211
compartmentalized way, in which regulations are often developed. Further work by
OECD and other institutions may help to break down these barriers and encourage
a more comprehensive and less sectoral approach to sustainable materials management (SMM) and the like.
The varying interests of the major players mean that we can see several parallel
strands of LCM being pursued, sometimes masquerading under other names.
This parallelism arises from independent but converging programs. The visible
UNEP SETAC Initiative with its past work on LCM was heavily infl uenced by the
experience and viewpoints of the LCA community. The sector programs arose out
of a need to address controversial sustainability issues that could not be resolved
unilaterally such as overfi shing, forest depletion and cyanide accidents. The SMM
work sprang from the understanding by sector associations and governments that
the issue of advanced waste management through resource stewardship had to be
tackled at a level higher than single companies. Even earlier, the use of sustainable
supply chain management arose from a need to reduce corporate liability for actions
of environmentally unscrupulous suppliers and contractors. Sustainable procurement was seen as one of the immediate concrete actions that could be taken by
institutions to implement Agenda 21. The various management operations under the
above have some common elements but also some differences. The cooperative
mechanisms may for example not rely on LCA as a basis of action. But it is also
notable that the language and defi nitions of the theoretical constructs vary signifi -
cantly, and there are a few human contact points where exchange of experience
takes place. The LCM family is still very diverse, and its management approaches
show signifi cant differences.
In the above context, a comment can also be made about the adequacy of current
assessment techniques as a basis for LCM. We noted above that LCA, while useful
for resource fl ows, environmental impacts and cost evaluations, does not provide
adequate input on management related parameters along the whole value chain of a
company. Thus it gives too little information about the key (management) players
actually found along the value chain who will have their part to play in effective
LCM coalitions. Nor does LCA yet comprehensively evaluate a number of important sustainability criteria such as biodiversity, social conditions or trade impacts.
Without such enhancements in the assessment phase, the management operations
are handicapped in their ability to deal with a signifi cant number of sustainability
issues. Without such enhancements with regard to considering these criteria, LCM
will continue to rely on a particular view with regard to sustainable consumption
and production as well as some level of intuition and individuals’ subjective understandings as much as hard data.
Overall, there remain signifi cant challenges to a more rigorous approach to LCM
at all levels. For the moment LCM remains more a management art than science,
trying to bridge the gap between hard data and intuitive decision-making. Promising
work in bringing more science in this fi eld has been done for instance by Morel
( 2014 ). This type of work needs to continue and to include also management responsibilities in the products’ life cycles and companies’ value chains.
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain
compartmentalized way, in which regulations are often developed. Further work by
OECD and other institutions may help to break down these barriers and encourage
a more comprehensive and less sectoral approach to sustainable materials management (SMM) and the like.
The varying interests of the major players mean that we can see several parallel
strands of LCM being pursued, sometimes masquerading under other names.
This parallelism arises from independent but converging programs. The visible
UNEP SETAC Initiative with its past work on LCM was heavily infl uenced by the
experience and viewpoints of the LCA community. The sector programs arose out
of a need to address controversial sustainability issues that could not be resolved
unilaterally such as overfi shing, forest depletion and cyanide accidents. The SMM
work sprang from the understanding by sector associations and governments that
the issue of advanced waste management through resource stewardship had to be
tackled at a level higher than single companies. Even earlier, the use of sustainable
supply chain management arose from a need to reduce corporate liability for actions
of environmentally unscrupulous suppliers and contractors. Sustainable procurement was seen as one of the immediate concrete actions that could be taken by
institutions to implement Agenda 21. The various management operations under the
above have some common elements but also some differences. The cooperative
mechanisms may for example not rely on LCA as a basis of action. But it is also
notable that the language and defi nitions of the theoretical constructs vary signifi -
cantly, and there are a few human contact points where exchange of experience
takes place. The LCM family is still very diverse, and its management approaches
show signifi cant differences.
In the above context, a comment can also be made about the adequacy of current
assessment techniques as a basis for LCM. We noted above that LCA, while useful
for resource fl ows, environmental impacts and cost evaluations, does not provide
adequate input on management related parameters along the whole value chain of a
company. Thus it gives too little information about the key (management) players
actually found along the value chain who will have their part to play in effective
LCM coalitions. Nor does LCA yet comprehensively evaluate a number of important sustainability criteria such as biodiversity, social conditions or trade impacts.
Without such enhancements in the assessment phase, the management operations
are handicapped in their ability to deal with a signifi cant number of sustainability
issues. Without such enhancements with regard to considering these criteria, LCM
will continue to rely on a particular view with regard to sustainable consumption
and production as well as some level of intuition and individuals’ subjective understandings as much as hard data.
Overall, there remain signifi cant challenges to a more rigorous approach to LCM
at all levels. For the moment LCM remains more a management art than science,
trying to bridge the gap between hard data and intuitive decision-making. Promising
work in bringing more science in this fi eld has been done for instance by Morel
( 2014 ). This type of work needs to continue and to include also management responsibilities in the products’ life cycles and companies’ value chains.
14 Life Cycle Management Responsibilities and Procedures in the Value Chain