197
need to take into account a host of externalities, many of them from outside the
corporation. Attempts to link economic self-interest (i.e. effi ciency gains) with
these externalities has only been partially successful as some issues clearly represent a non-recoverable cost. It is easy to speak of the ‘triple bottom line’; operationalizing it for extended value chains remains a challenge for individuals and
enterprises alike.
A part of LCM is concerned with improving profi tability of corporations.
However, many LCM objectives are directly drawn from the sustainability agenda,
i.e. building a better future for us all. While the main components – social, environmental and economic – are now universally accepted, the specifi c goals to be
achieved within them are subject to wide interpretation. This is especially the case
for the social components of labor practices, human rights and cultural and intellectual property. Even environmental standards vary widely.
The term life cycle management is currently applied to a wide variety of initiatives that show major differences in approach (Remmen et al. 2007 ). Objectives
vary widely, from optimizing a product to saving the planet. Much of LCM can be
seen as a fusion of supply chain management (SCM) and extended producer responsibility (EPR), using life cycle assessment (LCA) and other assessments as input.
But while LCA and a variety of corporate management tools have been codifi ed,
LCM itself is still subject to varying defi nitions, interpretations and practices
according to the viewpoints and objectives of the principal actors (Seuring 2004 ). It
does not help that the notion of sustainable development is itself evolving, resulting
in shifting targets for any management endeavor.
In fact, we are seeing several approaches to LCM evolving side by side. Thus
companies unilaterally managing the upstream dimension of their supply lines work
in parallel with sector-wide initiatives that operate under an agreed chain-of- custody
framework that includes codes of conduct, independent review and sanctions for
non-performance. Some progressive companies do both simultaneously, albeit not
always for the same products.
While we observe that LCM has already been extensively used, closer examination reveals that many of these applications lack the rigor that is a feature of LCA
itself. Supply chains are kept deliberately short to enable more effective management control, and objectives are reduced to a few parameters that refl ect current
corporate viewpoints rather than the aggregate needs of the environment. A common defi ciency of many LCM exercises is that they often overlook the importance
of the downstream consumer where much of the sustainability impact actually
occurs. In short, for practical reasons much LCM lacks both depth and breadth.
3 Corporate Practice in Life Cycle Management
Much effort by corporations and supporting institutions has gone into translating
the results of LCA into actual management interventions of their value chains
(Remmen et al. 2007 ). Classic examples include the LCM practice of major
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain
need to take into account a host of externalities, many of them from outside the
corporation. Attempts to link economic self-interest (i.e. effi ciency gains) with
these externalities has only been partially successful as some issues clearly represent a non-recoverable cost. It is easy to speak of the ‘triple bottom line’; operationalizing it for extended value chains remains a challenge for individuals and
enterprises alike.
A part of LCM is concerned with improving profi tability of corporations.
However, many LCM objectives are directly drawn from the sustainability agenda,
i.e. building a better future for us all. While the main components – social, environmental and economic – are now universally accepted, the specifi c goals to be
achieved within them are subject to wide interpretation. This is especially the case
for the social components of labor practices, human rights and cultural and intellectual property. Even environmental standards vary widely.
The term life cycle management is currently applied to a wide variety of initiatives that show major differences in approach (Remmen et al. 2007 ). Objectives
vary widely, from optimizing a product to saving the planet. Much of LCM can be
seen as a fusion of supply chain management (SCM) and extended producer responsibility (EPR), using life cycle assessment (LCA) and other assessments as input.
But while LCA and a variety of corporate management tools have been codifi ed,
LCM itself is still subject to varying defi nitions, interpretations and practices
according to the viewpoints and objectives of the principal actors (Seuring 2004 ). It
does not help that the notion of sustainable development is itself evolving, resulting
in shifting targets for any management endeavor.
In fact, we are seeing several approaches to LCM evolving side by side. Thus
companies unilaterally managing the upstream dimension of their supply lines work
in parallel with sector-wide initiatives that operate under an agreed chain-of- custody
framework that includes codes of conduct, independent review and sanctions for
non-performance. Some progressive companies do both simultaneously, albeit not
always for the same products.
While we observe that LCM has already been extensively used, closer examination reveals that many of these applications lack the rigor that is a feature of LCA
itself. Supply chains are kept deliberately short to enable more effective management control, and objectives are reduced to a few parameters that refl ect current
corporate viewpoints rather than the aggregate needs of the environment. A common defi ciency of many LCM exercises is that they often overlook the importance
of the downstream consumer where much of the sustainability impact actually
occurs. In short, for practical reasons much LCM lacks both depth and breadth.
3 Corporate Practice in Life Cycle Management
Much effort by corporations and supporting institutions has gone into translating
the results of LCA into actual management interventions of their value chains
(Remmen et al. 2007 ). Classic examples include the LCM practice of major
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain