199
and Goldbach ( 2002 ) showed that the collective negotiation model for sustainable
supply chain management is more successful than a command and control approach.
In some cases, the direction of the coordination may also need to be reversed.
Suppliers with a number of different clients may fi nd that the latters’ demands are
not compatible, or are inconsistent in other ways. This has led to some collective
arrangements where several clients and their different suppliers agree on a common
agenda, and perhaps also a common communication and certifi cation system.
LCM involving sub-contracting and global supply chain management may face
serious political hurdles and trade barriers. Sustainability requirements on suppliers
may not be well accepted by foreign governments who see this as interference in
their national affairs and an unwanted application of western environmental standards. The political disputes over products manufactured by child labor, and/or subject to lax or unenforced safety and environmental standards have been rumbling on
in global trade negotiations for many years. Fair-trade labels are not seen the same
way from opposite ends of the supply chain, and LCM has to be sensitive to such
issues. While company requirements on their suppliers may appear to be simple
contract arrangements between companies, the issues easily spill over into political
rancor and trade reprisals. As well, the WTO has a general policy to avoid environmental conditionality in trade arrangements.
Management techniques will depend on which parts of the value chain are
included in the LCM exercise. There is a gradual movement, often spurred by legislation, to consider downstream issues of consumer protection, effi ciency in use
and end-of-life disposal. Managing the downstream parts of the life cycle requires
different procedures and skills because the consumer needs to be persuaded rather
than commanded into conformity with the LCM objectives. While shaping consumer behavior remains a delicate marketing issue, some corporations are already
reaching out to their clients about the appropriate use of their products. The example
of Unilever is shown below (Unilever 2015 ). Unilever’s sustainability strategy
addresses environmental impacts across the value chain.
“Our commitment to reduced environmental impact extends right across our
value chain – i.e. from the sourcing of raw materials through our own production
and distribution to consumer use and eventual disposal of residual packaging.
Consumer use accounts for around 70 % of our greenhouse gas footprint. Engaging
consumers …. will be key to achieving our vision. Metrics for our four priority environmental impact areas across the value chain include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, waste, and sustainable sourcing. These metrics are designed to measure
the impacts of our products when used by consumers, such as grams of greenhouse
gas per single usage occasion. During 2009 around 1 500 products were assessed to
allow us to understand their water, waste and GHG impacts in 14 of our largest markets. In 2009 we also started to develop a set of metrics covering social impacts. For
.. brands with social missions, the metrics seek to measure the benefi ts they bring to
society. In 2010, Lifebuoy used the new metrics, helping track the impact of Lifebuoy
programmes on hand washing behaviours over a fi ve-year period”.
We are still a long way from a universal application of his concept, even if some
examples are well documented. The notion of downstream LCM is linked also to
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain
and Goldbach ( 2002 ) showed that the collective negotiation model for sustainable
supply chain management is more successful than a command and control approach.
In some cases, the direction of the coordination may also need to be reversed.
Suppliers with a number of different clients may fi nd that the latters’ demands are
not compatible, or are inconsistent in other ways. This has led to some collective
arrangements where several clients and their different suppliers agree on a common
agenda, and perhaps also a common communication and certifi cation system.
LCM involving sub-contracting and global supply chain management may face
serious political hurdles and trade barriers. Sustainability requirements on suppliers
may not be well accepted by foreign governments who see this as interference in
their national affairs and an unwanted application of western environmental standards. The political disputes over products manufactured by child labor, and/or subject to lax or unenforced safety and environmental standards have been rumbling on
in global trade negotiations for many years. Fair-trade labels are not seen the same
way from opposite ends of the supply chain, and LCM has to be sensitive to such
issues. While company requirements on their suppliers may appear to be simple
contract arrangements between companies, the issues easily spill over into political
rancor and trade reprisals. As well, the WTO has a general policy to avoid environmental conditionality in trade arrangements.
Management techniques will depend on which parts of the value chain are
included in the LCM exercise. There is a gradual movement, often spurred by legislation, to consider downstream issues of consumer protection, effi ciency in use
and end-of-life disposal. Managing the downstream parts of the life cycle requires
different procedures and skills because the consumer needs to be persuaded rather
than commanded into conformity with the LCM objectives. While shaping consumer behavior remains a delicate marketing issue, some corporations are already
reaching out to their clients about the appropriate use of their products. The example
of Unilever is shown below (Unilever 2015 ). Unilever’s sustainability strategy
addresses environmental impacts across the value chain.
“Our commitment to reduced environmental impact extends right across our
value chain – i.e. from the sourcing of raw materials through our own production
and distribution to consumer use and eventual disposal of residual packaging.
Consumer use accounts for around 70 % of our greenhouse gas footprint. Engaging
consumers …. will be key to achieving our vision. Metrics for our four priority environmental impact areas across the value chain include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, waste, and sustainable sourcing. These metrics are designed to measure
the impacts of our products when used by consumers, such as grams of greenhouse
gas per single usage occasion. During 2009 around 1 500 products were assessed to
allow us to understand their water, waste and GHG impacts in 14 of our largest markets. In 2009 we also started to develop a set of metrics covering social impacts. For
.. brands with social missions, the metrics seek to measure the benefi ts they bring to
society. In 2010, Lifebuoy used the new metrics, helping track the impact of Lifebuoy
programmes on hand washing behaviours over a fi ve-year period”.
We are still a long way from a universal application of his concept, even if some
examples are well documented. The notion of downstream LCM is linked also to
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain