Admit it- we’ve all done it. Procrastinated. Waited until the brink of a bad outcome. Not taken the time to thoughtfully, proactively, pragmatically complete an assignment, implement a new ‘leading edge’ technology or launch a disruptively innovative initiative. Instead we react, overlook great ideas for something less, produce a less articulate response to an inquiry, or implement a semi thought out idea.
Even in the business world, whether in supply chain management or in adoption of the ‘triple bottom line’ in business strategy, there are leaders and there are laggards. Innovators and adopters. I was reminded of this when I ran across a research paper that was published in “Sustainability” Journal this past spring. The article, “Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: Procrastinating Integration in Mainstream Research” presents the results of a study conducted by several university researchers in The Netherlands. The researchers noted that “procrastination can be viewed as the result of several processes, determined not only by individual personality, but also by the following factors:
- availability of information;
- availability of opportunities and resources;
- skills and abilities; and
- dependence on cooperation with others.”
In addition, in a review of more than 100 additional studies on procrastination, the following additional items were found to likely to influence procrastination:
- the nature of the task, and
- the context of the issue.
It is these last two issues that the authors raised as primary reasons for procrastination, especially regarding embedding sustainability research and practices in supply chain operations and management. The authors found that “the nature of the task”, because it’s often complex and requires many internal and external stakeholders, and therefore tends to “generate conflicts”. Also, the roots of supply chain management and related research are generally grounded in operations management and operations/logistics. Therefore, the researchers noted that environmental and social aspects of supply chain management are foreign, “out of context” and not wholly integrated into supply chain management and research. I would also argue that dependence on others is a key issue as well given the widespread, outward facing challenges associated with supply chain coordination.
So what this means is that if a concept is foreign or unfamiliar or “out of context” it’s either set aside as being non-value added. Also because of some of the complexities often inherent in grasping and applying sustainability concepts, some just throw up their hands and say “I’ve no time for this”. This in turn can lead to procrastination in the real-world application of sustainability in supply chain management.
In a study conducted during the height of the recession (late 2009), GTM Research found that despite its growing prominence, “sustainability is not a core part of most companies’ strategies today or …a prime driver of their supply chain agendas.” The study found that sustainability lies in the middle of the pack of supply chain priorities today, behind cost cutting. The graphic presents a “leaders vs. laggards” scenario. The 23% difference between leaders and laggards related to sustainability initiative implementation is large and underscores the work that remains to advance the “value proposition” for sustainability in supply chain management.
Prior posts have described positive aspects of adopting whole systems-based, collaborative and transparent approaches to sustainable sourcing and manufacturing, and green logistics. Sustainable thinking in supply chain management also value chain practices supports environmental and social responsibility – so why aren’t more companies adopting these methods?
I know who many of the leaders are in implementing greener and more sustainable supply chain practices in their respective markets and I’ve written about them here – Walmart, HP, Dell, Patagonia, Nike, Intel, Cisco Systems, IBM, Herman Miller, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Campbell Soup, Timberland, Danisco, UPS, FedEx, Staples immediately come to mind. Laggards? Well you know who you are, but I am not pointing fingers.
While the future looks bright for a “greener” perspective in supply chain management, there still remains a stigma that a sustainable value chain is a costly one. In reality, there may be some up-front costs associated with some initiatives- very true. But companies must take a longer view and pencil out the ROI of supply chain sustainability best practices. And its possible by taking a leap and reaping the benefits. I’m confident that those organizations who wish to lead (and stop procrastinating!) will find a great many benefits including:
- less resource intensive product designs,
- better supply chain planning and network optimization,
- better coordinated warehousing and distribution and
- more advanced and innovative reverse logistics options.
Those who choose to lead will realize significant cost savings, improved efficiencies and a more secure and profitable future.
Give it a whirl- what have you got to lose- or should I say, gain?! C’mon, tell this community what you think. We’re listening.