By Cory Searcy
A growing number of companies are working to develop sustainable supply chains. A key challenge is to align their supply chain performance with the economic, environmental, and social thresholds that dictate whether it is sustainable or not. This article discusses what supply chain sustainability really means, why it is difficult to achieve, and what companies can do to advance their progress.
Nearly every day, more companies publicly share their sustainability commitments and progress. As just one example, nearly 10,000 companies around the world are now signatories to the United Nations Global Compact. These companies have explicitly recognised their responsibilities in the areas of human rights, labour, environment, and anti-corruption.1
Many companies now acknowledge that their responsibilities extend into their supply chains. In fact, supply chains often contain a company’s most significant impacts. In 2010, PUMA found that 94% of its total environmental impact was generated within its supply chain.2 This past year alone, Walmart, Mars, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) were just a few of the companies to announce dramatic expansions of their sustainable supply chain initiatives.
The growing investments in sustainable supply chains are encouraging. However, extending sustainability into supply chains comes with many challenges. Companies must set priorities, accommodate differing local conditions, and align the efforts of a multitude of partners. But first, they must figure out what sustainability means for their supply chain. Only then can they determine if they are doing enough of what truly matters.
About the Author
Cory Searcy is a Professor of Industrial Engineering and Environmental Applied Science & Management at Ryerson University. He currently serves as the Associate Dean, Programs in Ryerson’s Yeates School of Graduate Studies. He is also a section editor for corporate sustainability at the Journal of Business Ethics.
1. United Nations Global Compact (2017). Online: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/
2. PUMA (2011). PUMA’s environmental profit and loss account for the year ended 31 December 2010. Online: http://about.puma.com/damfiles/default/sustainability/environment/e-p-l/EPL080212final-3cdfc1bdca0821c6ec1cf4b89935bb5f.pdf
3. Ahi, P. & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions of green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 52:329-341
4. Global Reporting Initiative (2016). Online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards
5. Thomas, M. & McElroy, M. (2016). The MultiCapital Scorecard: Rethinking organizational performance. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing
6. Searcy, C. (2016). What makes a supply chain sustainable? MIT Sloan Management Review, Online: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-makes-a-supply-chain-sustainable/
7. Montabon, F., Pagell, M. & Wu, Z. (2016). Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52(2):11-27
8. Steffen, W. et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):736
9. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing
10. United Nations (2015). Online: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
11. McElroy, M. (2015). Science- vs. context-based metrics. Sustainable Brands, Online: http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/new_metrics/mark_mcelroy/science-_vs_context-based_metrics_%E2%80%93_what%E2%80%99s_difference
12. CDP (2017). Missing link: Harnessing the power of purchasing for a sustainable future. Online: https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/001/500/original/CDP-Supply-chain-report-2017.pdf?1490272235
13. CDP (2016). Technical note on science-based targets: CDP climate change 2016. Online: https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2016/CDP-technical-note-science-based-targets.pdf
14. Science Based Targets Initiative (2017). Online: http://sciencebasedtargets.org/
15. CEO Water Mandate (2017). Exploring the case for corporate context-based water targets. Online: https://www.ceowatermandate.org/files/context-based-targets.pdf
16. Sheffi, Y. (2015). The tears in the deep tiers. The European Business Review November-December 2015, 57-62
17. GHG Protocol (2011). Corporate value chain (Scope 3) accounting and reporting standard. Online: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/standards/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing-Standard_041613_2.pdf
18. Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (2014). Online: http://www.responsiblebusiness.org/media/docs/EICCCodeofConduct5_English.pdf
19. Mars (2017). Online: http://www.mars.com/global/sustainable-in-a-generation
20. WRI & Mars (2016). From doing better to doing enough: Anchoring corporate sustainability targets in science. Online: https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/From_Doing_Better_to_Doing_Enough_Anchoring_Corporate_Sustainability_Targets_in_Science.pdf
21. HPE (2017). Online: https://news.hpe.com/hpe-launches-worlds-first-supply-chain-program-based-on-climate-science/
22. Walmart (2017). Online: https://news.walmart.com/2017/04/19/walmart-launches-project-gigaton-to-reduce-emissions-in-companys-supply-chain
23. Bjorn, A., Bey, N., Georg, S., Ropke, I., & Hauschild, MZ. (2017). Is Earth recognized as a finite system in corporate sustainability reporting? Journal of Cleaner Production 163:106-11
24. Ahi, P. & Searcy, C. (2015). An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 86:360-377