73
Institutional Issues There are no specifi c institutional prescriptions; however,
cooperation between competitors (horizontal cooperation) and clients (vertical
cooperation) supports the unifi cation of the data sheets.
Target Groups Mainly business (commercial procurers, public procurers, retailers).
Status The push for the development of material composition sheets is based on
requests from clients (commercial or public ones) asking for more information on
the products they purchase, e.g. by questionnaires, which ask manufacturers to
transmit information about the products/pre-products they sell. Requests and information needs are diverse, often very heterogeneous. Therefore, several branches
took the initiative to elaborate unifi ed composition sheets. This is the case in a
couple of branches, e.g. electronics industry, car industry. The Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA) representing branches from several continents elaborated such a
document. Besides industry branches, also global players – focal companies – use
their strategic position in the chain to ask their suppliers to deliver information
according to unifi ed sheets.
Examples “Material Composition Declaration for Electrotechnical Products”
of CEA.
4 Selection of Approaches
In previous research (cf. Rubik and Frankl 2005 ), we looked for key infl uencing
factors for a successful application of different approaches. Beside general factors
like credibility of a scheme and its costs and fees, product group specifi c factors are
the key, see Fig. 6.2 . The latter ones could be separated into factors related to environmental challenges, to the market situation, to the relevance of different stakeholders and to the type of approach chosen.
If the product group is the key, which product groups might be distinguished?
Rubik and Frankl ( 2005 : 265f.) argues for six categories:
• Non-recoverable consumable goods: e.g. tissue papers detergents, soil improvers
• Recoverable consumable goods: e.g. copying and printing paper, packaging
• Energy-consuming durable products with main impact during the use phase : e.g.
cars, IT-equipment, washing machines, refrigerators, dishwashers
• Energy-passive durable products : e.g. furniture, textiles, footwear
• Simple services: e.g. car washing, laundry services
• Complex services : e.g. tourist accommodation
The environmental challenges and impacts of products within these six categories are very different along their life cycle. This means that the consideration of
different environmental are not homogeneous, but heterogeneous, also the type and
approach preferred as well as the target groups differ. Therefore, Rubik and Frankl
( 2005 : 266ff.) elaborated a guide for the selection of approaches depending on the
product category and the target audience. Figure 6.3 shows the proposed allocation
6 Life Cycle Management: Labelling, Declarations and Certifi cations…
Institutional Issues There are no specifi c institutional prescriptions; however,
cooperation between competitors (horizontal cooperation) and clients (vertical
cooperation) supports the unifi cation of the data sheets.
Target Groups Mainly business (commercial procurers, public procurers, retailers).
Status The push for the development of material composition sheets is based on
requests from clients (commercial or public ones) asking for more information on
the products they purchase, e.g. by questionnaires, which ask manufacturers to
transmit information about the products/pre-products they sell. Requests and information needs are diverse, often very heterogeneous. Therefore, several branches
took the initiative to elaborate unifi ed composition sheets. This is the case in a
couple of branches, e.g. electronics industry, car industry. The Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA) representing branches from several continents elaborated such a
document. Besides industry branches, also global players – focal companies – use
their strategic position in the chain to ask their suppliers to deliver information
according to unifi ed sheets.
Examples “Material Composition Declaration for Electrotechnical Products”
of CEA.
4 Selection of Approaches
In previous research (cf. Rubik and Frankl 2005 ), we looked for key infl uencing
factors for a successful application of different approaches. Beside general factors
like credibility of a scheme and its costs and fees, product group specifi c factors are
the key, see Fig. 6.2 . The latter ones could be separated into factors related to environmental challenges, to the market situation, to the relevance of different stakeholders and to the type of approach chosen.
If the product group is the key, which product groups might be distinguished?
Rubik and Frankl ( 2005 : 265f.) argues for six categories:
• Non-recoverable consumable goods: e.g. tissue papers detergents, soil improvers
• Recoverable consumable goods: e.g. copying and printing paper, packaging
• Energy-consuming durable products with main impact during the use phase : e.g.
cars, IT-equipment, washing machines, refrigerators, dishwashers
• Energy-passive durable products : e.g. furniture, textiles, footwear
• Simple services: e.g. car washing, laundry services
• Complex services : e.g. tourist accommodation
The environmental challenges and impacts of products within these six categories are very different along their life cycle. This means that the consideration of
different environmental are not homogeneous, but heterogeneous, also the type and
approach preferred as well as the target groups differ. Therefore, Rubik and Frankl
( 2005 : 266ff.) elaborated a guide for the selection of approaches depending on the
product category and the target audience. Figure 6.3 shows the proposed allocation
6 Life Cycle Management: Labelling, Declarations and Certifi cations…