Category Archives: Going Green

Exploring EcoVadis

Last month, Jason Busch gave the sourcing world an introduction to EcoVadis in his two part series (Part I and Part II) over on Spend Matters.

In his posts, he noted that EcoVadis was a European (and, in particular, a French) provider of a sustainability solution for evaluating and monitoring suppliers whose primary focus is helping European companies meet emerging green and sustainability regulatory requirements. According to Jason, not only does EcoVadis monitor environmental and operational practices, but they also consider labor practices & human rights, fair business practices, customer and product responsibility, and sustainable procurement. This is important because, in the EU, there are country-specific laws that require green and sustainability efforts.

Jason also notes that not only does EcoVadis provide capability with respect to supplier assessments, supplier audits, and corrective action procedures, but that they are also compliant with GRI G3 standards and the pending ISO 26000 certification with respect to the 150 procurement categories they are currently supporting across 23 green/sustainable criteria (and the 1200 plus pre-defined questions at a user’s disposal).

In this post, I’m supposed to be tackling the technology underpinnings of the solution, but the fact of the matter is that the technology underlying the platform is quite basic – which it should be when you consider the goal. The goal is to give a procurement buyer a quick overview of the sustainability status of a supplier on a single screen while also giving the buyer the ability to drill down deep into the rating and understand where the supplier is strong and where they are weak from a sustainability perspective.

All you need is a “dashboard” that shows a snapshot rating of a supplier on each of the key categories with the ability to drill down (which is key, because, otherwise, a “dashboard” is useless) into scorecards for each rating to find out why the score was high, low, or zero and linkages to relevant audits, alerts, and reports that led to the scores. In addition to this, EcoVadis offers a 360-degree watch that aggregates human-reviewed news articles relevant to the suppliers and their sustainability ratings, benchmarks against other suppliers in the industry on the relevant sustainability categories, and highlight summaries of each supplier. With regards to the solution they are trying to offer, the only critical component missing is an administrative interface where the head of CSR can add additional questions specific to the company and category in question (as some companies will want to go above and beyond the regulations and others will have special needs). The solution, which is multi-linqual, has the ability to add specific questions by category and customer – they just haven’t coded a web-accessible user interface yet (as most of their early customers have been more than content with the extensive question sets built into the product).

The big advantage of a standard web-based solution such as Ecovadis is the fact that suppliers only have to answer a question once and the result of an audit can be shared across multiple clients. One of the biggest downsides to wide-spread sustainability initiatives is the severe burden they place on a supplier. Think about it – not only is it resource constraining for a supplier to answer essentially the same questionnaire from each of its customers, and undergo multiple audits on the same indicators (when one surprise audit every couple of quarters should be more than enough), but it is resource crippling to have to answer the same set of questions for every potential customer, knowing that you’re only going to win a percentage of the RFPs you answer. A supplier should be able to answer the questions once, go through the (surprise) audit once, and then not worry about it for at least a couple of quarters.

It’s Time for a Power Shift

Industry Week recently ran an interesting article on “How to Produce More for Less” that noted that not only is overall manufacturing the largest end user of energy in the United States, but process manufacturers are the top five industrial energy consumers with chemical manufacturing (3.769 Trillion BTUs), petroleum refining (3.086 Trillion BTUs), pulp and paper (2.361 Trillion BTUs), iron and steel (1.455 Trillion BTUs), and food manufacturing (1.116 Trillion BTUs) leading the pack. With energy prices skyrocketing across the board, process manufacturers are feeling the burn more than ever. For example, for every dollar that natural gas increases per mmBTU, Wise Alloys, a producer of aluminum sheet coils, pays an additional $4 Million per year in energy costs.

With power costs soaring, manufacturers now have to explore every avenue they can to cut energy costs. Some are even going beyond the traditional avenues of wind power, solar power, and water power. For example, some food and beverage manufacturers have purchased fuel cells, some of which run on feed-stock, to meet some of their energy needs. Others are implementing energy saving measures by using alternate energy sources (such as solar) during peak periods, streamlining energy needs, and even diverting energy consuming processes to off-peak hours when dynamic rates are lower.

Anheuser-Busch has expanded its beer-to-waste energy program, known as its Bio-Energy Recovery System (BERS), that turns wastewater into fuel. It transports liquid waste to holding tanks where the liquid is treated using anaerobic organisms that eat the material and produce bio-gas, which is then used to fire boilers, that create steam – which is another form of power that can be easily created in any process that produces heat. Not only does the process create energy and lower energy costs, but it also saves the company between 6M and 8M annually in sewer charges since output is reduced and the water that is output is purified.

Another option, which is also being investigated by Anheuser-Busch, is alternative renewable fuels such as wood, spent grain, and landfill gas. And companies that user boilers can often reduce energy needs simply by using water softeners. Wise alloys noticed that the regional water supply to one of its plants had high levels of iron and salt. Simply adding water softeners reduced energy needs by 10%.

Manufacturing industries are ten of the eleven largest energy consumers in the US, with the top 10 industries consuming over 13.566 Quadrillion BTUs of energy annually – a rate unsustainable with current petroleum and gas reserves and current prices. It’s time for a shift – to renewable energy sources and more efficient processes that reuse waste – and waste energy.

‘Green’ Asbestos

While scanning Logistics Management, an article by Jeff Berman that said “a new approach for sustainable supply chains is needed” caught my eye. I’m a big believer in sustainability, but I’m also a strong believer that in their effort to jump on the bandwagon, some companies, governments, and individuals are doing – to be blunt – stupid things.

The article was based on a recent report by Adrian Gonzalez of ARC Advisory Group, in which the author notes that there are various tradeoffs when shippers and carriers strive towards sustainability. The tradeoffs exist because most products, manufacturing processes, and supply chains were not designed and built with sustainability in mind.

Gonzalez also noted that many people in the space are equating green with the reduction of their carbon footprint, as if the two concepts were interchangeable. Furthermore, even among those that realize that there is a spectrum to environmental friendliness, the author is finding that individuals are giving higher priority to initiatives perceived to reduce their carbon footprint – and, contrary to what you might expect, this may not be a good thing.

Let’s start with my favorite pet peeve – bio-fuels – and corn-based ethanol in particular. Although it’s true that the amount of contaminants, and carbon, produced by burning a barrel of corn-based ethanol is significantly less than the amount of contaminants, and carbon, produced by burning a barrel of crude oil, the fact of the matter is that, when you factor in how much oil you have to burn to create the bio-fuel, it actually increases your carbon footprint!

Using today’s technology, it can take up to 7 barrels of oil to create 8 equivalent barrels of corn-based ethanol. That’s a 12.5% return. 12.5%!!! That say’s that if you simply reduced your energy requirements by 12.5% you’d be a lot more environmentally efficient using oil! And you wouldn’t be harming the poor every time you drive your converted Honda. That’s right – by burning bio-fuel that’s inefficient to produce, you’re harming the poor every time you drive your Honda by driving up food prices! Last November, the American Farm Bureau (as chronicled over on Supply Excellence in “Inflation at the Thanksgiving Table”) reported that the cost of a traditional thanksgiving dinner rose 11%. Not only are corn prices rising due to ridiculous bio-fuel demands, but so are prices of wheat, grain, barley, and hops around the globe as farmers start planting corn for bio-fuel instead. These increases are in the double digits, and in some cases, triple digits as shortages are starting to become common. (Hops shortages are already threatening European brewers – who like their beer almost as much as us Canadians.) In other words, I guess what I’m saying is if you don’t mind increasing the lines at the food banks, then feel free to stay on your ethanol kick.

Now if this was the only example of stupidity from a sustainability perspective, it might not be so bad, but it’s only one example. Another example of ‘green‘ asbestos is the over-promises and unreasonable expectations associated with the use of fluorescent bulbs. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a believer in this technology (I use them myself) – but it’s not as green as you think it is. The average bulb contains mercury for crying out loud! And it’s not as efficient to produce them as an average light-bulb. They do require less energy, and they do, on average, last a lot longer, and I believe that this offsets the extra damage caused by the manufacturing process and inevitable recycling process, but it’s not a silver bullet. And it doesn’t mean that you don’t have to worry about leaving your lights on 24 hours a day – they still take energy! The only way you’re going to be green in using them is to be green with respect to their use – and turn them off when you don’t need them. This means you need to do more than just outfit your office building with them, like installing sensors that actually turn them off when there’s no one in the room!

I could go on (and might in another post), but the point is that it takes more than just “reducing your carbon footprint” to be green and sustainable. Furthermore, everything you do has a price or tradeoff associated with it. Ethanol is green, but its production is not. It’s still better to be energy efficient (better processes, new technology with lower energy requirements, conservative uses). However, it’s not the only green source of power – what about the stuff that occurs naturally around us – like wind, waves, and sun rays? So be smart – and then you’ll truly be sustainable and not just another product of ‘green‘ asbestos.

Integrity Interactive Gets Ethical

Earlier this month, Integrity Interactive announced the formation of a Supplier Ethics Management (SEM) Charter Group with Ryder System, Inc., H. J. Heinz Company, and bioMerieux as founding members. The goal of this initiative, as outlined in the Supply & Demand Chain Executive Article on “Combining Forces to Improve Ethics and Compliance in the Extended Supply Chain”, is to help develop specific practices and technologies that will ensure the integrity of products built and delivered through extended global supply chains. More specifically, the goal is to develop an online solution to monitor and improve the integrity of the supply chain (as per the Integrity Interactive website).

Now, it’s obvious that today’s supply chains need more ethical monitoring, in addition to more compliance and regulatory monitoring (as evidenced by the many posts on sustainability and corporate social responsibility that you will find on this blog and others), as the following statistics from a compliance survey of Global 2000 companies that were quoted in the original press release are scary enough:

  • 88% do not maintain a platform for identifying, tracking, and communicating with suppliers
  • 78% do not include suppliers in the company’s code of conduct
  • 58% don’t regularly assess compliance risk in the supply chain
  • 56% do not audit supplier compliance with code standards

But ethics goes beyond compliance, and I really have to wonder if an online solution for supply chain monitoring is going to fix the “ethics” problem. I do believe an on-line solution could go a long way to monitoring compliance, and that solutions like Aravo‘s Supplier Information Management (SEM) and Ecovadis‘ for Sustainable Supply Management (SSM) and CSR monitoring are a good start, but how do you monitor a supplier’s ethics without actually visiting its locations and getting to know its personnel.

Let’s face it, just because they don’t employ child labour at the locations they make your merchandise at does not mean they are not opposed to the idea, or that a sister company at another location (owned by the same parent “shell”) doesn’t employ child labor. Just because they check a box saying that their employees don’t work more than 50 hours a week doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Just because they say they are an equal opportunity employer, doesn’t mean that they are an equal opportunity employer with respect to the definition you or I would attach to the term. After all, just because they’d hire a woman to stitch garments, that doesn’t mean that they’d ever allow one to be promoted into management.

The point is, in today’s age of global sourcing, your suppliers are half a world away in another country with customs, beliefs, and traditional standards of operations that are likely quite different from what we are used to. And just because they check a box on a web form doesn’t mean that they are being compliant – or that they even understand what you are asking! (And just because they show you a plant that appears to be in compliance the day you show up after you gave them a month’s notice, it doesn’t mean that is how the plant always operates.)

Just like the only way to confirm compliance is to do unannounced plant visits, as far as I’m concerned, the only way to confirm ethics is to do the unannounced plant check and have a few good heart to heart talks over dinner afterward (assuming they pass the plant visit).

What do you think?

Sustainability 2008 Wrap-Up

First of all, the doctor would like to thank all of the bloggers and guest bloggers who participated in the first Sourcing Innovation sponsored cross-blog series of 2008. With nineteen participants and well over thirty postings on the topic, the doctor believes it was a great success. In case you missed a post, here’s the complete list, by blogger:

  • Alan Buxton:
    Two Sides to the CSR/Sustainability Argument
  • Alan Buxton:
    Auctions and Sustainability
  • Andy Monin:
    Leading the Sustainability Charge
  • Brian Sommer:
    Sourcing: A Sustainability Case Study
  • Brian Sommer:
    Sourcing: Sustainability or Durability?
  • Chris Jacob Abraham:
    A Brief Background on Sustainability Issues
  • Chris Jacob Abraham:
    Sustainability – Solutions in Search of Problems
  • Christopher Sciacca:
    Putting reduced packaging into a bigger supply chain perspective
  • Dave Kuketz:
    Sustainability
  • Dave M:
    Defining Sustainable Procurement
  • Dave M:
    The Cornerstone of Sustainable Procurement – Ethical Sourcing
  • Dave M:
    A Model of Sustainable Sourcing Transparency
  • David Bush:
    Carbon-Neutral Blogging
  • Eric Hiller:
    Sustainability, Granola Definition
  • Eric Strovink:
    Sustainable Savings
  • Harvey Chan:
    Pollution, Social Ills & The Developing World
  • Jason Busch:
    How Will Green / Sustainable Procurement Play in a Recession
  • Jason Busch:
    Sustainability Wins Because of the Market – Not Regulation
  • Jason Rushin:
    Promoting Sustainability Throughout Your Ecosystem
  • Jon Miller:
    What We Can Learn Form Boeing’s Lean Supply Chain
  • Paul Martyn:
    Some Thoughts on Sustainability
  • Randy Littleson:
    Sustainability and the Impact on Supply Chain Responsiveness
  • Rick Ankrum:
    CDP Initiative Aims to Establish Carbon Reporting Across the Supply Chain
  • Tim Albinson:
    Report from DC: Good News, Bad News
  • Vinnie Mirchandani:
    Green – or Guilt – Selling?
  • the doctor:
    Sustainability 2008
  • the doctor:
    Sustainability 2008: Some Classic Posts
  • the doctor:
    Sustainability and The Economist: Part I
  • the doctor:
    Sustainability and the Economist: Part II
  • the doctor:
    Some Recent Pieces on Sustainability
  • the doctor:
    It’s Not Easy Being Green
  • the doctor:
    Wired and CNet Enter The Fray

As well as the complete list of the doctor‘s summary posts of the insightful writings that the bloggers and guest bloggers shared with us:

Although the series may have ended up more questions than it answered, the doctor believes it was well worth it, because if you don’t know the right questions to ask, how will you ever end up with the right answer?