The drivers & barriers towards eco-effectiveness
An explorative case study in The Netherlands November 2008
Author: Marc Arjan Groothelm
Studentnumber: 1485741
Institution: University of Groningen
E-mail: groothelm@home.nl
Telephone: +31 6 53435416
Faculty: Economics & Business
Specialization: Strategy & Innovation
Supervisors: Dr. T.L.J. Broekhuizen
This paper was written in order to complete my journey as a student. Although it took me quite some years, I have enjoyed it to the fullest. During these years I have learned a lot and on short notice I will be able put it all to practice. Furthermore I have met many interesting people that have proven to be of great value in both my future personal and future professional life. In order to write a master thesis on the topic of strategy & innovation I required myself to find a subject that was both challenging, and innovative. Although the latter can be considered a pre-condition regarding my specialization, I really wanted to research something groundbreaking that eventually provides new insights for the people involved. Then I saw a documentary on a new concept called “waste equals food”, that offered me exactly that opportunity and after reading the book I was determined to dedicate my last year as a student to the implementation of Cradle-to-Cradle. It is needless to mention that with the introduction of this concept in The Netherlands, the current reality of sustainability was shaking on its fundaments. Moreover it was literally stated by the minister of the Environment and Spatial Planning, that The Netherlands should become the first Cradle-to-Cradle country in the world.
Due to the newness of the concept, the lack of existing academic work and with many enthusiastic people willing to contribute to my thesis, I was able to speak with and interview anyone I considered to have valuable information to answer my research questions. Therefore I want to express my gratitude to all the people I have spoken to on many occasions for sharing their thoughts. In addition I sincerely appreciate the people involved in the case studies and expert interviews for the time devoted to answering my questions and the feedback provided on my initial work. I would also like to thank my second supervisor Prof. Dr. W.A. Dolfsma, who was willing to review my work on such a short notice.
A special word of appreciation should be addressed to my first supervisor Dr. T.L.J. Broekhuizen. I have not experienced any supervisor with such devotion before. By sharing his in-depth thoughts on my concepts and by providing highly detailed feedback in such a natural way, he took my capabilities to a higher level.
1. Introduction 7
1.1. Ecology & economy trade-off ... 7
1.2. A new design paradigm ... 8
1.3. Research questions ... 8 1.4. Limitations ... 9 1.5. Thesis outline ... 9 2. Cradle to Cradle 10 2.1. Innovation ... 10 2.2. Design Principles ... 11 2.3. Sustainable development ... 12
2.3.1. Corporate Social Responsibility ... 12
2.3.2. Eco Efficiency ... 13
2.3.3. Industrial Ecology (IE)... 13
2.3.4. Eco-effectiveness ... 13 2.3.5. Ecological Modernization ... 15 2.3.6. Overview ... 15 2.4. C2C perspective ... 17 2.5. Certification ... 18 2.5.1. Certification guidelines ... 18
2.5.2. Problems with certification ... 18
2.5.3. Current situation of certification ... 19
2.6. C2C strategy ... 20
2.6.1. Levels of C2C adoption ... 22
2.7. Drivers and barriers ... 22
2.7.1. Sustainability ... 23
2.7.2. Radical organizational change ... 23
2.7.3. Expected influential factors ... 24
2.7.4. Overview of drivers & barriers ... 27
2.8. Conceptual model ... 27
3. Case Studies 29
3.1. Introduction ... 29
3.2. Research strategy ... 29
3.3. Case study design ... 30
3.4. Data collection ... 33
3.4.1. Expert interviews to check nomological net ... 33
3.4.2. Case study interviews with experts ... 34
4. Results 36
4.2.4. External Barriers - ESHA ... 38
4.2.5. Case summary - ESHA ... 39
4.3. NPSP composieten ... 40 4.3.1. Internal drivers - NPSP ... 41 4.3.2. External drivers - NPSP ... 41 4.3.3. Internal barriers - NPSP ... 42 4.3.4. External barriers - NPSP ... 42 4.3.5. Case summary - NPSP ... 43 4.4. DESSO ... 44
4.4.1. Internal drivers - DESSO ... 45
4.4.2. External drivers - DESSO ... 45
4.4.3. Internal barriers - DESSO ... 46
4.4.4. External barriers - DESSO ... 47
4.4.5. Case summary - DESSO ... 47
4.5. Van Houtum Papier ... 48
4.5.1. Internal drivers - VHP ... 49
4.5.2. External drivers - VHP ... 50
4.5.3. Internal barriers - VHP ... 51
4.5.4. External barriers - VHP ... 51
4.5.5. Case summary - VHP... 52
4.6. De Van Gansewinkel Groep ... 53
4.6.1. Internal drivers - DVGG ... 54 4.6.2. External drivers - DVGG ... 55 4.6.3. Internal barriers - DVGG ... 56 4.6.4. External barriers - DVGG ... 56 4.6.5. Case summary - DVGG ... 57 4.7. EPEA ... 58
4.7.1. Internal drivers - EPEA ... 58
4.7.2. External drivers - EPEA ... 59
4.7.3. Internal barriers - EPEA ... 59
4.7.4. External barriers - EPEA ... 60
4.7.5. Case summary - EPEA ... 60
4.8. Cross-case analysis ... 61
4.8.1. Internal drivers ... 61
4.8.2. External drivers... 63
4.8.3. Internal barriers ... 66
4.8.4. External barriers...67
5. Conclusion & Discussion 70 5.1. Drivers ... 70
5.2. Barriers ... 71
5.3. Managerial implications ... 72
5.4. Limitations ... 74 Bibliography 75
1. Introduction
The call for regulations and technologies to protect the environment has always been a twofold discussion. The need for environmental protection is widespread and on the other hand, there is a grudge against environmental policies, due to the persistent idea that environmental policies hamper innovation, competitiveness and growth. Accordingly, there is inherently a trade-off between economy and ecology consisting of the social or environmental benefits versus the costs of an environmental concept. Porter et al. (1995) argue that this static view of environmental regulation is incorrect and that environmental pollution is a form of economic waste. They state that when scrap, harmful substances or energy forms are discharged into the environment as pollution, it is a sign that resources have been used incompletely, inefficiently or ineffectively. Regulating the discharge of waste will eventually increase the costs without creating any customer value, since the value of waste is not returning in the product. Consequently, a self-fulfilling prophecy is created with regard to the aforementioned beliefs. According to Porter et al. (1995) the shift from pollution control to pollution prevention should be regarded a step in the right direction. Companies must start focusing their strategies on innovation and resource productivity to become both sustainable and competitive. A concept in particular based on pollution prevention is Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C), which principles encourage to fundamentally redesign processes and products in order to make them beneficial, instead of less harmful to the environment, where waste should be considered a nutrient for either the environment or another technological process.
1.1. Ecology & economy trade-off
With companies not able to manufacture products that actual safeguard the prosperity of future generations, the final customers in the European Union end up with an average annual amount of 3.5 tonnes of solid waste each, which is discharged through waste pits and incinerators. This waste is merely considered useless and therefore new products will have to be made and consequently, new raw materials will be needed in each process. As a result, it will be impossible to decrease material consumption. According to Ayres (1998), there is an important socio-economic and political dimension applicable to this problem. Manufacturers maximize profits by exploiting economies of scale through maximizing sales and production. The downstream consequences of energy use, material usage, pollution and disposal are frequently not considered a responsibility for the manufacturer and these factors are thus not taken into account in either pricing or product design. The competitive function of the current market makes manufacturers to over-produce goods, while over-consuming natural resources (Ayres, 1998). Applying the principles of C2C on a large scale enables manufacturers to deal with the economy-ecology trade-off, since the effective redesign of products, processes and consequently its waste flows will eventually render waste valuable, instead of having to pay to efficiently get rid of the burden of waste.
1.2. A new design paradigm
The philosophy of C2C, introduced by William McDonough and Michael Braungart (McDonough et al. 2002), offers an answer to this problem. The linear way of production, consumption and waste, Cradle-to-Grave, should be altered to a circular way of thinking; Cradle-to-Cradle. This philosophy leads to products that are fully biodegradable (biological cycle) or recyclable (technological cycle), by changing the fundamental design of a product and its accompanying processes.
This requires a paradigm shift, since instead of being less bad, the underlying assumption of C2C is based on being simply good. Weaver et al. (2000) coined a theory that is in harmony with the C2C philosophy; sustainable development should move beyond incrementalism, which is deeply rooted in the defining issues of usual innovation processes. C2C’s radical nature involves fundamental change of product- and process design and material flows. Not only take materials but also develop natural biological and technical cycles to use raw materials as effectively as possible. According to the C2C concept, actual waste should always be biodegradable, inclining more or less the ability to throw your waste anywhere you want and just celebrate life without feeling guilty. According to McDonough et al. (2002), it won’t be hard to establish a good marriage between a healthy environment and material prosperity anymore.
1.3. Research questions
1.5. Thesis outline
Section 2 consists of an elaborate review of the properties of eco-effective C2C design and its relation to existing sustainability concepts. The forms of C2C certification, its criteria, and the current status of C2C in The Netherlands are discussed as well. Derived from the literature, a definition of a C2C strategy will be presented, which plays an important role in the process of case study selection. An overview of drivers and barriers that may influence the willingness to adopt a C2C strategy will be presented representing the conceptual model. Section 3 explains the case study design that has been used to answer the formulated research questions. In Section 4, each case will be described together with the case study findings. Each case will be presented individually. Furthermore, the findings will be holistically presented in a cross-case analysis. This is followed by the discussion and concluding remarks in section 5.
1.4. Limitations
Case studies will be conducted in The Netherlands only and will be selected on the basis of a C2C strategy, consisting of certain key components derived from both the philosophy and sustainability literature. Consequently, the certification protocol will not be used, due to the immature state of official certification in the Netherlands. Furthermore, companies or industries that in coherence with the strategy have made advanced steps will be investigated to describe the reasons of their choice to adopt C2C at this early stage. The motivations of these early adopters will provide an outline of the possibilities for potential adopters. The defined C2C strategy is focused on the material aspects of the concept. However, it can be stated the remaining aspects; energy, water and social responsibility are major issues within the C2C philosophy, but based on the certification protocol, these aspects are only being treated at the highest levels of certification. Therefore a logical step is to narrow down the scope of this research and to investigate only the material components, which are actually in accordance with the lower levels of certification. Due to the insight it provided in formulating a C2C strategy and its practical implications, it is nevertheless legitimate to review the official certification procedure.
The research question that will be answered by this thesis is:
What are the drivers and barriers that can be distinguished regarding the implementation of a cradle-to-cradle strategy for manufacturing firms in The Netherlands?
Next to this central question the following sub-questions will be answered as well: What is Cradle-to-Cradle?
−
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Cradle-to-Cradle for organizations? −
As stated by Jacobs (2007), product innovation, process innovation and transaction innovation can be defined as the basic forms of innovation. The C2C philosophy offers opportunities for manufacturers to innovate within all three forms. On the one hand C2C is in particular based on product innovations, due to the substitution of toxic materials to harmless alternatives. Secondly, process innovations are also applicable, which merely depends on the degree of adoption of C2C. Fully utilizing the technological cycle of the concept requires radical process innovations, regarding the handling of material flows, in particular the reversed logistics regarding material recovery from waste. C2C provides possibilities for transaction innovation in the field of a new proprietary system as well. People may rent consumer durables without buying the ownership and return the products at a particular time, in accordance with manufacturer’s terms to obtain a new model. In coherence with the C2C philosophy, the manufacturer will then be able to reuse materials from the old model. Accordingly, Jacobs (2007) also describes this interdependence of product, process and transaction innovation and moreover defines a peculiar combination of the basic forms of innovation as a “business model innovation” which leads to a competitive advantage.
Next to firm level innovations, Jacobs (2007) also describes innovations at the system level, which are characterized by the reconfiguration of elements of a broader system, sometimes addressed to a more comprehensive problem. When the C2C philosophy is broadly adopted by a multitude of stakeholders, this concept might influence the currently functioning macro economic system, however regarding the newness of the concept and the firm level approach of this research, the implementation of the C2C philosophy in a manufacturing firm will be regarded as business model innovation.
2. Cradle to Cradle
The American architect William McDonough initially introduced the C2C philosophy. The author was among the first to comprehensively define sustainability fundamentals and thereby acknowledged the interdependence of fundamental product design and the environment. Based on the C2C philosophy, the eco-effectiveness paradigm has been developed which is being contrasted to eco-efficiency and has become the fundament of C2C design. In 1995, the American architect William McDonough and the German chemist Michael Braungart founded the MBDC, McDonough and Braungart Chemistry in Charlottesville Virginia, to promote and empower C2C design and to facilitate in product and process transformations. The Environmental Protection and Encouragement Agency (EPEA), founded by Braungart in 1987 in Hamburg teamed up with the newly founded MBDC in order to spread the C2C philosophy. In 2002 their book “Cradle to Cradle – Remaking the way we make things”, gained worldwide publicity.
2.1. Innovation
In this section the characteristics of the C2C philosophy will be linked to existing innovation literature, in order to acquire a proper context of C2C as an innovation and to what extend it contributes to certain types of innovation as discussed by Jacobs (2007).
C2C is derived from metabolism cycles. For waste to equal food, every product should eventually become a nutrient for either the “biosphere” or the “technosphere” without wasting valuable materials. McDonough et al. (2002) present three types of products within the C2C philosophy. Products of consumption are final products, which also encompasses packaging materials, which are consumed by either the customer or eventually within the biosphere and are characterized by its healthy and biodegradable ingredients. Products of service are technical products that are not suitable for literal consumption, but are purchased to provide a service, like consumer durables as televisions, computers and furniture, which should sooner or later return into a technical cycle. The last type of products is described as unmarketables. These products neither fit in the bio- or technosphere because of its toxic or hazardous properties. Products consisting of materials that cannot be effectively separated to fit within the described cycles also belong to this category. Research should provide for alternative materials to manufacture qualitatively equal substitutes, without hazardous properties. These substitutes can then be used within the bio- or the technosphere whereas the originally unmarketable product is phased out.
In addition, McDonough et al. (2003) argue to use current solar income as a primary energy source, instead of fossil fuels. It is stated that human energy systems have the capacity to be nearly as effective as trees and plants that use sunlight to manufacture food. Windmills can also capture wind power, which actually consists of thermal flows fueled by the energy of the sun.
Another aspect of nature is the diversity in the way that organisms live and respond distinctively to its surroundings and live in harmony with other organisms to maintain a local well-functioning eco-system. McDonough et al. (2003) describe the concept of sustainability as an ultimate In spite of the innovative character of the C2C
philosophy, the successful introduction of an innovation should according to Exton (2001) take place on three subsequent levels; (1) the broad socio-cultural, economic basis that provides the essential human foundations; (2) the technological and methodological basis that makes the specific, consumer-destined product feasible organizationally, mechanically, or economically; and (3) the product or service itself, distinguished by substantial advantages over pre-existent products or services or even by the provision of unprecedented benefits. Exton (2001) also emphasizes the interdependence of the basic forms of innovation, since he indicates that the three-level structure is applicable to unquestioned historical innovations as well. The introduction of electric light, the radio and the airplane was always preceded by prerequisite technological and methodological innovations and in turn these are based on socioeconomic conditions that offered the right market characteristics and human capabilities required for success. In this respect Reichstein et al. (2006) stated that radical product innovators are also radical process innovators. Furthermore, it has been acknowledged by Pisano (1997) that new products generate new processes and vice versa (Reichstein et al. 2006).
2.2. Design Principles
As introduced by McDonough et al. (2003), manufacturers should focus their attention on five dimensions of the production process; material usage, material reutilization, energy, water and social responsibility. These dimensions should be addressed by three general guidelines obtained from the manufacturing ability of nature:
Waste equals food -
Use current solar income -
2.3.1. Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is referred to in The Netherlands as “Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Ondernemen” (MVO). The social aspect concerning this subject plays a pivotal role in the definition proposed by the WBCSD; ‘Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.’ On the other hand, “MVO Nederland” presents a definition that is way beyond only the social aspect; ‘entrepreneurs should apart from making profit, account for the effect of their company to the environment and the people internal and external to the organization.’ An EU Green paper on CSR even defines CSR in relation to voluntarism; ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis.’ CSR can be described as the socially focused cover of all responsibility issues applicable to a company. A European survey conducted on sustainable motivation by the MORI institute (2003), derived from MPG intl. (2004) shows that within CSR, sustainability or environmental issues are considered most important with only 7% of the respondents. Figure 1 shows the sequence of indicated priorities ranked by importance. fit to local conditions. Manufacturers should
use locally suitable and available energy and material flows, instead of spilling a multitude of chemicals and energy in developing one-size-fits-all solutions, which has been described as using brute force to make a product fit in its environment. Consequently, using brute force will ultimately damage an existing eco-system, whereas respecting diversity by adapting to each particular eco-system will eventually preserve that very eco-system.
2.3. Sustainable development
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD) (1987) is responsible for the most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development; Development to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In order for companies to become sustainable or to contribute to a sustainable society, many concepts, tools, frameworks and philosophies have been developed. It has become clear that there is reasonable overlap in key features of different concepts and furthermore, many different definitions of the same concepts were introduced by different stakeholders and scholars. The interpretation of a concept differs geographically as well. In order to develop a proper conceptualization of the C2C concept, this paper provides an overview of the most important sustainable development concepts in relation to the C2C concept.
as well, as long as economic value increases faster. Increasing the output by a factor 4 with an increase in environmental impact of just a factor 2, increases the eco-efficiency of the company, but increases the harmfulness to the environment as well.
2.3.3. Industrial Ecology (IE)
Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989) introduced the multidisciplinary concept of Industrial Ecology in an article about strategic manufacturing. According to Frosch et al. (1989), an ideal industrial ecosystem would function as “an analogue” of its biological counterparts. Furthermore the concept was extended with the introduction of eco-restructuring by Ayres (1998) whose concept has striking resemblances with the C2C philosophy. The eco-restructuring of processes has been described as; a paradigm shift from a pre-existing development model and trajectory in which low importance has been ascribed to environmental capital, and benefits to ones in which the preservation of these becomes a fundamental design criterion for economic, social and environmental development Weaver et al. (2000).
2.3.4. Eco-effectiveness
As stated in the introduction, C2C is based on eco-effectiveness. Due to the considerable theoretical overlap of eco-effectives with Industrial Ecology, C2C can be subdivided within this concept although C2C has some important additional characteristics. This paragraph will present both the general features and the unique additional characteristics of C2C and eco-effectiveness in regard to the previously discussed concepts. According to Braungart et al. (2007) effectiveness goes beyond the current eco-efficiency approaches that primarily and directly focus on reducing the environmental footprint of products and processes. Essentially, eco-efficiency is getting more from less, which can ultimately
2.3.2. Eco Efficiency
Eco-efficiency was introduced by the WBSCD in 1992 and is achieved through “distributing competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life while progressively reducing environmental impacts of goods and resource intensity throughout the entire life-cycle to a level at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity.” Eco-efficiency is based on becoming more efficient in order to strive for resource reduction, lower emission rates and cleaner technology. The focal point is to gain more from fewer resources, which is in particular a reactionary approach of incrementally improving already defined harmful processes.
eco-effectiveness will benefit an industry that is already good and instead of reducing negative effects, eco-effectiveness is about maximizing a positive footprint. Figure 2, can be considered a comparison between the two different mind-sets, with two extremes on the Y-axis. Moreover, it has been stated (Braungart et al. 2007) that eco-efficiency addresses the problems instead of the source, sets goals and uses practices that sustain a fundamentally flawed system. The result is described to consist of an unappealing compromise that takes for granted the antagonism between industry and nature (Braungart et al. 2007). In contrast to eco-efficiency, eco-effectiveness starts against assuming the necessity of a linear to-grave cycle, but instead offers a cradle-to-cradle design where healthy material flows are generated for either the biosphere or the technosphere (figure 3). Every component should become a nutrient for a particular material flow, either biological or technological. As stated in the introduction, both material flows are based on metabolism cycles as seen in nature. Since eco-effectiveness is based on the interdependence and regenerative productivity of natural systems, the concept of waste as a problem of disposal, does not exist. For the output “manufactured” by a natural system is always an input for another. As a consequence of eliminating the concept of waste there is no need to limit or reduce materials, given that the fundamental design of the product be translated in damage- and guilt reduction.
Consequently, according to Braungart et al. (2007), these factors will never be absent but only reduced. It was also stated that the limitations of efficiency can be summarized as follows; eco-efficiency lacks a pro-active need for fundamental redesign, is inherently at odds with long-term economic growth and innovation and does not effectively address the issue of toxicity.
Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the difference of both efficiency and eco-effectiveness regarding ecological harmfulness/ benefit and time. Within the eco-effectiveness paradigm it is assumed that the industry is 100% bad (harmful) and applying the eco-efficiency principles results in decreasing the harmfulness over time. On the other hand, it is assumed that
Figure 2. Eco-effectiveness strives to generate an entirely (100%) beneficial impact upon ecological systems. Source: Braungart et. al (2007)
2.3.6. Overview
The briefly discussed concepts are summarized in table 2.3.6.1 in order to break down each concept into its focus, features/goal, scale and applicability. It should be acknowledged that sustainability concepts are either addressed to operationalize the route to sustainable developments or function as a descriptive concept.
is based on a healthy material flow.
Creating a healthy material flow within the technosphere makes recycling an imperative issue. However an important remark has to be made concerning our current recycling paradigm, since it can also be defined as an eco-efficient or reactionary approach1. Eco-effectiveness strives for a technological metabolism where recycling or “upcycling” is essentially using materials for the same product or even a better product over and over again, which can only be accomplished by fundamental redesign. In consequence of banning toxic materials from the biosphere and reusing them in the technosphere, eco-effectiveness even offers an economic gain for the companies involved as well. Since investing time and money for controlling regulations and verifying limited emissions will not be necessary. Moreover, material reutilization will eventually decrease purchase cost. On the other hand the collection and (re-)distribution of materials also requires investments. This awareness of economic feasibility within the eco-effectiveness or C2C concept illustrates its unique character. Since it is the first sustainable design concept that actually requires an equally divided consideration of the three components; ecology, economy and equity, whereas according to McDonough et al. (2002), the conventional design paradigm is the tripod: cost, aesthetics and performance.
2.3.5. Ecological Modernization
Ecological Modernization is thoroughly discussed by Jänicke (2004;2007) and is not a concept suit-able to practically implement in an organization. However, it describes the technology-based and innovation oriented approach to environmental policy (Jänicke, 2007). The concept goes beyond end-of-pipe (EOP) approaches, since it consists of all measures that have been taken in order to foster technological innovation.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
CONCEPT FOCUS GOAL SCALE APPLICABILITY
CSR
Societal responsibilities are accounted for.
Officially covers all aspects of responsibility including environmental, main priority is on workforce, employees and society.
Improvement of reputation. Used as marketing tool to stimulate sales and profits. Additional activities often not related to core-business. Process/Transaction innnovation
Organization
wide. Reporting and validationnot clearly defined.
Eco-Efficiency
Ecology focused improvements of existing processes.
Doing more with less. Reduction of waste and environmental footprint. Triple bottom line.
More efficient use of resources.
Short term improvements. Low implementation costs.
Process Innovation. Process/ product specific. Organization wide. Highly applicable in existing processes . System tools proposed: - LEAN manufacturing. - Cleaner Production. - EOP solutions. Industrial Ecology (IE)* Eco-Restructuring** Energy/material flows. Paradigm shift. Closed loop cycles. Diversity.**
Cultural/social restructuring of values and motivations for production/consumption patterns and restructuring incentives for people making such choices.**
Multidisciplinary. Radical change. Product/process redesign. Adaptation of industrial cycles to natural cycles. Eliminating waste. Optimize efficiency Minimize environmental footprint. Sector. Society.** No concrete comprehensive implementation protocol available.
System tools proposed :* - Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).
- Life Cycle Design (LCD).
- Design for environment (DFE).
Eco-Effectiveness
Economy/Equity/Ecology are equally accounted for. Paradigm shift.
Closed loop cycles. Triple top line. Solar Income. Waste equals food. Diversity.
Multidisciplinary. Radical change.
Business model innovation. Adaptation of industrial cycles to natural cycles. Optimizing effectiveness complemented by efficiency. Positive environmental footprint. Product. Organization. Industry. Society. Extended protocol available to audit products and processes based on quantified eco-effectiveness principles featuring several degrees of certification.
economic bottom line still dominates corporate decision-making. Therefore it has been proposed by Braungart et al. (2007) to address all compon-ents upfront by formulating triple top line questions, rather than acknowledging the importance of for instance ecology after the fact and consequently assessing health economically. Nine types of questions should be asked when a product is designed, using this triple-top-line strategy. In the bottom right corner, the economy-economy questions should be formulated, emphasizing only the economic dimension of the product like for instance profit, cost and investment. In the right side of the bottom (economy-equity), issues focusing on money in the first place together with little attention to fairness, like the fairness of salaries should be inquired. The left side of the bottom constitutes questions referring to equity related issues with a slight attention to economy. The bottom left corner (equity) presents questions referring to just the social dimension, where for example the respectfulness of treating one another should be considered. Table 2.4.1 provides an overview of examples that could be questioned within each of the nine dimensions.
Doing more with less (eco-efficiency) seems to have originated from the bottom right flank of the eco-effective triangle. Since, being ecologically DESCRIPTIVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
CONCEPT CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION
Ecological Modernization
Innovation Characteristics:
Political/Societal support. Basis for environmental policy.
Problem related.
Descriptive concept of environmental improvements achieved through technical innovation beyond end-of-pipe approaches.
Eco- Innovation Social/political/product focus.
Products and processes that contribute to sustainable development, which in turn evoke direct or indirect ecological improvements. Eco-innovations serve as a route to ecological modernization.
In literature, the concept of innovations focusing on the environment are interchangeably described as;
environmental technology, eco-design, environmental design, sustainable design or sustainable innovation. These alternative terms however, mostly
refer to process and product design (technological aspects), whereas eco-innovation in particular also emphasizes societal and political aspects.
Table 2.3.6.1 Overview sustainability concepts
2.4. C2C perspective
As mentioned in the description of eco-effectiveness, the equilibrium between ecology, economy and equity is the fundament of the concept. Braungart et al. (2007) refer to this equilibrium as the “triple top line”. The triple bottom line, which is also based on these principles, has already been used within many efforts to incorporate sustainability and was introduced by Elkington (1994). Braungart et al. (2007) argue that in practice it appears that attention is centered to only economic considerations, and not on equity and ecology. Steger (2007) also acknowledges that in reality it appears that the
platinum. Requirements get more sophisticated at each level where the level of platinum corresponds to the highest achievable level. Therefore, only with a platinum certification the actual waste equals food metaphor is applicable to the whole supply chain. At the lower levels, it is striking that concessions are being made to the initially described C2C paradigm. The requirements at the lower levels of certification do merely not meet the C2C philosophy and ideas presented by McDonough and Braungart. On the silver level for instance, a technical or biological nutrient should have to be reutilized for only 50%. Moreover MBDC does not guarantee that silver certified products do not contain “red” or hazardous materials. The only material that should be banned on the silver level is PVC. Other “red” materials are however identified and MBDC asks companies to develop plans to phase out these materials as well, in order to apply for a higher level of certification in the future.
2.5.2. Problems with certification
MBDC primarily expresses its core competences within the material dimensions of the C2C protocol. A database on material chemistry comprising the properties of hazardous materials and its possible healthy substitutes has been developed by the MBDC through years of consulting experience. In this database, chemicals are labeled in accordance economic paradigm without paying attention to
the social dimension (equity), seems to fit well within previous descriptions of eco-efficiency. As argued by both Braungart et al. (2007) and Abukhader (2008), it is significant to notice the complementary value of eco-efficiency regarding eco-effective strategies. Limiting material flows per product or service unit can be beneficial when an eco-effective strategy is already in place. It might not have an ecological purpose, although it will be favorable for both equity and economy.
2.5. Certification
The MBDC/EPEA launched its C2C design protocol in 2005 in order to translate the C2C philosophy into a certification protocol for companies to be able to meet practical requirements. The certification is based on several criteria within five separate dimensions; materials, material reutilization, energy, water and social responsibility.
2.5.1. Certification guidelines
Table 2.5.1.1 presents an overview of the dimensions and summarizes the corresponding criteria. A more elaborate overview can be found in appendix I, where each criteria is described together with the details of quantifiable requirements. C2C certification can be attained on four subsequent levels; basic, silver, gold and
Economy-Economy
Can we make and sell the product at a profit?
Economy-Equity
Is the product contributing to the wider economic health of the community?
Equity-Economy
Is the product or process achieved while providing fair benefits and wage practices?
Equity-Equity
Is it improving the quality of life of all stakeholders?
Equity-Ecology
Is it enhancing stakeholders’ health and safety?
Ecology-Equity
Is the product and production safe for local and global communities and ecosystems?
Ecology-Ecology
Is it creating healthy habitat?
Ecology-Economy
Is it making effective use of resources?
Economy-Ecology
Is it making efficient use of resources?
on plans and intentions, to apply for a higher (gold or platinum) certification in the future. The lack of transparency with regard to the proprietary character of the chemicals database has also been discussed, but after initiating cooperation in January 2008 with Material Conexxion, a worldwide leading knowledge base for information about new and innovative materials, the material database of MBDC/EPEA is available through paid subscription. The deficiency of clear boundaries between MBDC’s standards developing body, its certification body and its consulting activities has been criticized, due to the fact that standardization, certification and implementation are all being done by the same organization. Generally, third-party implementation is applicable, since an organization develops a standard, which is transparently registered at the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). This organization can provide third-party consultants with information on how to implement a standard and attain certification, which prevents any (financial) relationship between the certifier and the organization that developed the standard.
2.5.3. Current situation of certification
Willing to contribute to a positive global impact of the industry, the C2C philosophy has become very popular among organizations in The Netherlands. The “Tegenlicht” documentaries broadcasted by the VPRO on October 2nd, 2006
and November 26th, 2007 initiated many debates
on how to practically apply the C2C concept. Many companies involved react enthusiastically in the first place, although questions are asked how to implement C2C strategically.
with the “traffic light-model”. The chemicals or resources are categorized into red, yellow and green. Materials without complete environmental data are categorized as gray elements, but are treated as if they were red. For a product to become certified on a higher level than silver, it cannot contain any red materials unless no alternative is available and it can be guaranteed that the material is strictly used within a closed-loop technological cycle. But despite the development of criteria within the material section by MBDC, the requirements within the other sections are based on already existing certification protocols2. However
distinguished. In order to come up with a proper conceptualization, I would like to propose a practical definition of a C2C strategy. Defining and determining what specifically constitutes a C2C strategy will provide possibilities to workaround both the necessity of official certification and the lack of a general framework. Furthermore, the key characteristics of C2C as described McDonough et al. (2002) and Braungart et al. (2007), thoroughly discussed in the previous paragraphs, will be compared to authors describing the same phenomena, without any direct relation to the C2C philosophy in order to develop theoretical support.
There are multiple studies available on ecological-modernization, eco-design, eco-innovation and sustainable design. In studies by for instance Gehin et al.(2007) and Jänicke et al. (2004), these concepts are used interchangeably, but certain theories form a striking resemblance to the C2C philosophy. Considering the aforementioned top-line-questions (see table 2.4.1, page 18), it can be stated that fundamental redesign of both products and processes is the most important feature of the C2C ideology. Broadly, C2C contributes to sustainable manufacturing, by ecologically effective and efficient product design where the end of a product’s life should be considered beforehand. According to Gehin et al. (2007) proper End of Life (EoL) strategies enable firms to both make profits and increase environmental performance, sometimes even beyond legislation criteria. In Europe, regulation turns out to be more and more stringent. Therefore according to Gehin et al. (2007) it should be considered mandatory for firms to take a closer look at EoL strategies during the early phases of product development, which is in consensus with the closed loop cycles proposed C2C philosophy. According to Gehin et al. (2007), waste management should be developed beyond recycling. They refer to the technological cycle by integrating “remanufacturing” into a firm’s design activities.
The MBDC together with EPEA principally maintain full responsibility for standardization, implementation and certification. Although, the Dutch consulting firm EVOKE is EPEA’s satellite partner in The Netherlands. EVOKE has been appointed by EPEA to safeguard a proper landing of the concept in the Netherlands. Additionally, on March 13th 2008, EPEA announced cooperation
with the Dutch BECO Groep, a consultancy firm specialized in sustainable solutions. With BECO and EVOKE as a partner, third-party certification seems to become reality on short notice, however MBDC/EPEA still demands final responsibility with regard to the eventual certification.
Despite of official certification, both consultancy firms and other companies in The Netherlands develop their own independent concepts based on the C2C philosophy as either to provide a service or to implement sustainable strategies on their own. It has been argued by an EVOKE representative that the watering down of the concept, into many small and independent initiatives, by numerous consultancy firms, will ultimately not contribute to a C2C society, due to the comprehensiveness of the concept as introduced by MBDC/EPEA. For a company to become eco-effective, scientific research into the manufacturing processes and materials on a molecular level, in cooperation with the MBDC/ EPEA is necessary. According to EVOKE, this field of expertise is not interchangeable with any random consulting firm. It is questionable whether straightforward guidelines are being proposed. This meaning is particularly striking since McDonough and Braungart promoted that everyone should contribute to a C2C society. “Anyone involved in making anything can begin to do so as well” (McDonough, et al. 2002).
2.6. C2C strategy
This can be emulated in the service of sustainable manufacturing with a focal point on few materials used by its operation system and where planned obsolescence replaces the old for the new, with the same materials. I concur that striving for a closed-loop production system in the definition of a C2C strategy is essential. As stated before, the highest achievable C2C labeled product is manufactured within a closed loop process. The other labels have been developed to progressively contribute to achieving this highest achievable level, but are also called C2C. Therefore a manufacturer’s strategic efforts to progressively close the different cycles in the production system should be considered C2C as well. Regarding the mentioned theoretical support for the characteristics of the philosophy and feedback received from two industry experts, that were interviewed to enhance and elaborate the analytical framework, I want to propose a list of distinctive features that characterize a C2C strategy. This list can be found in table 2.6.1.1. Accordingly, Lindahl et al. (2005) proposed
the following definition of remanufacturing as described by Gehin et al. (2007).
“Remanufacturing is an industrial process in which worn-out products are restored to like-new condition. Through a series of industrial processes in a factory environment, a discarded product is completely disassembled. Usable parts are cleaned, refurbished and put into inventory. Then the new product is reassembled from both old and, where necessary, new parts to produce a unit fully equivalent and sometimes superior in performance and expected lifetime to the original new product.”
Adding the concept of remanufacturing into the definition, thereby acknowledging the ability to use new materials or components if necessary, provides a better fundament for the case studies compared to the somewhat utopian closed-loop system proposed only at the platinum level of C2C. Because of its comprehensiveness no company has yet been able to obtain a platinum label and moreover it can be argued that innovations might be hampered by a complete closed-loop system, since it is likely that innovations require the input of new or alternative raw materials that cannot instantly be reused for 100%. Therefore I propose a definition that provides improved feasibility of the concept and extents the firm’s ability to innovate.
can be considered suitable for the other basic forms of innovation, since they are likely to happen at the same time. Therefore the five level sequence as proposed by Jeston et al. (2006) has been enhanced to some degree and extended to provide a better fit with product innovations. Table 2.6.1.2 provides an overview of the levels of C2C strategy implementation together with the possible activities that in conjunction with the C2C philosophy may occur at a particular level. However, each particular activity is not required to reach the next level.
2.7. Drivers and barriers
In order for companies to adopt a C2C strategy, the actual willingness to adopt this strategy depends on two aspects; (1) the expected benefits and (2) the expected costs. Certain drivers and barriers either internal or external to the organization influence both aspects. These drivers and barriers have been defined in existing literature on the adoption of sustainability concepts, but the willingness to adopt this radical concept, may also be influenced by factors outside the sustainability realm. Therefore apart from sustainability literature, this section also explores possible drivers and barriers that can be derived from literature on radical organizational change. Furthermore the preliminary list of drivers and barriers has been handed out and reviewed by two industry experts in the field of implementing sustainable strategies. The theoretical findings on sustainability and radical organizational change will be integrated, in order to come up with Rethinking or developing a business model
•
(Re)design of products and its manufacturing and distribution processes •
Maximization of material value •
Re-use waste material by disassembly into technical nutrients suitable for re-manufacturing •
or disassembly into biological nutrients that are biodegrade after its disposal •
Qualitatively equal or better future products •
Contribution to the development of a beneficial circular economy •
Table 2.6.1.1. Distinctive features of a C2C strategy
Based on these factors the next definition encompasses the strategic direction of an organization inspired by the principles of C2C. Therefore, within this research, organizations complying with this C2C strategy are regarded to be C2C.
“Rethinking or developing a business model based on the (re)design of products and its manufacturing and distribution processes in order to maximize material value by re-using materials from products of waste designed to be effectively and efficiently disassembled into technical nutrients suitable for remanufacturing and or biological nutrients that regarding its non-toxic characteristics can serve as input for a manufacturing process or disposed of without an environmental impact. Reusing technical and biological nutrients must lead to qualitatively equal or better future products and therefore contribute to the development of a beneficial circular economy.”
2.6.1. Levels of C2C adoption
the only parties influencing the environmental behavior of manufacturers. Instead, three sources of pressure have been determined; (1) governmental pressure, (2) market pressure and (3) community pressure. In addition, Gunningham et al. (1997) published a case study for the Australian government on the barriers and motivators to the adoption of cleaner production practices, and as a result of a literature review, they described a list of barriers and motivators, which are both internal and external to the organization. In comparison with Luken et al.(2007), they did not propose a subdivision of external drivers and barriers into different sources of pressure.
2.7.2. Radical organizational change
Adopting the C2C philosophy needs a radical paradigm shift and furthermore a radical change in organizational processes. Regarding organizational change, the concept of Business Process Reengineering (BPR), also commonly referred an elaborate list of possible drivers and barriers
for a manufacturing firms that covers all aspects possibly associated with implementing the C2C philosophy.
2.7.1. Sustainability
Regarding theoretical support in the field of sustainability, this study makes use of the classifications proposed by Luken et al. (2007) and Gunningham et al. (1997). Luken et al. (2007) conducted a survey of 105 plants in nine developing countries and across four manufacturing sub-sectors, on factors affecting environmentally sound technology adoption. This study offers an analytical framework for researching drivers and barriers of sustainable technology development in general. They use a model of pollution control that was put forward in the Greening Industry report by the World Bank in 2000, which according to Luken et al. (2007) moves beyond the traditional understanding that governmental regulators are
IMPACT ON THE ORGANIZATION
1. Sub-processes & products of consumption redesign
Reusing manufacturing waste (scrap) •
Substitute harmful materials by existing biodegradable alternatives •
Alternative material development •
Products of consumption in biological cycle •
2. Core processes & products of service redesign
Renewable energy •
Reversed logistics, reuse material from disposed products •
Redesign products of service •
Alternative manufacturing processes •
3. Business redesign
Technological cycle •
New business model •
Transaction innovation •
4. Value chain redesign
Closed loop production system •
Industry wide technological cycle •
Internal Drivers:
Environmental Leadership: (S) •
This refers to the management of an organization being strongly committed to sustainability issues. Gunningham et al. (1997) describe the “trickle down effect” where environmental leadership actually makes all layers in the organization experience a stronger environmental commitment. Environmental awareness is considered to be pushed top-down through the organization.
Environmental Management System (EMS): (S) •
According to Gunningham et al. (1997), an EMS can be of importance for companies in the adoption of an environmental mindset, due to the required reorientation of firm priorities from a static model of discrete environmental solutions to a dynamic one where sustainability is integrated in the company’s core continuous improvement activities.
Need for radical change to resolve crisis: (B) •
According to Albizu et al. (2006), an internal economic crisis can drive radical change by BPR, since it has been used in an attempt to provoke spectacular improvements in competitiveness
in order to overcome crisis situations.
Productivity Improvements: (S,B) •
Productivity improvements are a potential powerful motivator for the adoption of cleaner production. According to Gunningham et al. (1997), firms may achieve cost savings through better energy and waste management, decreased demand for raw materials, reduced storage requirement for waste and less pollution control expenditures. In addition, this factor was also described by Kallio et al. (1999), from a different point of view. They mention that internal inefficiencies can be improved by the observation of operations in order to determine that for instance quality is too low or the costs are too high.
to as Business Process Redesign, was introduced in Europe in the mid-nineties by several authors around the same time. According to Albizu (2006) the study by Hammer et al. (1993) became known as the BPR manifesto, which was more appealing to managers and consultants, due to the fact that they emphasized the radicalness involved in using BPR for improving organizational performance, whereas Davenport et al. (1993) brought BPR as more of an extension within the concept of Total Quality Management (TQM). Hammer et al. (1993) define BPR as: “The fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes, to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed”. In contrast Davenport et al. (1993) proposed a definition, of a less radical nature, hence less appealing; “BPR is the analysis and design of workflows and processes within and between organizations”. Hammer et al. (1993) distinguish three types of organizations that could find solutions by initiating BPR efforts; those going through serious problems; those that foresee problems in the mid/long term; and those well situated but wishing to increase their advantage over their competitors.
Albizu et al. (2006) analyzed BPR implementation in 20 European firms and describe several factors that trigger the need for radical organizational change by BPR. In addition Kallio et al. (1999) studied 32 BPR projects on the drivers and tracers of business process changes. Regarding these studies I believe the next factors that are determined to influence the adoption of BPR may influence the willingness to adopt a C2C strategy as well.
2.7.3. Expected influential factors
of owners and investors, which according to Luken et al. (2007) should be considered a factor. Difficulty in implementing alternative process •
technology (S)
Firms may have recently done substantial investments in existing technologies, which may also be associated with investments in skills and expertise of the staff to operate them. Therefore these firms may be not willing to engage in activities that render expensive equipment obsolete (Gunningham, 2007). Furthermore, the absence of a viable process technology, particularly in case of older production units, can be barrier for cleaner production efforts (Luken et. al, 2007).
External Drivers:
Current environmental regulation (S) •
Luken et al. (2007) report that regulatory pressures are a significant determinant for
environmental performance. In addition
Gunningham et al. (1997) mention that innovative regulations, to take account of all the ways a facility produces pollution and waste, may increase the adoption of environmental activities.
Future Regulations (S,B) •
An anticipated increase in stringency of the current regulations could motivate managers to improve the firm’s environmental performance (Luken et al. 1997). This factor was also acknowledged by Albizu et al. (2006) within the classification of other environmental factors, since most companies in Europe adopted BPR as a preventive measure against expected changes in their environment. Furthermore regulatory changes were classified as “uncontrollable and unpredictable external changes to the industry” by Kallio (1999), as well.
Financial incentives (S) •
According to Luken et al. (2007), financial incentives as for instance; loans, duty-free imports and tax exemptions for capital investments are Internal Barriers:
Lack of information and expertise (S) •
A major hurdle regarding the adoption of cleaner production has been described by Gunningham et al. (1997) as the inaccessibility of information and expertise. The smaller the company the harder to obtain the appropriate information, due to the lack of resources and expertise to devote to implementing the best environmental practices. In addition, small and medium sized enterprizes (SME’s) may experience difficulties in understanding the terminology associated with environmental initiatives. Luken et al. (2007) also describe that insufficient
information often particularly constraints
the adoption of cleaner technology options. Low awareness of sustainability issues (S) •
Instead of the environmental concerns that should lead to cleaner production, Gunningham et al. (1997) report that managers see environmental practices often as an insurance to avoid prosecution in case something goes wrong. In this case, environmental efforts have a negative feedback and are thus only successful if nothing happens, which subsequently hampers the adoption of environmental efforts.
Avoidance of risk (S) •
Uncertainty and therefore the avoidance of risks can be considered a key barrier in the adoption of cleaner technologies. According to Luken et al. (2007), managers tend to question the optimistic estimates, of for instance productivity and quality improvements resulting from the adoption of an environmental concept.
Competing business priorities (S) •
smaller parties to initiate environmental efforts, which is in coherence with Luken et al. (2007) who reported that environmental requirements of a firm’s business partners and customers increasingly act as a driver for adopting environmental efforts. Furthermore this factor is strongly related to the description on changing customer/ supplier requirements by Kallio et al. (1999). Low satisfaction is observed among customers/ suppliers concerning current products/services or a high pace of loosing customers and suppliers.
Industry networking (S) •
The sharing of information and expertise through the facilitation of either formal or informal industry networks among small and medium sized companies can greatly assist in implementing cleaner production processes (Gunningham et al. 1997). In this study this factor focuses on the influence of network organizations, whereas partnership influence from buyers and suppliers will be discussed within the factor described as buyer/supplier relations.
Increasing costs of production inputs (S,B) •
Competitiveness can be achieved or maintained by reducing operating costs particularly in markets characterized by price competition. Adopting environmental processes improves efficiency by cutting down energy costs, water use and the use of material input. Awareness of this fact may results in a greater willingness to adopt cleaner production (Luken et al. 2007). This factor was also acknowledged by Albizu et al. (2006) within the classification of other environmental factors. External Barriers:
Failure of existing regulatory approaches (S) •
Conventional regulatory approaches were
confirmed by Gunningham et al. (1997) to be counterproductive for the implementation of cleaner production activities, due to overly prescriptive standards and the lack to accommodate the considerable variation between different industries, measures that usually improve the adoption rate of
cleaner technologies.
Environmental image increasingly important (S) •
Luken et al. (1997) describe the importance of the environmental image of the competition,
which contributes to the adoption of
environmental efforts by other firms. Furthermore this factor might be market-driven as well.
Growth of green consumers (S,B) •
Gunningham et al. (1997) state that consumers have the economic muscle to demand that environmentally unsound products have to be either replaced or improved. This factor was also acknowledged by Albizu et al. (2006) as increasing demand pressure, which was described as the pressure from customers to deliver higher quality standards regarding delivery times, prices and demands from clients to deliver within a Just-in-Time system initiated radical change activities.
International trade incentives (S) •
The increasingly globalizing economy will increase the power of (foreign) trade partners to influence production processes of domestic firms. This power can be formally exercised by specific import requirements and informally by specific customer preferences in certain regions. (Gunningham et al. 1997)
Peer pressure to become more environmental (S) •
Gunningham et al. (1997) mention that cleaner production initiatives are encouraged by industry peer pressure, in companies being a member of a business network, business association or active in a voluntary government program. The authors considered this factor an internal driver whereas Luken et al. (2007) specifically mention peer pressure, as the influence of trade and business associations in an external context.
Buyer/supplier relations (S,B) •
competitors. Moreover the level of importance of individual factor can change through developments in the external environment.
External factors
It was chosen to subdivide the external factors into three appropriate levels. Luken et al. (2007) proposed a subdivision based on governments, markets and community. The C2C philosophy particularly promotes collaboration within the value chain and additional factors derived from previously discussed literature and the study by Gunningham et al. (1997) also focus on industry characteristics. Therefore, I want to propose a subdivision between government, market and industry for both the external drivers and barriers.
2.8. Conceptual model
The development of a conceptual model consists of defining the variables and causal relations between these variables that are believed to influence a certain phenomenon. Concerning C2C adoption, all factors either positively or negatively contributing to the willingness to adopt C2C should be involved. I believe that two factors play an important role regarding the willingness to adopt a concept; the expected benefits and the expected costs. The overview presented in paragraph 2.7 provides a list of the potential internal and external barriers and drivers. Drivers are defined to contribute to the expected benefits and in turn, the barriers determine the expected costs. Since the importance of internal factors depends on developments in the external environment, external barriers and drivers have been linked back towards the internal factors. both the nature of specific environmental problems
and a firm’s capacity to develop and implement
cleaner solutions. Additionally, conventional
regulation restricts the adoption of for instance recycling, since regulation sometimes requires new products to be made only by new raw materials and subsequently restricts the use of recycled material.
Perverse economic incentives (S) •
According to Gunningham et al.(2007), economic subsidies for conventional production processes and business resource inputs are a primary disincentive for cleaner production efforts.
Absence of recycled goods market (S) •
The supply driven nature of recycled goods discourages many firms from recycling their waste products externally. This market should be driven by the demand from external parties. (Gunningham et al. 1997). Furthermore, a fully functioning demand driven recycled goods market for waste material, can be considered a pre-requisite when implementing C2C at a value chain level.
No alternative for raw material input (S) •
Luken et al. (2007) report that the adoption of cleaner technologies may be hampered by the absence of environmental friendly substitutes for hazardous raw materials.
2.7.4. Overview of drivers & barriers
The discussed literature on sustainability, innovation and radical organizational change has provided a preliminary list of drivers and barriers that influence the willingness to adopt a C2C strategy. The individual drivers and barriers both internal and external will be briefly discussed. Eventually, an overview of the applicable drivers and barriers derived from the mentioned sources, sustainability literature (S) and BPR literature (B) is provided by table 2.7.4.1. Internal factors
INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS
Environmental leadership (S) •
Environmental management system ( •
Need for radical change to resolve crisis (B) •
Productivity improvements (S,B) •
GOVERNMENT:
Current environmental regulations (S) • Future regulations (S,B) • Financial incentives (S) • MARKET:
Environmental image increasingly important (S) •
Growth of green consumers (S,B) •
INDUSTRY:
International trade incentives (S) •
Peer pressure (S,B) •
Buyer supplier relations (S) •
Industry networking (S) •
Increasing costs of production inputs (S,B) •
INTERNAL BARRIERS EXTERNAL BARRIERS
Lack of information/expertise (S) •
Low awareness of sustainability issues (S) •
Avoidance of risk (S) •
Competing business priorities (S) •
Difficulty in implementing process technology (S) •
GOVERNMENT:
Failure of existing regulatory approaches (S) •
Perverse economic incentives (S) •
MARKET:
Absence of recycled goods market (S) •
INDUSTRY
No alternative for raw material input (S) •
Table 2.7.4.1 Preliminary overview of possible drivers and barriers to implement a C2C strategy.
