Category Archives: Sustainability

Sustainability ONLY Exists In the Supply Chain

Furthermore, simply switching suppliers does not make you more sustainable no matter what you may think or what those overpriced third party ESG / Scope 3 reports may (or may not) say. Switching suppliers to a supplier approximated to be more sustainable is not increasing sustainability, because if you take someone else’s supplier, then they are just going to end up with yours. It may be a temporary net win for your company, but it’s a net loss for another company, and that doesn’t really help anyone as sustainability was not actually increased overall.

Sustainability only comes from net improvement. The reason it only comes from the supply chain is because the products you buy come from the supply chain. The energy you use comes from the supply chain. The water you use (and drink) comes from the supply chain. The services come from your partners (in the supply chain). The transport to you (and/or to your customers) is the supply chain. Everything comes from the supply chain. The only way you can increase your sustainability is to reduce the energy, water, and products you use and the travel you undertake. For most companies, this is a negligible part of the supply chain … sometimes so negligible it rounds to zero.

So how do you increase sustainability in your supply chain? You start by helping your suppliers be more sustainable, which, believe it or not, starts with you being a better buyer and a better partner. Sustainability requires investment, and when they are operating at slimmer margins than you, significantly smaller bank accounts than you, and a lot more uncertainty than you, it can be hard for them to invest in new technology or processes when they don’t even know if they can invest in next week’s payroll.

And it requires more than a piece of paper from you saying you’re going to award them two years of business after a multi-round RFP when you’re a first time buyer. Because they know that while you may have the wherewithal to enforce a contract in another country half a world away, they often don’t. And they know how many times they’ve been screwed in the past when they were told they’d get 100,000 units, but COVID hit, the market crashed, or the transport lanes (ports, borders, etc.) closed down and the orders never came.

You need to develop a true partnership, work with them, build up shared trust and commitment, stick to your promises, help them with their processes so they become more efficient, identify efforts they can make to significantly increase sustainability, and then make the long term commitment they need from you (and other major customers) to invest in better technology, build their own renewable energy grids, etc.

Why are we bringing this up? Because a recent article in VOGUE Business that asked if fashion’s buying practices are really improving had a very good point. While fashion brands make strong claims they are investing in longer-term strategic partnerships, and big consultancies like McKinsey quote impressive statistics (such as an increase from 26% to 43% over the last 4 years) on how the percentage of CPOs reporting longer-term strategic partnerships (which just translates into longer term contracts, but not necessarily guaranteed awards over the long term, as there are usually so many out clauses the contracts mean nothing), the reality is that when you ask the suppliers how things are going, it’s a completely different story. As the Vogue Business article point out, this year’s Better Buying Partnership Index saw just a one point increase in the garment industry’s buyer-supplier partnerships score. Just one point! That could be a rounding error.

Despite all the lip service, there has been no improvement in the fashion supply chain because, at the end of the day, as Lindsay Wright was quoted, simply claiming you have good partnerships with your suppliers isn’t going to cut it. If you want an honest picture of what’s really happening on the ground, you need to be asking suppliers, because they’re the only real arbiters of whether purchasing practices are improving.

And this holds true across supply chains. Partner with your suppliers on long term contracts and work on development initiatives with them if you want to increase sustainability. Otherwise, the best thing you can do is to just shut the f*ck up because you’re only contributing to the hot air.

Open Gen-AI Isn’t Just Dumbing Your Business, It’s Killing the Planet!

Open Gen-AI is not just one of the most dangerous technologies we’ve ever invented* (as it lulls the uninformed into a false sense of security who will depend on it to make increasingly more critical decisions that could have increasingly more disastrous consequences), it’s also about to pose the biggest threat to planetary survival!

As it is, an average Data Center requires at least 10X the energy consumption of an average American home per square meter, with Open Gen AI data centers (which require ultra dense servers with cores running flat out all the time) requiring even more energy than that. However, whereas traditional AI models, including traditional Deep Learning Neural Nets which can be optimized post-training to often 10% of their original size using techniques developed by MIT researchers (including those described in this article) are now smaller and more stable than they used to be, these models just keep expanding exponentially in a futile quest to have them do more and now require models thousands of times bigger (and more energy intensive) than traditional models, often to generate output that wouldn’t even net a C grade in a high school class!

Think about that and read this article by Kate Crawford on Nature on how AI’s environmental costs are soaring (which notes that even OpenAI’s CEO has finally admitted that the AI industry is heading towards an energy crisis as there just isn’t enough power to keep up with the exponential energy demands [with ChatGPT already requiring more power than 33,000 average American homes … think about that, if you shut down just TWO Open Gen-AI models, you could power an entire small city]) before needlessly throwing a solution you don’t understand at a problem you don’t even have (when a better process would eliminate that problem and replace it with a smaller, different, problem that traditional technology and a human with just a bit of training could completely solve).

Because Open Gen-AI is just NOT ready for prime time, and just because these companies raised Billions of dollars on false promises that it would be ready years or decades sooner than AI development has traditionally taken, that doesn’t make it our responsibility to adopt the technology before it’s ready.

* And if a man afraid of nothing acknowledges this, we really should listen! (See this article.)

Will a Circular Economy Work with Leakage?

Sustainability is one of the big buzzwords, and the biggest verbal pushes, in today’s Procurement. (In practicality, most organizations won’t put their money where their mouth is and if the more sustainable solution is more than a point or two more cost-wise, environmentally damaging sweat-shop production, here we come!) We need to get there, because only an idiot would deny global warming (the last 13 years have seen 10 of the hottest year on record), and no one can deny the correlation between carbon emission, atmospheric carbon increase, and global warming. (You can argue just how much is due to carbon emission and how much due to other factors, many of which are indirectly caused by warming, but not that carbon is a problem.) Thus, even though we don’t know how much carbon reduction will help, we know it will, so we need to get there.

One big way to reduce carbon is to reduce production, which can done by reducing waste, which can be done through more refurbishment, repair, re-use, recycling, and reclamation — which are all part of the circular economy. Which is where we really need to get to (because waste is a problem — in addition to overflowing landfills that can pollute nearby water suppliers and make nearby land unfarmable, and even uninhabitable, think of the great pacific garbage patch and the containers of e-waste being sent to India, which has been a problem for well over a decade, see this 2010 article on the Times of India, and you start to get a grip on the magnitude of the problem).

But how efficient does the circular economy have to be to be effective? Theoretically, anything more that we do is one step better than what we are doing today, but, given that most products weren’t designed for recycle and reclamation, technologies for recycling and reclamation are immature and possibly carbon/generating themselves (especially if the answer is extract what we can, bury or burn the rest), and that there are breaks in the chain, is this leading to new waste that could possibly offset (or exceed) the expected (carbon) savings?

It’s a question Karolina Safarzynska, Lorenzo Di Domenico, and Marco Raberto recently tackled in an open-access paper on how the leakage effect may undermine the circular economy efforts available on nature.com. In the paper, the authors examine the impact of the circular economy on global resource extraction by way of an input-output analysis using an agent-based model of the capital sector. Through a detailed analysis they find that an appropriately structured circular economy economy can significantly reduce the extraction of iron, aluminum, and nonferrous metals if
implemented globally but the leakage effect may also cause some metal-intensive industries to relocate outside the EU, offsetting the circular economy efforts because an overlooked requirement for the circular economy is not just a reduction of waste, but a reduction of transport as transportation (air, rail, truck, and ship) contributes a significant amount of global carbon. In fact, if you go to Our World in Data, in the United States, the transportation sector accounts, like the energy (electricity and heat) sector, for approximately 30% of transportation emissions. The statistics right now are similar for the EU (24% for transportation and 28% for energy). So, if all of a sudden products need to be shipped halfway around the world to be recycled and reclaimed and the core materials shipped back, transportation-based emissions would increase significantly and possibly even overtake the extraction and raw material processing emissions!

In all fairness, we should note that the paper is pretty technical and metric heavy, and this is a bit of a simplification, but it’s the core idea we need to be aware of. It’s not an improvement if the carbon you take out of one segment is exceeded by changes in another. Just like we need to home/near-source for anything we can grow/mine/make at/near home, we also need to home/near reduce/reuse/refurbish/remanufacture/recycle whatever we can. It might be that the rare earths can only be mined in certain areas, but that doesn’t mean they have to be reclaimed and re-used there.

ERP at the Center of Sustainability and Human Impact?

ERP Today recently ran a brief editorial insight entitled ERP at the Center of Sustainability and Human Impact which caught my eye because ERP is generally not at the center of anything that is not manufacturing but yet should be at the center of sustainability data because it’s the ONE system that should be accessed, or at least be accessible, organization wide. However, in most organizations, all it stores is the manufacturing / order data, purchase orders, and invoices.

The article states that, within some organizations, they are providing the financial clarity to drive meaningful environmental and human impacts, however it only lists TWO (2) (Blue Marine Foundation and Oracle), and the doctor‘s experience, which is similar to other analysts he’s worked with, is that, for the vast majority of companies, this is JUST not happening.

Why? A few reasons, but the main ones are:

  • most ERPs don’t store complete financials; they’ll store POs and Inventory, but the complete financials will be in the organization’s AP/I2P/P2P systems
  • most ERP’s don’t store/calculate ANY sustainability data and
  • most ERP’s weren’t/aren’t configured to store ANY sustainability data

This means that, for an ERP system to provide financial clarity around meaningful environmental and human impacts, an organization needs to

  • integrate it’s accounting systems with the ERP and push all invoices and payments into the ERP
  • get subscriptions to third parties with the sustainability data and push that into the ERP after
  • updating the ERP configuration to store all of the relevant data around sustainability and responsibility that the organization wants to track

And while this will be doable with most modern ERPs, it could be expensive and force an organization to use another platform, such as a modern SRM (Supplier Relationship Management) platform as its core sustainability and responsibility platform instead. But it would be nice if the ERP could be the one platform that at least stores all of the organization’s golden records, because data warehouse, lakes, and lakehouses aren’t the answer (as all they do is duplicate data and make it harder to find the single source of truth) — the answer is a central source of sustainability and responsibility data that is, or could be, accessible organization wide so everyone can know the impacts of their (financial/supply) decisions. And while it could be the ERP, given the sheer cost of any customization work on any of the big ERPs, the doctor doesn’t think it’s very likely.

How Do You Sustain Sustainability When True Value is Long Term …

… and the brunt of the cost is short term?

AlixPartners recently published an article over on Mondaq on how The Fourth Dimension In Strategic Sourcing, Sustainability, Can Drive Value which caught our attention because Sustainability can drive value, but most organizations under cost pressures, which are rampant in our current inflationary economy, don’t choose the sustainable option as it’s typically a higher expense in the short-term.

Moreover, the big value is investing in suppliers that invest in new technologies that will be more sustainable in the long run. However, due to the cost of implementing these new technologies, the up-front costs are higher as the suppliers have to stay in business until the new technologies start to deliver returns. For example, the following are major improvements to sustainability:

  • suppliers utilizing, investing in, or building their own renewable energy grids (solar, wind) to avoid using the energy produced by the local coal/oil burning plants
  • suppliers re-designing production lines and methods to minimize waste (through cutting of metal, processing of food, etc.) and to ensure any waste they create can be used as an input to another production line (melting and re-fab of metal scraps, animal feed, etc.)
  • suppliers investing in their own water purification technology to re-use water in the manufacturing process
  • suppliers investing in product redesign research to minimize use of scarce rare earth minerals/metals and to increase use of reclaimed minerals/metals
  • suppliers investing in reclamation technology to maximize recycling of products created with metals/minerals

… and the following, highlighted in the article, are minor improvements …

  • sustainable supplier selection as everyone is going to try and secure the most sustainable supplier of the lowest cost suppliers, leaving less sustainable suppliers or more sustainable suppliers at a higher cost that the CFO/CEO will not let Procurement pay for the majority of organizations (the small, sustainable, suppliers cannot massively scale overnight)
  • eco-friendly packaging and waste reduction as this is not new and many organizations are already be doing this to the extent eco-friendly packaging is available
  • energy-efficient products and services as this is not new either and as companies replace end-of-life products, they have been choosing more energy efficient products for a while now with the increase in energy prices over the last five to ten years, and the truth is that this is usually a small dent on their total energy footprint
  • carbon footprint reduction as that is the goal, not a specific action that can reduce carbon footprint, and. most importantly, significant reduction requires significant investment (reducing travel and forcing the CEO to give up the private jet and fly first class only goes so far)
  • collaboration and reporting because while you need to understand your footprint, and sometimes shaming goes further than incentivizeation, reporting doesn’t actually increase sustainability unless action is taken …

IF PE firms, with billion dollar funds, won’t actually invest in supply chain (which includes sustainability) improvements, because you typically don’t realize the bulk of the value until you (significantly) pass the five (5) year mark, how can you expect short-term thinking CEOs and CFOs, trying to impress Wall Street or attract PE funding, to actually put their money with their big mouths are and invest in true sustainability?

If you have answers, we’d love to hear them — comment on the LinkedIn post.