Purchasing Transformation

At the IBX Purchasing Executive Summit a few weeks ago the most exciting moments – from my perspective – was an Oxford Debate format where focal purchasing issues was debated in a formalized yet open spirited manner. One of the topics of the debates was green purchasing and where the responsibilities lie; at the purchasing department (or the company) or at government level (meaning that purchasing functions should follow rules and regulations and not go out on a limb on their own).

Now this debate is not new, yet it still significantly relevant, something which was evident by the amount of energy the participants put into their performances.

Without revealing too much of what was said and without placing my views as some sort of consensus on the issue, I’d still like to add a few pointers from the world of practical philosophy to further expand on the issue.

In a recent article in the Swedish sustainability magazine Camino a number of scholars reflected on the role of the individual in association to sustainability in general. Folke Tersman, professor of philosophy at Uppsala University; who recently published a book called “Tillsammans” called for a more collaborative approach due to the fact that broader political standpoints are necessary due to the fact that they are viewed as more solid than actions of the individual; still this does not leave room for irresponsible actions from the public. “Only if the majority of the public votes for dedicated and brave politicians are the right decisions possible” he concludes.

Michele Micheletti, professor in Political Science at Stockholm University provided similar thoughts in a Dagens Nyheter article; the responsibility lies on the individual, “the alternative is that everything is regulated on an international level, something which is highly unlikely”.

The two polarities; the government vs. the individual; have spawned a number of reactions, the most powerful being a middle route of lower level commitment – smaller collectives that work on local level that empower the individuals without waiting for the full international or governmental involvement. I believe this is a valid way forward for purchasing functions struggling with these issues – regional or industry focused coalitions that set and uphold standards; this leaves room for powerful initiatives yet retains a form of sensibility providing a fundamental market balance.

I know this isn’t exactly news but the fact that Orange is expanding it’s green/csr initiatives to include pre-owned and “second life” (a buy-back plan) telephones is one better than the Sony Ericsson/Samsung green cell phone plans.

Because as we all know, the best way to save money is to not spend money – and given that, as an example, adult swedes have on average 2,4 cell phones (according to el-kretsen) there is quite a lot of money to be saved using the equipment that is already on the market.

And the savings in this case is even more obvious when recycling costs are taken into account. The recycling of consumer electronics is a shady business and as supply chain management enters the era of life cycle planning, this might be one route to take to ensure that csr-initiatives are not tainted at the end of a product life cycle.

With sustainability high on the agenda for many forward thinking manufacturers it seems inevitable that the consumer electronics segment would be quick to the plate especially with their somewhat shade past (check out this little primer in Cell phone recycling courtesy of The Secret Life Series).

Cell phones in particular seem to be the hot thing this summer; Sprint and Samsung just launched their Reclaim service and Sony Ericsson was a few weeks earlier with the launch of their Greenheart. Now whilst I applaud both of these initiatives, both Samsung and Sony Ericsson still have a lot of explaining to do.

The Samsung/Sprint Reclaim boasts 80% recyclable material and is made out of a bio plastic derived from corn. Unfortunately the sustainability dangers of a cell phone lie mostly in the other 20 % which most likely contains: Lead, Cadmium, Gold, Beryllium, Silver, Chlorine, Bismuth, Aluminium, Tin, Zinc, Copper, Chromium, Bromine, Arsenic, Nickel, Palladium and Tantalum.

Sony Ericsson takes another path down the sustainability highway; they focus more on Life Cycle Assessment – although they are careful to actually say anything – and CSR issues such as working conditions in Congo – one of the most corrupt countries in the world, which makes one wonder if there is a reason that Sony Ericsson actually need to get their Tantalum for their Greenheart phones from there. Never the less, Sony Ericsson have a constant information feed regarding these issues, so let’s hope their on top of their game.

Let’s just hope both of these forerunners are as open with their data as they portray themselves as being.