” advantage.  Or conversely, companies can risk being a “laggard” and lose vital business opportunities.

Large corporations are realizing the importance accountability, transparency, ethical conduct, and respect for stakeholders’ interests, human rights, rule of law, and international norms of behavior in managing internal and external stakeholder expectations.  Why not apply the same principles wholistically through ones supply/value chain at the SME level?

If you are an owner/operator of a SME, think about your values and principles of operation.  Believe me when I say that doing good can also mean doing well.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 162 other followers