200
the idea of Product Service Systems where the manufacturer has replaced a product
by a service, as for example in renting products instead of selling them (the story of
Interface, SafetyKleen and others).
4 Collective Model for Life Cycle Management
An alternative LCM model with good success is based on a formal collaboration
that binds the principal value chain stakeholders through a common, agreed code.
The Code specifi es objectives, governance, partner responsibilities and a monitoring and reporting mechanism. This model is especially suited for sector-wide LCM
programs that address system issues, with useful examples found in forest, fi sheries,
food and chemicals stewardship. While similar in most aspects in addressing supply
chain issues, many of these programs do not necessarily label themselves as LCM. A
particular feature is that many of them are not even based on formal LCA as a precursor; they address directly well-understood concerns of sustainability or of safety.
Several initiatives in the natural resource exploitation area have developed sophisticated LCM procedures based on agreed objectives. The FSC (Forest Stewardship
Council) ( https://ic.fsc.org/ ) and MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) ( www.msc.
org/ ) pioneered this approach using a formal code of operation and on-going monitoring and review. Company operations are independently verifi ed and certifi ed as
code compliant, with public reporting on key performance indicators. Stakeholders
have extensive opportunities to provide input via electronic means, in workshops and
in governance meetings. The supply chain extends from producer through distributors to retailers and eventually down to the consumer who is able to exercise a choice
based on sustainability criteria specifi ed on the product label. ‘Management’ thus
occurs at several decentralized points in this chain in line with an agreed collaborative
charter. It remains that while the ‘production’ parts of the supply chain are well controlled, the downstream consumer end is weakly addressed, being reduced to a simple
label on the product (fi sh, timber). Like much of LCM, there is no advice concerning
the use of the product and how to deal with consumer waste at end of product life.
In addition to the above, a range of other initiatives can be found concerning
consumer products aimed at fair trade, organic produce and the like. Many rely on
a product label that identifi es a particular environmental or social quality; however
the management of the quality assurance behind the label is an unknown quantity.
Third party certifi cation is sometimes used, but much organic produce, for example,
seems to have little rigorous LCM behind it (or LCA ahead of it).
In terms of life cycle reach the most complete LCM instrument and the most
rigorous structure is without doubt the International Cyanide Management Code
( www.cyanidecode.org ) that aims to ensure safe and environmentally sound handling and use of this toxic chemical in the gold mining industry as shown below.
The International Cyanide Management Code was developed to help gold producers operate in ways that prevent risks to workers, the public and the environment
at all points of the product’s life. The Code requires signatory companies to apply
F. Balkau et al.
the idea of Product Service Systems where the manufacturer has replaced a product
by a service, as for example in renting products instead of selling them (the story of
Interface, SafetyKleen and others).
4 Collective Model for Life Cycle Management
An alternative LCM model with good success is based on a formal collaboration
that binds the principal value chain stakeholders through a common, agreed code.
The Code specifi es objectives, governance, partner responsibilities and a monitoring and reporting mechanism. This model is especially suited for sector-wide LCM
programs that address system issues, with useful examples found in forest, fi sheries,
food and chemicals stewardship. While similar in most aspects in addressing supply
chain issues, many of these programs do not necessarily label themselves as LCM. A
particular feature is that many of them are not even based on formal LCA as a precursor; they address directly well-understood concerns of sustainability or of safety.
Several initiatives in the natural resource exploitation area have developed sophisticated LCM procedures based on agreed objectives. The FSC (Forest Stewardship
Council) ( https://ic.fsc.org/ ) and MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) ( www.msc.
org/ ) pioneered this approach using a formal code of operation and on-going monitoring and review. Company operations are independently verifi ed and certifi ed as
code compliant, with public reporting on key performance indicators. Stakeholders
have extensive opportunities to provide input via electronic means, in workshops and
in governance meetings. The supply chain extends from producer through distributors to retailers and eventually down to the consumer who is able to exercise a choice
based on sustainability criteria specifi ed on the product label. ‘Management’ thus
occurs at several decentralized points in this chain in line with an agreed collaborative
charter. It remains that while the ‘production’ parts of the supply chain are well controlled, the downstream consumer end is weakly addressed, being reduced to a simple
label on the product (fi sh, timber). Like much of LCM, there is no advice concerning
the use of the product and how to deal with consumer waste at end of product life.
In addition to the above, a range of other initiatives can be found concerning
consumer products aimed at fair trade, organic produce and the like. Many rely on
a product label that identifi es a particular environmental or social quality; however
the management of the quality assurance behind the label is an unknown quantity.
Third party certifi cation is sometimes used, but much organic produce, for example,
seems to have little rigorous LCM behind it (or LCA ahead of it).
In terms of life cycle reach the most complete LCM instrument and the most
rigorous structure is without doubt the International Cyanide Management Code
( www.cyanidecode.org ) that aims to ensure safe and environmentally sound handling and use of this toxic chemical in the gold mining industry as shown below.
The International Cyanide Management Code was developed to help gold producers operate in ways that prevent risks to workers, the public and the environment
at all points of the product’s life. The Code requires signatory companies to apply
F. Balkau et al.