sustainability and

7/31/2019 Sustainability And

1/11

RESEARCH NOTE

Sustainability and energyefciency

Research implications from an academicroundtable and two case examples

Remko van Hoek and Mark JohnsonSupply Chain Research Centre, Craneld School of Management,

Craneld, UK

AbstractPurpose The purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer the questions posed by the special issueeditors using insights from leading academics in the eld and case examples drawn from tworenowned global companies. It also aims to dene potential avenues for further research in thethematic areas covered.Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a roundtable discussion with the Council forSupply Chain Management Professionalss Education Strategy Committee and case materials andpresentations from Cisco Systems and Walmart to generate the insights.Findings The existing cost/lead-time trade-off model still applies yet changes in fuel prices and theimportance of sustainability initiatives (also from a marketing point of view) lead to differentequilibrium points.Research limitations/implications Based on insight from leading academics and caseexamples, the paper suggests that the trade-offs are made more intricate and require the moreaccurate addition of new factors such as social costs as today most of the decision making tends tobe traditional economic and not yet include social and environmental as much. Nuances need to beadded to avoid marketing skewing the trade-off away from sustainability over time if it turns out thatsustainability is a marketing/public relations fad that might go away. And the length of time forsustainable initiatives to have an impact needs to be considered, if it turns out the marketingadvantage does not have staying power as long as investment write off periods. These suggestpotentially fruitful avenues for further research. The cases also offer practical guidance as to howleading companies green their supply chains.Originality/value This paper specically addresses the call for papers questions of the specialissue editors through the synthesis of insights from leading academics and companies.Keywords Supply chain management, Sourcing, Sustainable development, Localization,Energy conservationPaper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

The authors would like to thank the members of the CSCMP Education Strategy Committee thatparticipated in this roundtable discussion. They were: Linda Coley (Miami University), BrianGibson (Auburn University), Chris Moberg (Ohio University), Powell Robinson (Texas A&MUniversity), Funda Sahin and Ted Stank (University of Tennessee), and Walter Zinn (Ohio StateUniversity).

IJPDLM40,1/2

148

Received January 2009Revised August 2009Accepted September 2009

International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics ManagementVol. 40 No. 1/2, 2010pp. 148-158q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-0035DOI 10.1108/09600031011018064


2/11

IntroductionLogistics and supply chain management (L&SCM) affects the environmental, socialand economic performance of organizations (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Pagell and Wu(2009) state that as a consequence:

[. . .] a sustainable supply chain is then one that performs well on both traditional measures of prot and loss, as well as on an expanded conceptualization of performance that includessocial and natural dimensions.

These three components form what is referred to as the triple bottom line (Elkington,2004). L&SCM can improve the environmental performance of organizations throughreductions in the packaging used in the supply chain (Mollenkopf et al., 2005), and thefacilitation of reuse, recycling and remanufacture (Fleischmann et al., 2001). Conversely,L&SCM can adversely impact an organizations environmental performance as supplychains tend to be getting longer due to sourcing from low-cost economies resultingin increased consumption of fossil fuel and emissions from transport (Stock, 1978).

A furthernegative environmental impact can be caused by less-stringent regulations onmanufacturing in low-cost economies (Carter and Jennings, 2002). L&SCM can possiblyimpact the social performance of organizations through reduced health and safetycosts (Brown, 1996) and the use of sustainable sources of supply (Ciliberti et al., 2008).The economic performance of organizations is, of course, impacted by the supply chainfunction sourcing from low-cost economies where the labor costs are signicantly lowerthan the sourcing country (Krugman, 1995).

In 2007, Srivastava published an authoritative review of 227 papers on green supplychain management which reveal that this area has become widely covered from theengineering, manufacturing, and logistics angles. The paper also reveals is that there islittle convergence between these areas of research:

Research in green supply chain management to date may be considered compartmentalized[. . .] more integrative contributions are needed in the longer term, including intra- andinter-rm diffusion of best practices, green technology transfer and environmentalperformance measurement.

The editors of this special issue posed some thought-provoking research questions intheir call for papers. These questions are integrative and not limited to any functionwithin the supply chain. This paper reports on a roundtable discussion of thesequestions with leading academics in our discipline who serve on the Council for SupplyChain Management Professionals (CSCMP) Education Strategy Committee. The remitof the committee is to advance integrated thinking within supply chain managementand supply chain education.

In this research note, we report on the outcomes of that roundtable discussion andthe implications for further research in this eld. Additionally, we offer case examplespresented at the 2008 CSCMP annual conference from two well-known globalcompanies, Walmart and Cisco Systems. These companies have devoted signicantresources and efforts towards greening their supply chains. These cases are used tocomplement the academic perspectives, in addition to addressing the call for bestpractices from Srivastava (2007). Additionally, we hope to address Carter and Rogers(2008) call for further research which posits that:

Sustainabilityand energy

efciency

149


3/11

A [. . .] valuable research design [ . . .] would be to sample companies that have been identiedas engaging in sustainable corporate and supply chain management practices, such asorganizations that are members of the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices.

Both cases included in this paper are prominent companies highly engaged (on record)in sustainability and Cisco Systems not only won a 2008 CSCMP Supply ChainExcellence Award for its efforts in this area, the company is also part of the Dow JonesSustainability Index. The outcomes of the roundtable with academics can hopefullyaddress Carter and Rogers (2008) second call for research: Our hope is that ourresearch will stimulate additional theory-building and conceptual development withinthe supply chain management discipline.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We review, in turn, the threequestions posed by the special issue, starting with the outcome of the roundtable withacademics and followed by the case examples of companies that have developedreal-world solutions. The three questions posed by the editors were:

(1) Are current theory and solutions suitable to address current challenges of sustainability and energy efciency?

(2) Are time-based distribution with small-size shipments and deliveries at exibledates still environmentally and economically sustainable?

(3) Global sourcing is the next step local sourcing?

Based upon those implications for further research are generated.

Question 1: Are current theory and solutions in L&SCM suitable to addresscurrent challenges of sustainability and energy efciency?Despite the prolic nature of existing theory and theory development in this area,

discussion in the roundtable of academics went immediately to a number of commonlyused economic trade-offs between transport and inventory that were found to still bevalid. It was stated that the economic equilibrium in those trade-offs might that changedue to changes in energy and fuel prices. With higher fuel prices frequency of deliverymight be decreased, networks might be decentralized more and a greater focusmight be placed on increased capacity utilization. The risk of this response is that theymay be short-term responses to changing economic trade-offs and have little to duewith true sustainability. Furthermore, economic trade-offs are constantly changingdue to uctuating fuel prices, this however does not lead us to challenge the theoryunderneath the trade-off.

In the recent past, the costs of holding inventory and cost-of-goods-sold (COGS)have been relatively more expensive than the costs of transport in many supply chains.Hence, a lot of production has been globalized and inventory centralized, at the expenseof length of transportation lanes and frequency of shipments. In summary, Figure 1shows the well-known trade-off between inventory and transportation costs. Twochanges within this trade-off are in play. First, inventory costs increase due to thecredit crunch, focusing companies on reducing working capital and increasingliquidity as nancing raw material and work-in-progress inventory through debtbecomes more costly. Second, transportation costs increase due to the increased fuelprices. Owing to the slope of the transportation cost curve, shorter lead times will face

IJPDLM40,1/2

150


4/11

disproportionate increases favoring longer lead times. The overall equilibrium pointis at a higher cost level with longer lead times.

So, when considering these changes, costs are used as a proxy for sustainabilitywith greater costs leading companies to implement cost-cutting initiatives forexample transport network optimization that could be viewed as sustainable.Furthermore, the roundtable participants felt that sustainability might only be at theplanning stage for most companies, making it very easy to de-prioritize them in aneconomic recession.

With oil prices going down, many fuel efciency efforts might lose steam and thebalance may swing back to reducing inventory as access to credit remains tight andthe economy is heading into decline. The participants suggested that this will leadrms away from a focus on prot to a focus on survival and liquidity. However, it wasalso felt that social costs (e.g. emissions, noise pollution, and infrastructural costs)could be more effectively incorporated in the total cost denition (in addition totransportation and inventory costs).

A case example from Cisco Systems on their value recovery program illustrates aninclusive approach to dealing with all of the costs associated with a products design,manufacture, delivery, and disposal. Cisco Systems won CSCMPs Supply ChainInnovation Award in 2008 for its work in this area. The reason why it is relevant tooffer in the context of this question is that it proves that efcient resource utilizationand re-utilization can be good business practice not just from a social, but from aneconomic point of view. As a result, it might be concluded that well-known trade-offsstill apply but that innovative practice in industry might improve returnseconomically, socially, and environmentally.

Figure 1.Cost/lead-time trade-offs

Short lead time Long lead time

C o s t s

Inventory costs

increase due tocredit crunch

Transportation costincreases duel to rising

fuel costs


efciency

151


5/11

Cisco Systems value recovery programIn 2005, Cisco Systems dealt with US$500m of returned products and parts through acost center whose annual cost was US$8m. All returns were treated as defectiveproduct and service returns with the rationale being that all returns were withoutvalue. Furthermore, 95 percent of all returns were scrapped. The 5 percent of returnsthat were re-used were therefore more accidental than by design. The US$500m inscrap products and parts was equal to a volume of 12 football elds covered knee highwith defective products and parts.

Cisco Systems made the transition towards a prot making value recoveryoperation by setting criteria for value recovery and screening all returns for embeddedvalue. The criteria include: can a cosmetic touch up or software upgrade be performed?Can they be broken down into spares or parts or go into the secondary market or evenbe donated to philanthropy? The lessons learned from this program for Cisco Systemsincluded:

. Do not treat all returns the same. There are products and parts that are beyond

saving but more often than not things can be used in different ways to generatevalue.. Uncovering this value requires getting into the details of the product to identify

possible ways to recover value and assess the opportunity to do this with aspecic product.

. Most returns are not defective but are returned for other reasons.

. Take a broad view of the opportunity. Think of reverse logistics as a businessand approach it like a general manager, not looking only for pennies oroperational issues, but instead looking for what value can be brought to otherparts of the organization such as the corporate social responsibility departmentand social efforts.

. Learn from other functions. It may require you to take pages from the servicemanual, learn from nance on quantifying value (returns can provide a tax writeoff when they are donated to philanthropic causes) and learn from the salesdepartment in running a value recovery program effectively (focus on solutionselling, segment the business for opportunities, establish return quotas, andvalue recovery targets).

As a result of the program, 44 percent of returns are now re-used and returns havemoved from a cost center to a net contribution of US$85m. This is on top of thenon-nancial environmental and social benets.

Note: A further description of this program is available from the CSCMP web site.It contains a further write-up of this supply chain innovation award winning case.

Walmarts sustainability programWalmart has set three ambitious goals for sustainability:

(1) to be supplied by 100 percent renewable energy;(2) to create zero waste; and(3) to sell products that sustain the environment.

IJPDLM40,1/2

152


6/11

In moving towards these goals, several key projects have been rolled out, includingchanging store design to use more natural light as opposed to electrical light, to catchrain from store roofs and AC units for watering the landscaping. On its eet, thecompany has introduced auxiliary power units so that when waiting idle for more than3 minutes the main engine turns off. It is estimated that this alone will lead to US$23min fuel savings per year. Furthermore, the company worked with its supplier of privatelabel toys to remove excess packaging from 277 childrens construction toystock-keeping units and to reduce the size of the package. This alone will lead to 727fewer shipping containers and a US$3.5m saving in transportation costs. Additionally,the company recognizes a marketing advantage as customers frequently ask forsustainability improvements.

Research implicationsTraditional economic trade-offs such as the transport/inventory trade-off do still apply,even though the equilibrium might change with changes in fuel prices and creditavailability. The roundtable participants did suggest that social costs and benets arenot accurately, if at all, captured in these frameworks. This is consistent with researchthat posits that sustainable supply chain practices extend beyond simply reducing theamount of transportation (Klassen and Johnson, 2004) and extends into other areassuch as social responsibility and corporate image (Kleindorfer et al., 2005) and productdesign and recovery (Linton et al., 2007).

The nding that existing frameworks are applicable and can be adapted isreinforced by the Cisco Systems case example. The company has turned a cost centerinto a revenue generator with explicitly social benets through its value recoveryprogram. Conversely, it is not able to quantify or assess those benets, with the onlytrade-off and quantitative assessment being in monetary terms. In short, as much asexisting theories and solutions might still apply, there are additional areas of

consideration that provide opportunities for further research.

Question 2: are time-based distribution strategies with small-sizeshipments and deliveries at exible dates still environmentally andeconomically sustainable?The roundtable concluded that given the fact that economic trade-offs betweentransport and inventory have not disappeared but have only changed with prices.According to the roundtable participations, the answer to this question has to be thatthese shipments are less feasible but still possible provided adequate fees are paid tocompensate for the increased costs. Obviously, the trick might be in getting smarterabout transport and logistics as a whole and this is where Walmart offers an exampleof a company that is making changes that are benecial no matter what the fuel prices.Overall, however it was concluded by the roundtable discussants that companies aretaking a predominantly economic point of view, as opposed to an integrated economic,social and environmental triple bottom line point of view. Examples were given of companies that were considering alternative sourcing patterns when fuel prices wherehigh that stopped considering those overnight when fuel prices collapsed. Marketingreasons where mentioned as a driver behind sustainability initiatives by theroundtable participations. This begs the question how sustainable sustainabilitymarketing is. For example, if Walmart is partially driven by marketing and public


efciency

153


7/11

relations (PR) considerations, will the company change direction away fromsustainability when a different marketing opportunity arises. Will sustainability bya marketing fad or a long-term trend? Long term enough to earn back investmentsneeded to green the supply chain?

Research implicationThe answer to Question 2 appears to be that time-based distribution with small-sizedshipments are still feasible, just perhaps a bit more expensive when fuel prices arehigher and when social costs are consider as part of the trade-off. Skinner et al. (2008)call for further research that looks into the impact of disposition strategies on endcustomer satisfaction. The Walmart example appears to imply that distribution serviceis not touched but that product design and technology (trucks and stores) are altered.This provides the company with a marketing advantage. As consumers are seekingsustainability as an added service, but not necessarily as an altered service. So, beyondthe Skinner et al. (2008) call, this raises the research question:

RQ1. Does the marketing edge drive efforts too much and does it distract attentionfrom greater sustainability opportunities?

RQ2. How to sustain programs such as Walmarts when the consumer andmanagement attention might shift during an economic recession?

Question 3: global sourcing is the next step local sourcing?The roundtable participants indicated that there are certainly companies that areconsidering moving some production back into markets and reversing global sourcingefforts. The limited is one such organization that has indicated it is assessing suchscenarios and Ikea is looking at stepping up in-market production in the NorthAmerican market. However, this is a logical consequence of transportation trade-offschanging and the transportation downside of global sourcing weighing more heavilythan before in comparison to labor costs and the scale economics of global sourcing.It seemed logical therefore that that with dropping fuel prices, considerations haveshifted back to global sourcing almost instantaneously. Again, it appears thatcompanies are more driven by economic considerations rather than the triple bottomline and are even a bit short-term and opportunistic in nature. However, according tothe roundtable participants, the long-term trend does appear to point towards risingfuel prices and the marketing considerations of sustainability becoming moreimportant. That coupled with the risks of supply uncertainty and labor costs that willeventually rise even in China, a return to local sourcing might become a more feasibleconsideration in the longer-term.

Research implicationsHaving answered all three questions by referring back to existing economic trade-offs,the question for research becomes a three-part one; how do traditional trade-offsbecome more complex with the addition of:

(1) new factors such as social costs, as today most of the decision-making tends tobe traditional economic and not yet include social and environmentalconsiderations as much;

IJPDLM40,1/2

154


8/11

(2) nuances to avoid marketing skewing the trade-off away from sustainabilityover time if it turns out that sustainability is a marketing/PR fad that might goaway; and

(3) the length of time for sustainable initiatives to have an impact if it turns out themarketing advantage does not have staying power as long as investmentwrite-off periods.

The latter refers to the fact that if fuel prices are driving local sourcing considerations.And if an increase in fuel prices drives companies to consider reversing global sourcingefforts from the past decades. It is than understandable that when fuel prices droppedagain these considerations were largely dropped because it is a simple economictrade-off decision within an existing framework, not a new sustainability and triplebottom-line optimization. As such, the question becomes what the timeframe forsustainability is and how sustainable it is as a consideration, and even if it is going tohave enough staying power to earn back investment needed in greening the supply

chain. This relates to Skinner et al. (2008) who see opportunities to study sustainabilitylongitudinally and over time.

Summary and review of research implicationsWhat the roundtable discussion and the case examples reveal, in answering thequestions posed by the special issue editors, is that existing trade-offs and solutions dostill apply in todays practice of supply chain management that has not changed.Changing fuel and energy prices are impacting network design considerations, withinthe existing trade-off framework. So, local sourcing becomes a stronger option whenfuel costs are high. But, when fuel costs drop again, local sourcing becomes a

less-relevant consideration and this is precisely what has happened over the past yearor so. The same applies to inventory reduction. With the credit crunch inventoryreduction is favored but when credit becomes more easily available again the trade-off will change, while the framework remains. Customers might value sustainableproducts and services but that does not mean they do not value fast delivery serviceanymore. So, in reconsidering the Carter and Rogers (2008) comprehensive frameworkfor sustainable supply chain management, it appears that economic performanceconsiderations, and not environmental and social performance, still largely drivedecision making. As a result and in response to Carter and Rogers (2008) call formore theory development, we would suggest based upon our ndings that existingtrade-offs can be expanded with:

.

new factors (such as social costs);. nuances (is marketing skewing the trade-off away from sustainability?); and. time-frames of criticality (what is the time window for sustainability?).

We hope that these research implications might inspire further progress in thinkingand research, just like the call for papers for this special issue had inspired us. Table Isummarizes the questions from the editors, case example, and research implicationsand questions.


efciency

155


9/11

Q u e s t i o n f r o m t h e e d i t o r s

S u m m a r i z e d a c a d e m i c p e r s p e c t i v e

C a s e e x a m p l e s u m m a r i z e d

R e s e a r c h i m p l i c a t i o n s a n d q u e s t i o n s

( 1 ) A r e c u r r e n t t h e o r y a n d s o l u t i o n s

s u i t a b l e t o a d d r e s s c u r r e n t

c h a l l e n g e s o f s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d

e n e r g y e f c i e n c y ?

E x i s t i n g t r a d e - o f f s s u c h a s t h e

i n v e n t o r y

t r a n s p o r t t r a d e - o f f s t i l l

a p p l y b u t v a r i a b l e s a r e c h a n g i n g .

T h e c r e d i t c r i s i s a n d e c o n o m i c

d o w n t u r n p l a c e p r e s s u r e

o n

i n v e n t o r y , f u e l p r i c e s , a n

d s o c i a l

c o n c e r n s p l a c e p r e s s u r e o n

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

C i s c o s y s t e m s v a l u e r e c o v e r y

p r o g r a m p r o o f s t h a t r e s o u r c e

e f c i e n c y a n d s u s t a i n a b i l i t y c a n b e

e c o n o m i c a l l y

, s o c i a l l y

, a n d

e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s o u n d c u r r e n t

i n n o v a t i v e s o l u t i o n s a r e a p p l i c a b l e

E v e n t h o u g h e x i s t i n g t h e o r i e s a n d

p r a c t i c a l s o l u t i o n s a p p l y , t h e r e a r e

a d d i t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u c h a s

s o c i a l c o s t s t h a t a r e n o t y e t

q u a n t i e d o r r e a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o

t r a d e - o f f s

t h i s i s a r e s e a r c h

o p p o r t u n i t y

( 2 ) A r e t i m e - b a s e d d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h

s m a l l - s i z e s h i p m e n t s a n d

d e l i v e r i e s a t e x i b l e d a t e s s t i l l

e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y a n d

e c o n o m i c a l l y s u s t a i n a b l e ?

T h e y a r e s t i l l f e a s i b l e , b u t t h e y a r e

a l s o m o r e e x p e n s i v e a n d

p o s s i b l y

l e s s a f f o r d a b l e

W a l m a r t s u s t a i n a b i l i t y p r o g r a m

r a t h e r f o c u s e s o n r e m o v i n g n e e d l e s s

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t h r o u g h t r u c k a n d

p r o d u c t i n n o v a t i o n . T h e

c o m p a n y

s e e s a m a r k e t i n g a d v a n t a g e i n t h a t

a s w e l l , d u e t o c u s t o m e r r e q u e s t s f o r

s u s t a i n a b i l i t y

I n s t e a d o f t o u c h i n g d e l i v e r y s e r v i c e ,

p r o d u c t , a n d t e c h n o l o g y i n n o v a t i o n

p r o v i d e s a m a r k e t i n g e d g e

h o w

s u s t a i n a b l e a r e t h e s e a n d d o e s i t

s t e e r a t t e n t i o n t o w a r d s t h e b e s t

s u s t a i n a b i l i t y ?

( 3 ) G l o b a l s o u r c i n g

i s t h e n e x t s t e p

l o c a l s o u r c i n g ?

Y e s , l

e a d s t o t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t

b e n e t s l a r g e r t h a n l a b o r c o s t a n d

s c a l e a d v a n t a g e s o f g l o b a l s o u r c i n g .

I f t h i s h a p p e n s i t m i g h t o n l y b e

s u s t a i n a b l e i f f u e l p r i c e s

a r e h i g h

w i t h p r i c e s d r o p p i n g t h e

c o n s i d e r a t i o n m i g h t d i s a p p e a r

W h a t i s t h e t i m e f r a m e o f

s u s t a i n a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ? F u e l

p r i c e s a r e v e r y v o l a t i l e w i l l l o c a l

s o u r c i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

v a n i s h a s

q u i c k l y a s f u e l p r i c e s c a n d r o p ?

Table I.Summary of ndings

IJPDLM40,1/2

156


10/11

ReferencesBrown, K.A. (1996), Workplace safety: a call for research,Journal of Operations Management ,

Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-61.Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002), Logistics social responsibility: an integrative

framework, Journal of Business Logistics , Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 145-80.Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), A framework of sustainable supply chain management:

moving toward new theory, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87.

Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P. and Scozzi, B. (2008), Logistics social responsibility: standardadoption and practices in Italian companies, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 88-106.

Elkington, J. (2004), Enter the triple bottom line, in Henriques, A. and Richardson, J. (Eds),The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Up? , Earthscan, London, pp. 1-16.

Fleischmann, M., Beullens, P., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2001), Theimpact of product recovery on logistics network design, Production and Operations Management , Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 156-73.

Klassen, R.D. and Johnson, P.F. (2004), The green supply chain, in New, S. and Westbrook, R.(Eds), Understanding Supply Chains: Concepts, Critiques and Futures , Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, pp. 229-51.

Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), Sustainable operationsmanagement, Production and Operations Management , Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-92.

Krugman, P. (1995), Growing world trade: causes and consequences, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, pp. 327-77.

Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), Sustainable supply chains: an introduction, Journal of Operations Management , Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.

Mollenkopf, D., Closs, D., Twede, D., Lee, S. and Burgess, G. (2005), Assessing the viability of reusable packaging: a relative cost approach, Journal of Business Logistics , Vol. 26 No. 1,pp. 169-97.

Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chainmanagement using case studies of 10 examplars, Journal of Supply Chain Management ,Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 37-56.

Skinner, L.R., Bryant, P.T. and Richey, R.G. (2008), Examining the impact of reverse logisticsdisposition strategies, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 518-39.

Srivastava, S.K. (2007), Green supply chain management: a state of the art literature review, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.

Stock, J.R. (1978), The energy/ecology impacts on distribution, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials Management , Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 249-83.

About the authorsRemko van Hoek (PhD, University of Utrecht) is a visiting Professor of Supply ChainManagement at the Craneld School of Management, UK, and Chief Procurement Ofcer atCofely in The Netherlands. He serves on the Board of Directors of the CSCMP, the AdvisoryBoard of the Procurement Leaders Network (UK based) and on the editorial board of severalinternational academic journals. He is the Co-author of Logistics Management and Strategy (withAlan Harrison) which is now in its third revised edition. Remko van Hoek is the correspondingauthor and can be contacted at: [email protected]


efciency

157


11/11

Mark Johnson (EngD, University of Warwick) is a Senior Research Fellow within theCraneld School of Management at Supply Chain Research Centre. His research focuses on themanagement of networks that design, deliver, and support complex products and services. He iscurrently involved in research contracts worth in excess of 2.5m and is Principal Investigator

on an EPSRC Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre (IMRC) grant researching thestrategies, congurations and relationships within service networks. He has previouslyconducted a number of research projects funded by the EPSRC IMRC, UK Lean AerospaceInitiative, Rolls-Royce, the UK DTI, PA Consulting, Atos Origin and Pro Logis. He also runs theAgile Supply Chain Research Club, an industry forum of 15 blue-chip companies which aims todevelop creative, customised insights into the complexity of todays supply chain environments.His research has appeared in the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , the International Journal of Production Economics , and the International Journal of Logistics Management among others.

IJPDLM40,1/2

158

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

sustainability and

Documents