210
than a fi xed technique, to be in turn the umbrella or the tool, as circumstances dictate. LCM’s contribution will always be to propose an intervention strategy across
the value chain reach of whatever is under consideration, whether it be a product
(e.g. a detergent) or a procedure. (e.g. procurement).
8 Summary and Conclusions
The complex world of product life cycles and companies’ value chain dynamics in
our material world is mostly hidden from view. The complexity of addressing an
extensive network of value chain stakeholders, coupled with the multiple criteria
in the sustainable development agenda, means that a rigorous ‘total life-cycle’
management is almost impossible. A number most LCM initiatives are selective,
focusing on only a limited number of steps and a selected few sustainability
criteria. Realistic scoping is thus an important prerequisite to success. Within these
limitations a number of different approaches to LCM are being pursued.
The success of any LCM exercise depends greatly on its objectives, how it is
conceived and on who and what is included. For corporations focused on their products, the objectives will not be the same as for public institutions interested in optimizing the system as a whole. It follows that the methodologies and tools will not
be identical. Thus collective code-based LCM is often interested in a global
improvement in certain common issues such as social and labor conditions. Their
methods include a big dose of multi-stakeholder building, often reaching down to
their consumer base, plus transparency and communication. Individual manufacturing companies are more focused on using LCM to improve environmental performance of their products through reducing wastes, enhancing technologies, creating
new markets and reducing liabilities. Much of their methodology is applied in-house
although supplier engagement is necessarily a part of the exercise. Big retailers are
interested in a positive profi le for their products with consumers, and thus reach
deep into their supply chain to try to achieve this. Few of the above have yet put
downstream consumers, product effectiveness and end-of-life issues as mainstream
components in their LCM exercises to the same extent as their focus on materials
and social content. As a general statement, we can say that LCM has found more
application in product enhancement than in systems optimization.
The public policy interface with LCM is still relatively undeveloped. There are
many reasons for this, including political and short-term economic factors. But a
major barrier is lack of appreciation by regional and national administrators of how
LCM techniques could improve their program delivery. The currently ineffi cient use
of sustainable public procurement is one example of this. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many life cycle instruments are poorly suited for use at this
level, either being too complex to use, or by not suffi ciently incorporating some of
the sustainability criteria that preoccupy the regions. It is also true that regulatory
procedures often lack the fl exibility to incorporate life cycle instruments due to the
F. Balkau et al.
than a fi xed technique, to be in turn the umbrella or the tool, as circumstances dictate. LCM’s contribution will always be to propose an intervention strategy across
the value chain reach of whatever is under consideration, whether it be a product
(e.g. a detergent) or a procedure. (e.g. procurement).
8 Summary and Conclusions
The complex world of product life cycles and companies’ value chain dynamics in
our material world is mostly hidden from view. The complexity of addressing an
extensive network of value chain stakeholders, coupled with the multiple criteria
in the sustainable development agenda, means that a rigorous ‘total life-cycle’
management is almost impossible. A number most LCM initiatives are selective,
focusing on only a limited number of steps and a selected few sustainability
criteria. Realistic scoping is thus an important prerequisite to success. Within these
limitations a number of different approaches to LCM are being pursued.
The success of any LCM exercise depends greatly on its objectives, how it is
conceived and on who and what is included. For corporations focused on their products, the objectives will not be the same as for public institutions interested in optimizing the system as a whole. It follows that the methodologies and tools will not
be identical. Thus collective code-based LCM is often interested in a global
improvement in certain common issues such as social and labor conditions. Their
methods include a big dose of multi-stakeholder building, often reaching down to
their consumer base, plus transparency and communication. Individual manufacturing companies are more focused on using LCM to improve environmental performance of their products through reducing wastes, enhancing technologies, creating
new markets and reducing liabilities. Much of their methodology is applied in-house
although supplier engagement is necessarily a part of the exercise. Big retailers are
interested in a positive profi le for their products with consumers, and thus reach
deep into their supply chain to try to achieve this. Few of the above have yet put
downstream consumers, product effectiveness and end-of-life issues as mainstream
components in their LCM exercises to the same extent as their focus on materials
and social content. As a general statement, we can say that LCM has found more
application in product enhancement than in systems optimization.
The public policy interface with LCM is still relatively undeveloped. There are
many reasons for this, including political and short-term economic factors. But a
major barrier is lack of appreciation by regional and national administrators of how
LCM techniques could improve their program delivery. The currently ineffi cient use
of sustainable public procurement is one example of this. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many life cycle instruments are poorly suited for use at this
level, either being too complex to use, or by not suffi ciently incorporating some of
the sustainability criteria that preoccupy the regions. It is also true that regulatory
procedures often lack the fl exibility to incorporate life cycle instruments due to the
F. Balkau et al.