Category Archives: Sustainability

Will Factories in a Box Revolutionize Sustainability Initiatives?

Gizmodo just ran a very interesting, and vey insightful article on how “The Next Industrial Revolution Starts in this 20-foot Shipping Container” about Re-Char and their “Shop-in-a-Box” that can perform rapid fabrication of steel parts by way of software and a CNC plasma torch. With the Shop-in-a-Box described in the article, Re-Char can produce 600 lids for Climate Kilns. This is a specialized lid-and-chimney integration that adapts a 55-gallon drum to produce the soil amendment biochar. (In Kenya, farmers burn sugarcane debris in an open field and release tons of carbon. A Climate Kiln controls the burn to produce the carbon-rich charcoal biochar that, mixed into soil, reduces the fertilizer requirements for crops by half.) This required the precision cutting of 18-gauge metal, which, in East Africa, leaves you the option of using a guy with an oxy-acetylene torch on the side of the highway or importing a full production run out of China, one full shipping container at a time. But for 30,000, Re-Char was able to produce a Shop-in-a-Box metal cutting and joining setup that could be run by two two people and produce 600 lids as a time, when needed, where needed (as the shop in a box can be moved to a new community when the needs of the current community have been fulfilled).

From a sustainability perspective, this is incredible. It’s lean, green, and completely against the routine. Actually, lean is an understatement. The power requirements are limited to what is needed to produce the lids. The energy required just to light, cool, etc. an average factory typically takes a 600 V feed … or two … or three. It’s green in that it can be powered by sustainable energy, including wind power, water power, or solar power – whatever is available. (Transformers come with the standard kit, along with generators for [natural] gas power for stability. Just add batteries and a UPS and it’s 100% green power most of the time.) And it’s completely against the routine. When the industrial revolution started, you can be that the robber barrons never predicted a moveable factory.

To date, the most (wide-spread) innovative use of containers has been data center modules, with Google a leader in this technology. (But this has been taken to the next level. For example, Green Data Center has designs for completely self-contained data center modules that you can drop anywhere. Just hook-up a power feed and an internet feed, and you’re literally good to go. (And since you can easily put a generator, or two, in a second container, you don’t even need a power feed. Just a natural gas feed, split between a couple of generators if you don’t have a sustainable power feed, for a primary feed.)

But we don’t have to stop at data centers and steel-part fabrication shops. Especially when we are talking about the developing world (which still includes much of Africa, South America, and parts of Asia). Do we really need to refine cane sugar 2,200 kgs at a time, for example? Or how about water purification? If we’re talking about a small community of a couple of hundred people, and the primary focus is clean drinking water, we don’t need to purify 100,000 liters a day! Purifying 1,000 liters would do nicely! Both processes would fit nicely in a container system. (After all, the sugar refinement process is not radically different from micro-brewing in terms of what is needed, and you could fit that nicely in a container too — although we can’t necessarily bring the same humanitarian arguments if we did.)

And when we’ve insured that everyone has the absolute necessities of clean air, clean water, and healthy food — we could ship them clothing factories in a box. It doesn’t make sense to sew shirts in sweat-shops on another continent just to ship them to small communities in Africa, or South America, or Asia, where the living wage is $2 a day or less. Considering the shipping costs alone, you couldn’t set the price at a point where you’d make many sales. Just ship a container to the town, train a few locals on the cloth-cutting production lines and find a few budding seamstresses to do the stiching, and produce the clothing where it will be sold. A zero-mile supply chain that emits zero-carbon and has zero shipping costs. And since you don’t have time-sensitive fashion industries in developing economies, you could even rotate it between a few small communities in the beginning while the consumer base and local economy built up. (Hopefully you’d also move the employees too if they were willing, as you could outfit another container as temporary living quarters without much cost or effort.)

I think the physical manifestation of the Solution-in-a-Box approach has the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, distribution, and sustainability. And it’s not like we have a shortage of containers thanks to the outsourcing craze of the last fifteen years. They’re just sitting there waiting for a good use. And with all the super-panamax ships, and super-panamax capable ports, that we have at our disposal, we can get them from any continent to any other continent with ease, in bulk, and pretty close to where we want them. And then we just need a freightliner to haul them, and there’s no shortage of those.

The Seven Deadly Supply Chain Sins (Repost)

Originally posted on April 20, 2008, something tells me it’s time for a repost …

Over on the World Future Society, there’s a great piece in the President’s Web Log where he recounts a creative interpretation of the sins of the future. What really got my attention is how each of them have their supply chain equivalents, and how the first five in particular require very little modification. So, without further ado, here are the seven deadly supply chain sins.

  • Earthism
    Holding humans superior over all other life-forms, and putting our needs over the needs of the other species we share the planet with. This can take the form of plotting a sea-lane through areas wales like to call home or of a new highway through areas of woodland where animals on the precipice of the endangered species list live.
  • Harmful Technology Replication
    The reproduction of environmentally dangerous means of production, power, and transport when greener, friendlier methods have been identified.
  • Innovation Theft
    Stealing your competitors innovation and calling it your own.
  • Online Misbehavior
    Misrepresenting yourself and your capabilities on your website, in electronic negotiations, in electronic marketplaces, and anywhere else in the virtual world created by the internet.
  • Transportation Recklessness
    Use of highly expensive, environmentally damaging, and resource-intensive fuels to ship functionless trinkets and knick-knacks halfway around the globe or to travel halfway around the world to play golf with your counterpart at a supplier.
  • FTZ and STZ exploitation
    Regularly shifting your base of operations to take advantage of Free Trade Zones and Secure Trade Zones to avoid paying taxes and your debt to society.
  • Bribery
    Bribing public officials to change the laws to your corporate advantage … be it a reduction in environmental regulations, a reduction in safety regulations, or a reduction in social welfare and employment regulations to increase corporate profits at society’s expense.

Sustainability Requires Shared Understanding

A recent article on “Sustainable Success” over on the CPO Agenda discussed three challenges that, when addressed, can lead to success in sustainability efforts. The challenge of tools and transition to better processes is well known, and straight-forward to address. The challenge of recognizing the achievements of supply management professionals is lesser known, but there are a number of techniques that can be used to address this challenge. However, the challenge of building a common understanding of just what sustainability means and why it is relevant to procurement is often overlooked and not as easy to address.

As the article notes, first among the difficulties in getting sustainability right is making sure everyone sees the same potential benefits. This means a common understanding that goes beyond what the term sustainability means on its own, but what it means for Supply Management and the organization as a whole. As the article notes, sustainable procurement aims for the same outcomes that any buyer would wish to see in their work, and delivers some additional benefits that can go beyond the buying organization. In particular, it means seeking benefits now that do not impact the ability to seek benefits in the future. The impact of activities must be considered not just with respect to the current sourcing event, but over the lifetime of the category and any affected supplier relationships.

So how do you come up with a common definition?

As the article notes, a good way to start is by determining how a potential decision stacks up with respect to some key factors, such as:

  • customer reputation
    does it increase your net worth in the eyes of a customer (who has also embarked on a sustainability agenda)
  • risk management
    does it decrease your overall risk exposure (in terms of supply availability, reputational damage, or media exposure)
  • medium / long term value
    does it decrease costs, increase quality, or insure available supply
  • supplier relationship(s)
    will the supplier partner in innovation to reduce production costs, reduce waste, and decrease environmental impact

And then by determining how the decision stacks up with respect to concrete sustainability factors such as:

  • raw materials
    are the materials you are using renewable and can they be extracted with minimal harm to the environment
  • energy requirements
    are the energy requirements associated with your purchase (for production, storage, and transportation) minimal and can they be met with renewable resources
  • waste products
    are waste products minimal and/or reusable and/or reclaimable? can the food waste be used to feed livestock? can the metal waste be melted down and reused?
  • worker treatment
    are all workers who take part in your supply chain treated ethically, responsibly, and fairly, using standard guidelines, such as those outlined by JLP

If a supply management decision would increase customer reputation, reduce risk, contribute to medium and long term value, enhance supplier relationships, use renewable (and non-environmentally harmful) raw materials, reduce energy requirements, minimize (or eliminate) waste in production, and do all this in the context of ethical worker treatment, then, regardless of what definition of sustainability each individual on a cross-functional sourcing team is partial to, it should be easy to agree that such a decision, at least in the mid-term, is sustainable.

We Need More Corporate Ethics – Bring on the No-Maximum Mega Fines!

As noted in a recent article on Fine and Punishment, it has been a bumper summer for corporate fines and settlements. With firms in Britain and America agreeing to pay over 10 Billion in the past three months alone, there’s too much corporate wrong-doing these days. But the current fines are not enough. For example, a mere 5K for violating 10+2 is a CEO’s lunch money these days in most Global 3000’s. The only act close to defining a fine that will take a real chunk out of the corporate coffers of the guilty that the doctor knows of is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows 15 Million Dollar fines for first offenses and 30 Million Dollar fines for second offenses.

The reality is that a fine is only a deterrent if getting caught would mean a loss. Let’s say the fine for stock-fixing is 1 Million but an investor group could make 10 Million on the fix. Guess what’s going to happen? The stock is going to get fixed if the investor group has anything to do about it because, worst case, they only make 9 Million. The fine HAS to outweigh the reward, or corporate wrongdoing is going to continue to permeate both the financial sector, and the supply chain practices in industries where unlicensed knock-offs (especially in pharmaceuticals or electronics) can save a middle-man millions of dollars and push profits through the roof. As the Economist article stakes, given a risk-free opportunity to mis-sell a product, or form a cartel executives will grab it. To them, it’s all about the almighty dollar — and earning more than their peers to earn Wall Street’s favour and have something to boast about at the next charity dinner. (For a great Wall Street Perspective, you have to check out Randall Lane‘s The Zeroes: My Misadventures in the Decade Wall Street Went Insane [now at a bargain price for the hardcover edition on Amazon.com — you can’t go wrong]. Audiobook also available).

Unless the potential fines are crippling, wrong-doing will persist*, and so will cheapening out. And this is the biggest problem. Right now, we need sustainability in supply management, but initial investment in sustainability always costs more, so not only are executives not going to green light sustainable efforts, but if the organization has to look green or socially responsible, they are going to fund the lowest-cost “accredited” third parties that they can find to be “socially responsible”, and, in particular, likely fund those that use shady practices and cut corners everywhere possible. Because when the dollar rules, as long as you can buy the image, why create the real thing?

But if we force ethics back into the corporate world, then maybe we can force sustainability in as well. And when the only choice for gains is again long-term strategy, which is precisely where the economics of sustainability really make sense, maybe we’ll see improvement in ethics and corporate responsibility across the board. Or maybe it’s a pipe-dream. Either way, heftier fines would be a great start!


After all, remember what Randall Lane discovered when he did a Trader Monthly survey in the zeroes:
  If you received an illegal insider tip, a sure thing, and had a 50% chance of getting busted, would you use it? Only 7% would. What about only a 10% chance of getting caught? The numbers spiked to 28%. And what if you had a 0% chance of getting discovered? Suddenly, the number surged to 58%! To the majority of our readers, cheating wasn’t an ethical issue, it was simply a matter of whether they’d get caught.

Walmart Changed the World 50 Years Ago, But Did It Change For The Better?

I certainly agree with this recent Time Business article on 10 Ways Walmart Changed the World since the first Walmart store was opened in Rogers, Arkansas on July 2, 1962 (four thousand, four hundred stores ago). But I’m not sure all of the changes created by the world’s largest private employer are for the best.

Let’s start with this nice and succinct quote from the article:

Walmart’s relentless drive for efficiency has bankrupted companies, put downward pressure on wages and upset a retail culture that some believe was less efficient but more personal and aesthetically pleasing.

It may be the story of American capitalism at its finest, but is that the story it wants to bring to the rest of the world as it continues its rapid (or is that rampant) international expansion?

Now, while everyday low prices, supplier partnership, data driven management, supply chain connectivity, focus on decentralized management, and sustainability are good things; and while better selection is neither good nor bad in and of itself; the suburban sprawl it generates is bad for the environment, the relentless drive for efficiency is an accelerating factor in the outsourcing of American jobs and stagnant wages for North American employees is making us poor, and the creation of an overconsumptive (& disposable) culture will make it almost impossible for true sustainability to creep into our culture.

From a simplistic perspective, 6 changes for the better compared to 3 for the worse would appear to be a balance in Walmart’s favour, but it’s not how many good deeds and how many bad deeds, it’s the extent of the damage of the bad deeds that matters. And the extent is pretty bad when we look at things from a modern perspective.

First of all, as the article notes:

The selection that Americans began to demand required bigger stores that could only be built on the outskirts of small towns or in the suburbs of large cities.

Thanks largely to Walmart, we began to sprawl so much that your average big American city is now sprawling into the next big American city. That’s why we have Mega-Regions where it’s hard to determine where one city ends and the next begins. This is about as un-green as you can get. There’s a reason that San Francisco, Vancouver, and New York are the greenest cities in North America. (See Metropolis.) Why? For starters, the bigger the city, the more gas we have to use to get around because public transportation covers less and less. Plus, we need more resources to distribute power, water, communications, and everything else we need to live.

In the last 10 years, the US economy has last over 4 million blue-collar jobs, mainly as a result of manufacturing job losses, which is largely due to outsourcing. Outsourcing accelerated by Walmart in its pursuit of the lowest possible cost.

But this doesn’t pale in comparison to the creation of the overconsumptive and disposable culture it has created. Thanks to Walmart, we not only want to buy more, because some products have become so cheap, relatively speaking, that we don’t even think about buying them. And, more importantly, because some products have become so cheap, we don’t even think about repairing them when they break, even if they repairable. As a result, we now generate more waste per capita then one would have ever thought possible even a few decades ago. Without Walmart, something else might have come along, but the reality is that Walmart came along and Walmart did the damage.

Any differing opinions?