209
incorporated into LCM procedures (audits, materials fl ows, partnership-building …).
Many useful solutions have come from these concepts especially in major
corporations that have the management strength to operationalize them.
It is in organizational frameworks that LCM fi nds its closest ‘management’
allies. The EMS framework of ISO 14001 is ideally suited to incorporate a value
chain version of sustainability management. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
although not itself standardized, can also provide a framework for those LCM
objectives related to social, human rights and labor issues. Management constructs
like SCM and EPR underlie much of the life cycle ‘management’ methodology. And
it hardly needs pointing out that the panoply of standardized (or not) assessment
tools based around ISO 14040 series (among others) is what underpins LCM in the
fi rst place.
Many of the above management tools have tended to be used individually. LCM
incorporates them into larger framework, adding, where needed, procedures such as
product service systems (PSS), eco-design, eco-labeling, risk management and
so on.
It is also evident that LCM in its attempt to infl uence the value chain of materials
and products needs to fi nd an accommodation with other management regimes,
ranging from the WTO position on environmental condition in trade, the demands
of future climate agreements, to the EU and OECD directives on chemicals management (e.g. REACH). Some of these have a certain value chain infl uence themselves
that can be ‘captured’ by LCM.
At the policy level we have seen how SMM adopts the same value chain perspective as LCM.
As the building of stakeholder relations is at the core of successful LCM (whether
internal or with external partners), the management of key player identifi cation,
communication, transparency and trust building is at the heart of the exercise.
Coercive management models can have only limited application in a value chain.
LCM can usefully learn from certain business sectors that have extensive experience in using such partnership techniques. Thus the toolkit developed by ICMM for
successful community stakeholder building would be useful also in guiding LCM in
other sectors.
Inevitably LCM, like many other areas of decision-making, will rely on thirdparty information, criteria and standards as a basis of its action. Its sustainability
objectives are commonly based on international codes of practice and a variety of
standards, whether ISO or other. In some cases work with, or endorsement by, major
respected international NGOs will give credibility to the LCM exercise. But major
corporations also adopt their own independent objectives on, for example, embedded energy or water use, recyclability and chemical composition. The use of third
party standards and certifi cation puts an extra dimension on the LC management
exercise with which practitioners may be unfamiliar.
LCM is not the only sustainability game in town. In the end, LCM has to interface
with the operational level to parallel initiatives and concepts. There can be no single
universally valid technique because circumstances and objectives can be so diverse.
But it does suggest that LCM should at certain moments be seen as a concept rather
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain
incorporated into LCM procedures (audits, materials fl ows, partnership-building …).
Many useful solutions have come from these concepts especially in major
corporations that have the management strength to operationalize them.
It is in organizational frameworks that LCM fi nds its closest ‘management’
allies. The EMS framework of ISO 14001 is ideally suited to incorporate a value
chain version of sustainability management. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
although not itself standardized, can also provide a framework for those LCM
objectives related to social, human rights and labor issues. Management constructs
like SCM and EPR underlie much of the life cycle ‘management’ methodology. And
it hardly needs pointing out that the panoply of standardized (or not) assessment
tools based around ISO 14040 series (among others) is what underpins LCM in the
fi rst place.
Many of the above management tools have tended to be used individually. LCM
incorporates them into larger framework, adding, where needed, procedures such as
product service systems (PSS), eco-design, eco-labeling, risk management and
so on.
It is also evident that LCM in its attempt to infl uence the value chain of materials
and products needs to fi nd an accommodation with other management regimes,
ranging from the WTO position on environmental condition in trade, the demands
of future climate agreements, to the EU and OECD directives on chemicals management (e.g. REACH). Some of these have a certain value chain infl uence themselves
that can be ‘captured’ by LCM.
At the policy level we have seen how SMM adopts the same value chain perspective as LCM.
As the building of stakeholder relations is at the core of successful LCM (whether
internal or with external partners), the management of key player identifi cation,
communication, transparency and trust building is at the heart of the exercise.
Coercive management models can have only limited application in a value chain.
LCM can usefully learn from certain business sectors that have extensive experience in using such partnership techniques. Thus the toolkit developed by ICMM for
successful community stakeholder building would be useful also in guiding LCM in
other sectors.
Inevitably LCM, like many other areas of decision-making, will rely on thirdparty information, criteria and standards as a basis of its action. Its sustainability
objectives are commonly based on international codes of practice and a variety of
standards, whether ISO or other. In some cases work with, or endorsement by, major
respected international NGOs will give credibility to the LCM exercise. But major
corporations also adopt their own independent objectives on, for example, embedded energy or water use, recyclability and chemical composition. The use of third
party standards and certifi cation puts an extra dimension on the LC management
exercise with which practitioners may be unfamiliar.
LCM is not the only sustainability game in town. In the end, LCM has to interface
with the operational level to parallel initiatives and concepts. There can be no single
universally valid technique because circumstances and objectives can be so diverse.
But it does suggest that LCM should at certain moments be seen as a concept rather
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain