Tag Archives: social

Green Seals GS-C1 Taking Supply Chain Management in Manufacturing to a Greener, Socially Responsible Place

16 Sep

In late 2009, Green Seal[1] announced that they had developed a pilot sustainability standard for product manufacturers called “GS-C1”. This pilot standard recognizes socially and environmentally responsible product manufacturers so consumers can make informed choices while helping companies save money by reducing the resources they use and improving their brand and sales position.

The Pilot Standard is now available for public review until September 30th, so it’s not too late to get your comments into the queue.

While the GS-C1 Pilot Sustainability Standard is under review, Green Seal will be piloting a certification program for consumer product manufacturers. The objective of the pilot certification program is to gain practical understanding about the GS-C1 requirements and procedures from companies that are going through the certification process.

Among the criteria included in the standard are:

  1. Transparency and accountability on environmental and social policies at the corporate level;
  2. Aggressive goals, commitments and achievements on environmental and social issues, including greenhouse gas reductions, water and waste, indigenous peoples’ rights and biological diversity;
  3. Supply-chain management and accountability practices;
  4. Life-cycle analysis of product lines and commitments to reduce environmental and health impacts from manufacturing, packaging, transport and end of life; and
  5. Third-party certification requirements to verify environmental and social responsibility of products

Specific to supply chain management issues, the standard awards points for developing and maintaining environmentally preferable purchasing policies (for its non-manufacturing purchasing functions), product life cycle issues, including product design, packaging, transport/logistics and end-of product life management. Perhaps the relevance to supply chain management is Section 3.3, Supplier Management. Focus is paid primarily to “first tier” and highest priority and sub-suppliers.  Primary emphases are focused on:

  1. Identification of highest priority suppliers with the largest environmental and social impact/footprint
  2. Development and implementation of a documented management plan to reduce, in priority order, the social and environmental impacts of its highest-priority suppliers and sub-suppliers.
  3. Maintaining a Supplier “Code of Conduct”;
  4. Conform with Social Impact Assessment criteria described under SA8000 (including issues involving fair labor practices, bribery, governance and transparency);
  5. Monitoring of sub-suppliers (extra points are given if there is “Evidence of working with suppliers to resolve issues found during social and environmental compliance evaluations”.
  6. Accountability is recognized as well by designating a “senior officer” to be “responsible for enforcement of compliance with local laws, supplier Code of Conduct, and action plan for highest-priority suppliers and sub-suppliers.”
  7. Annually issue a publically available report on its supplier management activities and performance

The new standard represents a focal shift of sorts for Green Seal.  The organizations efforts to date have focused on assessing and documenting the environmental footprint of a specific product.  Now with GS-C1, the emphasis is now shifting to the entire product life cycle and all inputs and outputs from a supply chain perspective (the entire design, manufacturing, distribution and end of life management cycle).  This standard is but one of several new standards under development, such as ULE 880 (see my earlier post) that are taking a whole systems approach to manufacturing- a refreshing and necessary step to manage consumption sustainably while enhancing manufacturing efficiency.

Courtesy AU Optronics Corp.

Some companies are not waiting around for the specifications to be completed.  AU Optronics Corporation (AUO) is one of many examples of companies that are adapting to the ‘new normal’ in supply chain management, where environmental issues and social accountability are factored into daily operations. AUO built one of a handful of factories that are (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) certified. The company has established a proactive program with its subcontractors and suppliers and includes elements related to quality, green products, manufacturing, labor and ethics, cost and ESH (see attached Figure). A cross-functional team from the company’s Quality Department, Risk Management & ESH Department, Procurement Department, and R&D Department, conduct audit activities. The company has strict acceptance requirements and will not accept a subcontractor or supplier until all of its environmental and social aspects of its products or services are approved. The company also conducts routine management, periodic audits, and ratings for subcontractors and suppliers.  On paper at least, AUO appears to be doing things in alignment with both ULE880 and GS-C1.

I encourage you to consider GS-C1 and ULE 880’s positions on supply chain management and plan ahead for what is undoubtedly a sign of ‘greener’ things to come in business management.

This post was originally published on the Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community Green Supply Chain Blog, which can be found at https://community.kinaxis.com/people/DRMeyer/blog


[1] Green Seal is a non-profit organization devoted to working towards environmental sustainability through environmental standard setting, product certification, and public education. The intent of Green Seal’s standards is to reduce, to the extent technically and economically feasible, the environmental impacts associated with manufacturing and services. (Source: www.greenseal.org)

Advertisements

Using Sustainability Metrics to Drive Business Performance, Innovation and Stakeholder Satisfaction

12 Jul

Environmental metrics were not much of an issue when I started as a young environmental coordinator at a Utah coal mine 30 years ago. The few environmental metrics I used were mainly driven by regulatory-agency permits, inspections and audits.  How many spill occurred this month?  How many fines did we get this quarter?  Did we exceed waste water discharge requirements? Our entire environmental compliance philosophy was driven by permit limits, rules and regulations.  My company was actually more concerned about environmental pollution and managing impacts of operations on the environment than most companies in a large western state at that time.   But at that time, there was a major disconnect between environmental performance and business performance. Environmental protection was seen by management as a cost “sink”, and not as an integral part of conducting business. Metrics weren’t designed to optimize our environmental performance or to understand the long-term impacts of our decisions on either our business or the environment. All decisions were made within a limited point of view.

Like the mining company I worked for, and like most businesses today, it’s clear that the ship has turned.  Companies are looking strategically at how environmental performance can have a direct impact on the bottom line of an organization.  Some are even taking a top-line approach to business success by accounting for social, natural and financial capital (http://bit.ly/93VBWG). Drivers such as globalization of markets, customer and shareholder preferences, regulatory pressures and business process re-engineering can claim a role in this sea change of decision-making.  This approach has fundamentally changed the way companies operate, design, manufacture, and distribute products.

Why Measure Anyway?

Well, the two old axioms state that “you are what you measure” and “what gets measured gets managed”.  Without a way to establish an internal benchmark for continual improvement, it becomes harder to innovate, advance and proactively respond to stakeholder expectations.  Key advantages to monitor and measure environmental and organizational performance include:

  • Setting Effective and Value-Added Priorities
  • Benchmarking to Continuously Improve
  • Encouragement of Bottom Up, Organization-wide Innovation
  • Reinforcing Personal and Organizational Accountability
  • Strengthening Strategic Planning and Goal-Setting Processes
  • Improved Internal and External Communication

Metrics can do one of two things: They can tell you what you should do, or they can tell you what you should have done. If you use them to tell you what to do, you’ll be using them to measure your successes. But if you use them to tell you what you should have done, you’ll be using them to measure your failures. So clearly it’s the first approach, not the latter, that forward-thinking companies should focus on.

The Advent of Verification and Triple Bottom Line Focused Metrics

In the not too distant past, as I noted above, environmental performance was primarily based upon a company’s compliance with local, state or federal permits and environmental regulations. With the advent of the ISO 14001-2004 Standard and Specification and its companion guidelines over the past 15 years, companies are taking a broader look at the ways they measure environmental performance (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials). In addition, the ISO 14031 Guidelines on Environmental Performance Evaluation provide for establishment of measurable and verifiable environmental performance indicators (EPIs) appropriate to any public or private enterprise.

Many of the potential benefits from linking environmental and economic performance depend on the ability to integrate environmental management practices into the normal course of a company’s operations.  The ability to quantify environmental performance in a meaningful way is critical to the effectiveness of this integration.

Adding to the mix of the benchmarks for environmental indicators are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)  (http://www.globalreporting.org), Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) http://www.gemi.org) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD) guidelines (www.wbscd.org).  Each of these measurements and reporting frameworks provide for reporting on the sustainability-economic, environmental, and social – dimensions of an organizations activities, products, and services.  More recently, Joel Makower (@makower) and the staff at GreenBiz.com (@GreenBiz) have been engaged with UL Environment to develop and commercialize a company-level standard for sustainability. This latest effort is being initiated in an attempt to harmonize all three of the above approaches and dozens of others into one global, measurable and verifiable third-party standard for sustainability (http://bit.ly/ajHxKy).

What to Measure and How to Frame the Message

Do your performance metrics have you tied up in knots?  Once organizations decide they have to do more measuring then the key question becomes: What do we measure and how do we measure it?  A few tips:

  1. Measure things that add value to organizational decisions. Measuring for the sake of measuring is a waste of time.
  2. Think about ways to measure things differently that your competitors.  Novel and unique metrics are just as important to differentiating you as your products.
  3. Measure at a minimum the same way others around the world were measuring, as this assures that globally focused metrics are harmonized.
  4. If you are a large company with multiple department, divisions or sites, the metrics of the individual parts must be able to be “rolled up” in a way that addresses the entire organization but still meets site or department specific needs.

When establishing appropriate measures (whether they are social, environmental, operational or financial), consider that metrics must be:

  • Representative
  • Understandable
  • Relevant
  • Comparative
  • Quantifiable
  • Time-based and Normalized
  • Unbiased and Validated
  • Transferable

Also, make sure that the metrics address the needs of all internal and external stakeholders in other words, your employees, customers, local community, government and shareholders.

Finally, good metrics if applied properly will foster innovation and growth.  Focus on continuous improvement as the primary driver for monitoring and measuring performance. If metrics don’t add value, they will not support continuous improvement and eventually will not be used.

Summary

Many of today’s environmental metrics evolved from the end-of-pipe command-and-control regulatory approach that has been implemented in a piecemeal fashion over the past 30 years since I joined the environmental profession. Why let regulatory agencies drive the key performance metrics that in turn drive business performance?  While compliance is a key benchmark for environmental performance, don’t stop there!

In this highly competitive, quickly changing and unstable business climate, organizational success requires agility.  Success also depends on having the correct set of metrics in place to gauge progress in meeting short and long-term business objectives.  Measuring performance with a sustainability lens is just one of the new responsibilities that companies can quickly embrace to nimbly drive organizational value.

Five Ways to Achieve “Top Line” Business Value Through Sustainability

29 Jun

Note: This article also appears on GreenBiz.com at http://bit.ly/9kjYTV

In a comprehensive study released last week by the United Nations Global Compact and Accenture, a survey of 766 CEOs from around the globe indicate that despite the economic downturn, sustainability will be critical to the future success of their companies.  An amazing 93% of CEOs indicated that “a tipping point” could be reached that integrates sustainability with core business processes and systems, and its supply chains. http://bit.ly/cS93dR

So this suggests that ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) practices and measurements will become commonplace in business…or will it.  Perhaps there is another way of looking at this trend  given the top-down commitments that CEO’s believe are necessary to create this massive shift in corporate behavior.  This point of view is called “triple top line”, but has generally been trumped by its “bottom line” twin.

Setting the Context

Top-Line Definition (Sustainability Dictionary http://bit.ly/aRPZh8)

The total revenues an organization reports on their income statement. While many activities within an organization are focused on reducing costs, initiatives such as innovative product and service development focus on creating more valuable and desirable offerings that increase revenues. Attention to human and natural capital (as well as financial capital) can often increase revenue by differentiating a company and its offerings in a beneficial way to the market. When this is done poorly however, it can be seen as green-washing and results in the opposite effect.

In contrast, bottom-line refers to Net Income (top line revenues – expense).  Bottom-line activities typically focus on cutting expenses in order to improve income.  William McDonough also coined this term from a design perspective in his landmark book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (2002, North Point Press)

Triple Top Line Definition (Sustainability Dictionary http://bit.ly/9emKPX)

The effect that attention to sustainable management of natural, financial, and human capital has to an organization by increasing revenues (by offering more desirable products and services) and reducing costs and expenses throughout operations (through more streamlined operations. While many of these benefits are measured in terms of triple bottom line accounting, even more valuable are their effects to a company’s top-line financial performance because they require less capital investment and reduce the cost of capital.

In the UN/Accenture report, CEOs cited several barriers to achieving their sustainability goals, including ‘organizational silos’, competing priorities and lack of ‘value recognition’ by investors.  To counteract these barriers, several steps were needed, including CEO leadership to create real, value-added and long term change.  Specifically, five key areas were mentioned:

  • Shaping consumer preferences for sustainable products.
  • Training, training, training on sustainability issues- not only for the rank and file but managers too.
  • Improved investor communications with investors to create a better value proposition about sustainability.
  • Improved TBL metrics and communication of the value of business in society.
  • Partnering with governments to shape policy and regulation and create a level playing field.

A "Triple Top-Line" Strategy Yields Enhanced Business Growth

In sustainable terms, both a top-line and bottom-line focus is important. However, many recent efforts to slash expenses in the short-term can actually hurt long-term sustainable value.  Like the UN/Accenture study suggests, a focus on increasing top-line value through innovation, lean thinking, and smarter brand enhancement can lead to more sustainable and profitable growth.  I offer a simple framework to start down the path of sustainability from a top line perspective that recognizes human and natural capital as well as financial aspects of business.

1. Understand the current situation.

Gain awareness of the context in which environmental top line value can be realized.

  • Take stock of the organization’s core business strengths / strategies.
  • Identify the environmental aspects of the organization’s processes and services in each link of the organization’s value chain.
  • Identify customer environmental challenges and how the processes and services relate to customer needs.
  • Develop a business case for moving forward.

2. Develop a strategy.

Decide upon a strategy for creating environmental top line value that supports the organizations business strategy and takes advantage of the organization’s strengths.

  • Develop a top line strategy that will be a best fit for the organization.
  • Consider how the strategy will address sustainable business practices.
  • Determine whether any changes are needed to the existing business model or strategic plan to realize the strategy.
  • Develop an action plan to implement the strategy.

3. Choose initiatives and measure progress.

Develop and implement initiatives that will bring the strategy to life.

  • Consider how the organization’s existing processes and services can be positioned to address the chosen strategy, using the case studies for inspiration.
  • Examine each link of the product value chain to identify potential initiatives, such as reuse of recycled materials, resource optimization, reduced energy or water consumption, all of which can create top line value.
  • Measure your efforts by establishing meaningful and measurable key environmental, social and financial performance indicators
  • Be realistic about how process changes that can have direct environmental benefits fit into the overall set of differentiating features and benefits of the process. Do not assume that consumers will be willing to pay a price premium or accept performance or quality trade-offs.
  • Examine customers’ value chains to identify top line opportunities to meet customer expectations and support their sustainability initiatives.
  • Identify potential partnerships with stakeholders that will lead to top line value by promoting collaborative supply chain management.

4. Gain internal alignment.

The process of aligning an organization around the importance of taking action begins at the time an organization first develops an awareness of the context in which environmental top line value can be realized, and carries all the way through implementation of the top line strategy.

  • Gain buy-in from top management.
  • Communicate the business case for moving forward.
  • Identify internal champions within the organization who will move the top line initiative forward.
  • Start with pilot efforts to test the waters and generate early successes.
  • Communicate early successes.

5. Maintain the momentum.

Develop processes for maintaining the momentum of the top line initiatives.

  • Create a “change management” process to build environmental factors into new or modified processes or activities.
  • Develop business-based metrics of environmental and management and top line success.
  • Develop an award and recognition program for ideas or projects that result in environmental and/or management top line value.
  • Integrate environmental stewardship and associated activities with all operations.
  • Raise the capabilities of the customer service function to probe for and address customer-specific environmental or social responsibility issues/ concerns.

By following this simple ‘plan-do-check-act’ process, companies (large and small) can create upstream supplier alignment, downstream value for their customers and maintain a more secure competitive financial position in the global marketplace.

I believe the distinction between a good company and a great one is this: A good company delivers excellent products and services; a great one delivers excellent products and services and strives to make the world a better place. —William Clay Ford Jr.