Master Thesis: Disclaimer

0 Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies
Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies

A case study on upstream waste prevention at the Damen Shipyards Group
Berdien Fennema | 327804
February 2014
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Damen Shipyards Group
MSc. Supply Chain Management HSE-Q Department
Coach: Prof. P. (Paolo) Letizia Company coach: Ms. Laure Jacquier
Co-reader: Ms. M. Akin Ates Supervisor: Ms. Aleksandra Zijlstra
Master Thesis
Disclaimer
The author declares that the work presented in this Master thesis is original and that no sources other than
those
mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating the Master thesis. The copyright of the
Master
thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its contents. RSM is only responsible for the
educational
coaching and cannot be held liable for the content.
The copyright of the photographic material used in this Master thesis also rests with the author.
Gorinchem, February 2014
Berdien Fennema
􀃞Please consider the environment before printing this master thesis.
Preface & acknowledgments

Dear reader,
This is my master thesis, my conclusive work for the master in Supply Chain Management at the Rotterdam
School
of Management, Erasmus University. I hope you enjoy reading it!
During my master, I got intrigued by the topics of sustainability in supply chain management and green
operations.
After completing my second semester, I looked specifically for an internship that could offer me the possibility
to
study these topics in practice. The department of Health, Safety, Environment and Quality Assurance (HSE-Q) at
the Damen Shipyards Group in Gorinchem offered me this opportunity with an internship from August 2013 to
March 2014. My new challenge was to combine the theoretical insights from RSM and Bocconi with the
business
reality of the practitioner in order to find a sustainable solution to their problem.
Hereby, I wish to express my thanks to my company coach and supervisor, Laure and Aleksandra, for their
support
and confidence in my master thesis trajectory. I would also like to thank the HSE-Q, CYS and PMO department
colleagues for all the cups of coffee and tea, cakes, helpful ideas, distractions and their pep talks during my 7
months
at Damen. A special thanks goes out to Matthieu, Koen and Frank-Jan for their involvement and
companionship.
From the academic perspective, I wish to thank my coach and co-reader, Professor Letizia and Ms. Akin-Ates
who
have motivated me to extend my knowledge and expertise in business research and sustainable supply chain
management.
Naturally, I wish to thank all interviewees, who will remain anonymous, but who have greatly contributed by
answering my questions and thus have given me the opportunity to gather generous amounts of data and
interesting perspectives.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends, family and Mathijs for the intense support and guidance during my
thesis
trajectory. They have motivated me throughout the trajectory to learn about research and myself, and most
importantly, to stay focused on my goal: graduation.
Berdien Fennema
Executive Summary
Legal and social pressures are increasingly demanding businesses to be more responsible and to produce green
and
sustainable products. Responsibility is stretched beyond the product and the production processes, throughout
the
entire supply chain and along the product’s life cycle. Simultaneously, the business environment is becoming
ever
more competitive and resources are becoming ever scarcer. The dependence on the willingness of suppliers to
provide the materials and on the customers to buy the products thus increases. The imperative for businesses is
clear: they must carefully manage their supply chain and develop relationships that last in the long-run while
taking
a comprehensive sustainability perspective that incorporates the triple bottom line: people, planet, profit.
The environmental pillar of sustainability has received increasing attention recently as pollution due to
industries
has reached record heights worldwide with far reaching consequences for flora, fauna and human health.
Hence,
there is a need to act. Along this urgency and driven by the future stricter regulations on waste, the Damen
Shipyards Group aspires to find a proactive solution to waste.
Two steps are prominent in achieving environmental sustainability: waste reduction and waste prevention.
Waste,
whether it is a byproduct or just a non-value added activity, is a sign of inefficient use of the resources time,
money
and materials through i.e. disposal efforts and costs. Next to internal inefficiencies, the generation of waste also
occurs along different external stages of the supply chain. From a resource-efficiency view, reducing or even –
more
proactively – preventing waste seems a logical step. It can aid a company to become more efficient and enable
the
company to concentrate only on activities and competencies that add value. Further advantages can be found
in for
instance an improved corporate image, better relations with stakeholders and the ability to exploit green
market
segments. Next to focal firm benefits, reducing inefficiencies within the supply chain can yield ample
advantages for
partners along the chain, such as suppliers.
From this standpoint, this research looks at proactive upstream solutions to waste and strategies termed as
environmental supply management practices (ESMPs). These practices relate to requiring suppliers to meet
certain
environmental criteria, or inducing them to operate in a more sustainable manner. The generic supply
processes
that are touched upon are selection and evaluation. By means of scrutinizing potential suppliers based upon
compliance to environmental requirements, the company can regulate more sustainable supply. Moreover,
supply
incentives can be used to induce suppliers to comply with certain requirements, whether by promising current
or
future business, or by awarding a certain supplier status. A supply process that is more mature and deeper is
supplier development, including collaboration, shared commitment and education.
Operating in an increasingly competitive industry that can still feel the consequences of the recent financial
crisis
related to for instance corporate funding, shipbuilding companies focus primarily on reducing costs. In
addition, the
industry is not on the forefront of environmentally-friendly initiatives. Hence, implementation barriers i.e. the
perceived financial burden, mitigation efforts and structural limits are expected to be perceived higher because
of
the lack of a track-record of such initiatives. Based on the request of Damen Shipyards and the academic
framework,
the main research question is:
How can waste prevention be induced at the supply base in the shipbuilding industry?
The optimal solution was derived by investigating the perceptions on the likely impact of different ESMPs –
supplier selection, evaluation, supply incentives and supplier development – next to the perceived barriers to
implementation both internally as well as among benchmarks in the manufacturing industry. The research
includes
the focal firm and supplier perspective.
Answering the main research question, waste prevention is best induced by means of the ESMP supplier
development, followed by supplier evaluation. The key word that evolves from the multiple case study is
collaboration. Collaboration in environmental activities is seen as vital by the focal firm as well as the supplier.
Remarkable is that the majority of the cases is currently only somewhat involved in cooperative efforts. Before
collaboration can bring benefits, environmental awareness and commitment of top management is needed to
prioritize environmental concerns, such as waste prevention, and put these areas of concern higher on the
corporate
agenda. As costs are a primary driver within the current business environment, this presents a first hurdle to the
focal firm to implement ESMPs and to suppliers to adopt waste prevention policies. Nevertheless, best practices
point out that economic benefits can be yielded by optimizing the supply chain from a holistic point of view,
reducing their environmental impact and by improving continuously. Less waste means more collaboration, less
pollution and more improvement, less individual burdens and more shared value. Hence, less is more.
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
Preface & acknowledgments
........................................................................................................................................................................ 0
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
List of figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0
1 | Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 0
1.1 Context ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
The Damen Shipyards Group..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Problem statement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Outline ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
2 | Theoretical framework............................................................................................................................................................................
8
2.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Contribution ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Sustainable supply chain management ................................................................................................................................ 10
Sustainable sourcing ................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Sustainable supplier evaluation and supply incentives ...................................................................................................... 17
Supplier development and integration .................................................................................................................................. 18
Challenges in sustainable sourcing strategies ..................................................................................................................... 20
2.6 Conclusion of the literature review ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Academic relevance of this research.......................................................................................................................................24
2.7 Conceptual model ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
3 | Case description ....................................................................................................................................................................................
26
3.1 Supply chain ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 Shipbuilding industry .............................................................................................................................................................. 29
3.3 SWOT analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................... 29
4 | Method & results .................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Research design .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Research objective and methodology .................................................................................................................................... 30
Type of research question ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Research strategy ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Case selection ............................................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Data collection ........................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Research protocol ....................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Measurement procedure ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Across-case analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 37
4.4 Interpretation of findings........................................................................................................................................................ 45

Hypothesis-testing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46
5 | Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 53
5.1 Theoretical conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................. 54
Contribution of research to theory ......................................................................................................................................... 56
5.2 Managerial implications .......................................................................................................................................................... 57
Implications for the practitioner............................................................................................................................................. 58
5.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
5.4 Directions for further research ............................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
1) Damen Shipyards Group ...................................................................................................................................................... 62
2) Project plan ............................................................................................................................................................................. 63
3) Stakeholder map .................................................................................................................................................................... 64
4) Waste categories ................................................................................................................................................................... 65
5) Waste streams ........................................................................................................................................................................ 66
6) Initial literature review ........................................................................................................................................................ 67
7) Organizational chart ............................................................................................................................................................. 68
8) SWOT analysis....................................................................................................................................................................... 69
9) Internal and external cases .................................................................................................................................................. 70
10) Case approach .................................................................................................................................................................... 71
A. E-mail invite internal cases ............................................................................................................................................. 71
B. Call script [English] ......................................................................................................................................................... 72
C. E-mail request external cases ........................................................................................................................................ 73
D. Confirmation e-mail external cases ............................................................................................................................. 74
E. Sample questions: sent to all cases ............................................................................................................................... 75
F. Sample questions: sent additionally to suppliers ..................................................................................................... 75
11) Interview protocol ............................................................................................................................................................ 76
A. Internal questionnaire ..................................................................................................................................................... 76
B. External questionnaire .................................................................................................................................................... 77
C. Additional supplier questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... 79
12) Computation of scores .................................................................................................................................................... 80
A. Internal cases ..................................................................................................................................................................... 80
B. External cases .................................................................................................................................................................... 81
13) Within-case analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 83
14) Additional external questionnaire data ...................................................................................................................... 84
References .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85
A. Company documents ............................................................................................................................................................ 85
B. Exploratory interviews ........................................................................................................................................................ 85
C. Articles ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 85
List of figures
Figures
Figure 1 Waste treatment hierarchy ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Pareto diagram on volume of waste (DSGo).................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Pareto diagram on disposal value of waste (DSGo) .......................................................................................................
4
Figure 4 Conceptual model ................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 5 Supply chain Damen ............................................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 6 Conceptual model: conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 7 Damen Shipyards Gorinchem and cluster ...................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 8 Project Plan Research Project ............................................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 9 Waste streams at DSGo: visual estimation .................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 10 Organizational chart DSGo and cluster ........................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 11 Within-case analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 83
Tables
Table 1 Definitions of constructs ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 2 Measurement of relationship between independent and dependent variable
........................................................ 35
Table 3 Measurement of relationship of side variables ................................................................................................................
36
Table 4 Internal cases: construct scores per respondent and preferences ..............................................................................
37
Table 5 External cases: construct scores per respondent and preferences .............................................................................
39
Table 6 Comparison of categories ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 7 Construct preferences overall ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 8 Stakeholder map ..................................................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 9 Waste categories at DSGo ................................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 10 Development of literature on waste ................................................................................................................................. 67
Table 11 Waste definitions .................................................................................................................................................................. 67
Table 12 SWOT analysis: waste prevention at DSGo .................................................................................................................. 69
Table 13 Case and interview details.................................................................................................................................................. 70
Table 14 Internal questionnaire ......................................................................................................................................................... 76
Table 15 External questionnaire ........................................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 18 Supplier questionnaire ........................................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 19 Internal cases: computation table independent variables ..........................................................................................
80
Table 20 Internal cases: computation table side variable ........................................................................................................... 80
Table 21 External cases: computation table independent variables .........................................................................................
81
Table 22 External cases: computation table side variable .......................................................................................................... 82
Table 23 Additional questionnaire data external cases ............................................................................................................... 84
List of abbreviations
B2B business-to-business
B2C business-to-consumer
C1, C2, .. case 1, case 2, etcetera
C2C cradle-to-cradle
CD conformity declaration
CoC code of conduct
CSR corporate social responsibility
CYS contracting and yard support department
DSGo Damen Shipyards Gorinchem
EC European Commission
EMS environmental management system
ESM environmental supply management
ESMP environmental supply management practices
FTE full time employee
GP Green Passport
GSCM green supply chain management
HSE-Q health, safety, environment and quality assurance department
IHM inventory of hazardous materials
MD material declaration
NPR non-product related
PMO project management organization
PR product-related
QLIFT quality, logistics, innovation, flexibility and total costs
SCM supply chain management
SNC supplier non-conformity
SSCM sustainable supply chain management
SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
TM top management
1 | Introduction
The tides are changing.
Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies 1
This chapter introduces the research context, as well as the problem definition, scope and relevance.
1.1 Context
Across industries worldwide the amount of waste is increasing on a large and growing scale (Eurostat, 2013),
cost
of raw material is rising, natural resources are depleting and at the same time the global population is rising at
a
high rate. Consequently, resource scarcity worsens and competition for resources is intensified (World
Economic
Forum, 2012) creating an enormous impact on global businesses. The European Commission (EC) has been
calling
for action regarding waste for several years (EC, 2013) leading to measures on e.g. disposal of (hazardous)
waste and
waste treatment. With Strategy 2020, the EC underlines the need to turn waste into a resource and aims to
‘modernize the existing legal framework and promote waste prevention’ (EC, 2012). The path hereto involves
new
economic and legal instruments that will have operational and financial impacts on businesses. For instance,
failure
to recognize and respond to regulations ‘may create serious problems in the form of penalties and
noncompliance
inconveniences’ (Hunt and Auster, 1990). The tides are changing.
Moreover, environmental awareness among consumers is rising. A new ‘green consumer’ has evolved who asks
for
smart and green solutions that generate a lower impact on the planet (Tencati, 2013). With the increased and
widespread use of Internet and communication tools e.g. social media, the consumer can exert more power
(World
Economic Forum, 2012). As a result, corporations face a new type of pressure and are forced to retain their
‘license
to operate’ (Eccles and Serafeim, 2013). It entails that ‘customers have to be willing to buy; suppliers to provide
the
materials, and people to go to work there’ (ibidem) and continuity can only be ensured when financial
objectives
are linked with social involvement and environmental performance (Tencati, 2013). By cutting out the non-value
added stream of waste completely, companies can concentrate their resources on value-adding activities, using
them more efficiently, reducing repurchases as well as disposal efforts and costs. Less in means less out, while
more
value is kept along the chain. Hence, less is more.
These developments are the starting point of this master thesis. The thesis is practice-oriented and regards the
operations of the Damen Shipyards Group (hereafter: Damen). Thus, Damen is defined as the practitioner.
Exposed
to the upcoming changes in waste regulations, Damen is looking for proactive methods to manage its waste
and
aims to be ahead of future regulations. Therefore, the general objective of this research is to extend the
practitioner’s
knowledge (Dul and Hak, 2008) and design a model that offers a proactive and sustainable solution to waste.
The
model should be applicable to the headquarter location (DSGo) and its cluster (Appendix 1).
»
Prevention
Minimisation
Reuse
Recycling
Energy recovery
Disposal
The Damen Shipyards Group
Damen is one of the leading and most-recognized shipbuilding companies in the world serving an extensive
product
portfolio (Damen, 2013). Established in 1927 as Dutch family-owned business, Damen has grown into a
multinational company since its expansion in 1973. The company specializes in niche-markets and draws special
attention to high quality and excellence. Next to new-construction, Damen is engaged with repair, conversion
and
maintenance work, training and financing services. In addition, the company offers technical cooperation, and
supplies spare parts and components from its own manufacturing facilities. The focal aim of Damen is to ‘create
customer value beyond products by ensuring maximum uptime at a minimum cost’ (Veldhuizen, 2013). The
main
strategic focus is the customer; hence the company is sales-driven.
As noted by Schliephake et al. (2009), ‘it is important to understand where the largest losses occur in the supply
chain or where most waste is produced in order to make any improvements’. Therefore, as a start of the project
plan
(Van Aken, 2007; Appendix 2), all types of waste and all processes at Damen were explored.
Waste
There are different types of strategies with regards to waste management, as is depicted
Figure 1 from preferred to less preferred (EU, 2012). The current waste management
strategies at Damen are energy recovery, reuse and recycling. Since the majority of
waste is being incinerated, potential value is lost immediately: resources are disposed
to the sub-contractors who are paid for their incineration services and additionally
gain the energy generated. Only a few materials are reused or recycled, such as steel which still has a high
resale
value. Pallets are reused if they offer take-back fees within the Euro pallet system (Van der Stel, 2013).
Considering
the practitioner’s objective to find a proactive solution in waste management, prevention is the most optimal
strategy. The causes of waste are indicated to be the following:
􀁸 Internally
From a general point of view, resource production and consumption induce waste generation, including endof-
use items or residues. Additionally, mistakes and errors during the construction process, or quality issues,
create waste. Moreover, waste arises due to the fact that items are purchased in ‘trade-sizes’ generally, which
means that these are non-modular and will cause cutting waste i.e. parts and pieces are not useable. However,
some of these items are sold back to the market, such as steel plates. Thereby, it is indicated that waste is
Figure 1 Waste treatment hierarchy
caused due to coordination failures between logistics and transport e.g. miscommunication on transport
modalities, leading to repacking. Furthermore, the Services department has a policy stating that its client
deliveries should be packed in specific Damen packaging for sake of company branding. This requirement
creates the need of repacking and thus increases the waste volume (Peursem, 2013).
Overall, the mindset with regards to resources plays a vital role as well as the level of resource scarcity. If items
are not scarce, ‘it is easier to get a new item rather than recycle’ (Roos, 2013). Without a sanction policy in
place, the idea that the waste stream is a value stream is not spread throughout the organization. It also
depends on structural items such as the priorities that are set regarding activities and process efficiency. For
example, when the engine room is about to be painted, the ship needs to be cleaned. The procedure holds that
all other construction work is sojourned until this process is finished, in order to execute this process in the
most efficient manner (Roos, 2013). It implies that, for sake of efficiency and time, waste sorting is being
skipped until it is brought to the waste collection site subsequently. Damen also builds ships on speculation
which can result in rework and reconstruction when the customer’s wishes do not exactly match the ship built
in advance. In general, because of Damens client-based approach, the company does not prioritize lean
production or logistics. Hence, standardization is very limited. The strategy offers a limited potential on
learning, leading to a higher possibility of production defaults and consequently a higher chance on waste.
Perhaps a modular approach would be a solution here, as modules to fit most needs could cut waste by only
installing the final modules upon completion of the order by a client of a hull originally build on speculation.
􀁸 Supply side
Waste is generated due to by-products of supplied inputs in the form of inappropriate or damaged packaging.
In addition, product defaults and delivery of wrong or incomplete items, whether due to communication or
production mistakes or lack of awareness of the supplier, generate waste. The limitation of customized supply
due to standard trade-sizes also generates cutting-waste at Damens production facilities. It should be noted
that the majority of packaging (~80%) will be shipped overseas to the shipyards abroad. Therefore, packaging
waste of DSGo amounts to ~10-20% of the total packaging waste that exists in the value chain.
The problem of waste relates to the organization as a whole and its supply chain partners, as waste is generated
along the supply chain. Stakeholders are both internal and external: i.e. the facility and procurement
department,
the partner shipyards abroad, Damens suppliers, customers, the disposal contractors and logistics providers.
Appendix 3 presents these stakeholders and indicates their interests with regards to waste prevention.
The following diagrams represent waste amount figures for 2013 (Q1, Q2) retrieved from company data on
different
types of waste (Appendix 4) that are generated during the primary business activities at DSGo (Appendix 5).
Hazardous wastes as well as green wastes were excluded from the analysis due to the non-availability of data
on
these types of wastes and to limit the research complexity. Moreover, items that recover value after being
classified
as waste or those items that are processed in a cost-neutral way were excluded from the waste figures. Hence,
solely
waste categories that imply a business loss are included. To ensure that the analysis can be compared to yards
abroad, only business activities related the critical and primary processes of the company are considered.
Figure 2 Pareto diagram on volume of waste (DSGo)
Figure 3 Pareto diagram on disposal value of waste (DSGo)
Figure 2 and 3 show that wood and paper account for 80 percent of the waste volume as well as 80 percent of
the
disposal value. Hence, waste prevention is especially fruitful for these two types of waste. The company does
not
segregate and administrate the waste per location or business activity, thus there is no insight in the individual
contributions to e.g. wood and paper waste. The assumption is made that the largest proportion of this type of
waste is caused by packaging.
Moving from the practical context, the academic context is evaluated next in order to further define the
problem.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
Wood Paper Oil-water
sludge
mixtures
Empty paint
packaging
Glass
Pareto [volume | primary processes]
Waste volume (kilos)
Cumulative volume (%)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
€-
€1.000,00
€2.000,00
€3.000,00
€4.000,00
€5.000,00
Paper Wood Oil-water
sludge
mixtures
Glass Empty paint
packaging
Pareto [disposal value | primary processes]
Waste value (Euros)
Cumulative volume (%)
1.2 Problem statement

First, academic developments are described. Subsequently, the research problem and contribution are
presented.
Academic context
An initial review on waste and waste management reveals that the topics have gained more attention over the
last
few decades (Appendix 6). This is mainly driven by social and legal pressures (Sarkis et al. 2011; Tencati, 2013)
along with the rising importance of sustainable development i (WCED, 1987). At first, sustainability was perceived
as irresponsible behavior towards shareholders (Friedman, 1970), eroding competitiveness and leading to
higher
costs (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995). Yet, literature has described ample benefits such as cost reductions,
better
community relations, an improved corporate image, possibilities to open up new market segments and the
ability to
command price premiums for green products (Shrivastava, 1995; Gupta, 1995; Porter and Van der Linde, 1995).
Thereby, academics acknowledged that additional profits can be made and competitive advantage can be
enhanced
(Petulla, 1987; Gupta and Sharma, 1996; Siegel, 2009; Chopra and Meindl, 2013). Nonetheless, the pressure to
become sustainable has evolved from being a voluntary element to being needed in order to retain the license
to
operate (Eccles and Serafeim, 2013; Koplin et al. 2007) because stakeholders are demanding higher standards
(Porter and Kramer, 2006; Pagell et al. 2010). Companies choose between either reactive or proactive strategies,
respectively defending their status or moving beyond compliance (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Becoming
environmentally sustainable inherently involves two steps: waste reduction and waste prevention (Souza, 2013).
Researchers have moved their attention from end-of-pipe environmental technologies (waste management) to
waste prevention (Hunt and Auster, 1990; Porter and Van der Linde, 1995; Noci, 1997; Angell and Klassen, 1999)
since there is a ‘need to act before the activity that gives rise to the failure ever happens’ (Pongrácz, 2009).
Waste
prevention entails the following: “measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste,
that reduce a) the
quantity of waste, including through the reuse of products or the extension of the life span of products; b) the
adverse impacts of the
generated waste on the environment and human health; or c) the content of harmful substances in materials
and products” (EU, 2008).
Two prevalent types of strategies are defined for waste prevention: reactive and proactive.
􀁸 Reactive strategies are focused on the concepts of resource utilization and material efficiency (Walton et al.
1998; Lilja, 2009), by managing waste and the materials optimally through recycling and reuse (Souza, 2013).
This approach emphasizes resource efficiency and the related opportunities in closing the loop. By reducing
material need and use for products, consumption and production processes (Lilja, 2009), material efficiency
provides a ‘constructive response to the value embodied in the products and processes’ (Walton et al. 1998).
􀁸 Proactive strategies concentrate on avoiding the loss of resources and preventing the existence of waste. The
literature takes a product or process-perspective and focuses on the internal or external processes. Strategies
look for solutions either along the life cycle phases [product] or across supply chain activities [processes]
whether downstream or upstream. Waste prevention can thus start in the design phase by ‘fit thinking’
(Bautista-Lazo and Short, 2013) and averting the development of items without or with only a single finite
purpose, or items that cease performing or that fail to be used properly (Pongrácz, 2009). Instead, the lean
manufacturing philosophy considers a next phase, using all resources optimally while manufacturing (Sharma
et al. 2011). The source-reduction/pollution-prevention approach focuses on both products and processes with
‘good housekeeping practices, input substitution, product reformulation, green technological changes, and/or
process modification’ (Gupta, 1995).
The benefit of the proactive strategy is that it ‘relies on strategic resources and can deliver sustainable
competitive
advantage’ whereas the reactive strategy cannot (Russo and Fouts, 1997). Pollution control technologies and
management systems should be added to ‘control and prevent environmental degradation’ (Klassen and
Whybark,
1999). This includes proper disposal of waste, correcting past environmental damages, and management
systems
that formalize procedures, train employees, create awareness and ensure correct planning and inventory
(Vachon,
2007; Pongrácz, 2009). Next to internal efforts, businesses can realize improvement through various external
strategies such as source management of waste streams and supply chain partnerships (Angell and Klassen
1999,
Schliephake et al. 2009). Optimal waste prevention asks for a ‘well integrated and communicated strategy, not
only
within the organization, but also with the members of the extended organization’ (Lamming and Hampson
(1996).
Herein, suppliers can be primary drivers (Vachon, 2007). In line with this view, academics discovered a need to
coordinate across the supply chain and ‘take a holistic system solution approach’ (Schliephake et al. 2009). This
can
be achieved through sustainable purchasing, manufacturing and logistics and by closing the loop (Zuidwijk,
2012).
Hence, ‘it strongly influences component selection, materials sourcing, production, packaging, distribution, and
recycling decisions’ (Closs et al. 2011). Next to waste prevention itself, collaboration can achieve higher positive
economic benefits for the entities involved (Noci, 1997; Piluso and Huang, 2009). Companies can lower their risk
exposure to upcoming regulations by engaging proactively in sustainable practices (Porter and van der Linde,
1995).
Research problem
The literature shows that there exists a significant relevance to discover how supply processes and the
buyersupplier
relationship can impact waste prevention, and which of these processes has the most influence. Based
upon the practical exploration and the initial academic review, a round table was organized to determine the
further research direction, fitting with the scope of the practitioner. The round table included the logistics
manager,
the facilities manager, the HSE-Q manager, the CYS manager and the manufacturing and assembly manager.
Consensus was reached on investigating proactive waste prevention possibilities considering a supply side
perspective. Hence, the problem diagnosis resulted in the following general research question:
This general research question is derived from the initial problem statement “What are the key success factors
in
implementing waste prevention at the supplier base in the shipbuilding industry?”, which was agreed upon with
the practitioner as well as the academic coach and co-reader from the Rotterdam School of Management.
Contribution to management practice
Through detailed analysis of existing academic frameworks and assessment of best practices in the
manufacturing
industry, this research aims to contribute by designing a process model that can be implemented by the
practitioner. The intention is to discover which supply processes can induce waste prevention best. Since waste
management and disposal are imposing costs, it is economically relevant to find solutions to the waste
problem.
Reducing the loss of resources and enhancing efficiency will provide economic gains. If not prevented or
disposed of
in a cost-neutral way or with value-recovery, waste implies a loss on the revenue sheet for the company. Since
European regulations on waste management move towards promoting waste prevention and recycling (EU,
2013)
legal relevance exists as well. Establishing and fulfilling a green reputation can be seen as social and economic
relevance. Preventing and minimizing the amounts of waste also diminishes the environmental impacts of the
practitioner’s business activities, showing environmental relevance. Engaging in waste prevention displays
commitment on environmental and social level, considering the quality of life of the neighboring population
and
natural environment. Along with collaboration with suppliers, waste prevention offers a cooperative approach
that
enhances the sourcing value, customer value, environmental value and stakeholder value (Van der Laan, 2013).
Moreover, since waste functions as a signal regarding quality or efficiency issues, finding a solution can be an
important element of the continuous improvement policy that is implemented at the practitioner level.
1.3 Outline
The master thesis document is organized in 5 chapters:
􀁸 Chapter 1 introduces the research topic and context, acquainting the reader with the main concepts and
imperatives behind this research. The general research question is presented in the first chapter, based upon
the specific request of the practitioner and the related academic perspective. The practical relevance of the
research topic is also pointed out.
􀁸 Chapter 2 reviews additional literature based upon the initial exploration presented in the introduction. This
more detailed literature review aids in finding specific research questions in order to build the conceptual
model. Furthermore, the academic relevance of this research is underlined. The conceptual model and the
research question guide the following chapters.
􀁸 Chapter 3 shortly elaborates on the context of the practitioner with regards to the conceptual model, now
the
theoretical framework is known. This description is based upon the exploration of practice. With this
exploratory information, the next step is data collection and analysis to answer the research question, and
extend the literature by finding additional empirical evidence.
􀁸 Chapter 4 describes the methods used for data collection and data analysis, hence the research design.
Furthermore, it elaborates on the initial findings of the data analysis. By explaining the methodology and the
specific steps taken in this research, replication of this research is enabled.
􀁸 Chapter 5 closes the analysis by filing the concluding remarks. These conclusions complement the conceptual
model, answering the general and specific research objectives. Next to the theoretical conclusion, the
implications for the practitioner are noted in order to fulfill the practitioner’s knowledge need. Thereby, the
limitations of the research trajectory are discussed and directions for future research are indicated.
2 | Theoretical framework
Connecting the lines.
First, the methodology and contribution of the literature review are explained. Definitions of basic concepts are
given to ensure assumptions are clear. The review starts with a discussion of articles wherein sustainable supply
chain management is addressed. Following, research on sustainable sourcing, evaluation and supply incentives
is
described. The benefits and pitfalls of these sustainable supply management practices are discussed last.
2.1 Methodology
Literature was mainly sourced using scientific databases, academic journals and online search engines. In order
to
find relevant literature with respect to practice, I started searching for research on the shipbuilding industry with
a
focus on sustainable operations and waste management. As this search did not deliver sufficiently useful
articles, I
generalized my search to manufacturing industries. The main key words that were used are sustainable
operations,
environmental management, waste (management), waste prevention, supply chain coordination and
environmental
supply chain management, green or environmental purchasing and sustainable supply practices. I concentrated
on
articles from the Journal of Operations Management, the Journal of Supply Chain Management, the Journal of
Operations and Production Management, the International Journal of Production Research, the International
Journal of Production Management, the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, and the Journal of
Cleaner
Production. Furthermore, I consulted the Sloan Management Review and Harvard Business Review magazines.
2.2 Contribution
Reviewing theoretical frameworks and studies supports in finding hypotheses to assess the practitioner’s
problem.
The review contributes by developing a basis for the research project, giving an overview of the existing theory
by
evaluating the common themes and discussing differences and gaps. Thereby, the literature review defines the
a
priori constructs that are part of this research.
2.3 Definitions
For sake of clarity, the following general definitions are assumed for the main concepts that are stated in the
review:
􀁸 The supply chain is referred to as the ‘logistics network, consists of suppliers, manufacturing centers,
warehouses, distribution centers and retail outlets as well as raw materials, work-in-process inventory, and
finished products that flow between the facilities’ (Simchi-Levi et al. 2009).
􀁸 Supply chain management comprises the ‘set of approaches utilized to efficiently integrate suppliers,
manufacturers, warehouses, and stores, so that merchandise is produced and distributed at the right quantities,
to the right locations, and at the right time, in order to minimize system wide costs while satisfying service
level requirements’ (Simchi-Levi et al. 2009).
􀁸 Sustainability is the capability of an organization to ensure continuity by incorporating social, environmental
and economic factors in its strategy and operations and so contributing to the quality of life by respecting
ecological limits (definition built on Sarkis et al. 2011; Tencati, 2013).
􀁸 Waste provides a signal for opportunity as well as a guide for continuous improvement, notifying failures and
inefficiencies in the system (definition built on Porter and Kramer, 2006; Van der Laan, 2013).
􀁸 Waste prevention is a sustainable and integrated strategy that underscores continuous improvement and
aims to
avoid waste and the generation thereof by employing a resource-efficient attitude to products and processes
within the chain (definition built on Porter and Kramer, 2006; Walton et al. 1998; Lilja, 2009).
2.4 Sustainable supply chain management
The topic of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has received attention from a variety of researchers
over
a span of three decades. The concept retrieves its relevance from the association between sustainable
development
and supply chain management (Hall et al. 2012) and because of the fact that ‘when a focal company is
pressured, it
usually passes this pressure on to suppliers’ (Seuring and Müller, 2008). Multiple ways have been used to
describe
this relationship, i.e. environmental management (Hunt and Auster, 1990; Hamner, 2006; Vachon and Klassen,
2008), sustainable operations management (Kleindorfer et al. 2005), green supply chain management (Hervani
et al.
2005; Srivastava, 2007;, Sarkis, 2010) and SSCM (Seuring and Miller, 2008;, Carter and Rogers, 2008; Carter and
Easton, 2011) and environmental supply or supplier management (Koplin et al. 2007; Tate et al. 2012). These
concepts are mostly similar, especially on the level of integration of the triple bottom line factors( Elkington,
1998).
􀁸 Environmental management (EM) is defined as the use of environmental technologies that ‘include design;
equipment and operating procedures that limit or reduce negative impacts of products or services on the
natural environment’ (Vachon and Klassen, 2008). It can serve as a ‘critical component for sustaining
competitive advantage’ (Hunt and Auster, 1990) and provide a basis for ‘green purchasing’ (Hamner, 2006).
􀁸 Sustainable operations management (SOM) emphasizes the impact of internal operations on the external
stakeholders. The concept was defined as ‘the set of skills and concepts that allow a company to structure and
manage its business processes to obtain competitive returns on its capital assets without sacrificing the
legitimate needs of internal and external stakeholders and with due regards for the impact of its operations on
the people and the environment’ (Kleindorfer et al. 2005).
􀁸 Green supply chain management (GSCM) is more product-based and highlights sustainability within the
different life cycle phases. It involves ‘the influence and relationships of supply chain management to the
natural environment’ from ‘an environmentally conscious mindset or a competitiveness motive’ (Hervani et al.
2005). Based upon the different supply chain phases, it is described as ‘the integration of environmental
thinking into supply chain management’ and includes product design, material sourcing and selection,
manufacturing, distribution and marketing, reverse logistics as well as end-of-life management of the product
(Hervani et al. 2005, Srivastava, 2007). Linton et al. (2007) emphasized the cost perspective of GSCM, since
‘supply chains must be explicitly extended to include by-products of the supply chain, and optimize the
product not only from a current cost standpoint but also from a total cost standpoint’, and must so include the
effects of resource depletion and the generation of by-products that are neither captured nor used (pollutants
and waste)’ (Linton et al. 2007).
􀁸 Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) takes a more comprehensive view, including all three
dimensions and stakeholder requirements in the ‘management of material and information flows as well as
cooperation among companies along the supply chain’ (Seuring and Miller, 2008). The concept was defined as
the ‘strategic achievement and integration of an organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals
through the systemic coordination for key inter-organizational business processes to improve the long-term
economic performance of the individual company and its value network (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Wolf, 2011).
􀁸 Environmental supply management is a further in-depth concept based on SSCM with an emphasis on the
environmental pillar of sustainability. It involves the ‘integration of environmental criteria/standards into
product and production related decisions along the whole supply process’, thus regarding the supply chain as
well as the product by optimizing the ‘environmental compatibility of purchased goods’ (Koplin et al. 2007).
From including the triple bottom line aspects within the focal firm itself, definitions evolved to include
stakeholders and to emphasize collaboration and integration focusing upon the holistic supply chain instead of
the
sole single entity (Tate et al. 2012). It has developed to an inclusive concept that is set to improve not only the
focal
firm but its supply chain network. This approach is due to the increased pressure to be sustainable and ‘perform
well, not just on traditional measures of profit and loss, but on an expanded conceptualization of performance
that
»
includes environmental and social indicators’ (Closs et al. 2011; Tencati, 2013). Hence, ‘engaging in SSCM is not
discretionary but rather a requirement’ (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Therefore, SSCM is particularized from here
on.
Apart from avoiding and preventing environmental risks, SSCM may create opportunities to add value
(Lamming
and Hampson, 1996) and enhance companies’ competitive advantage (Walton et al. 1998) and reputation
(Carter
and Rogers, 2008; Tate et al. 2011). Thus, ‘managers should not adopt green management practices just
because of
societal pressures alone, but rather because it advances their organization’s strategic goals’ (Siegel, 2009).
SSCM is
found to provide ample benefits: reducing long term risks associated to resource depletion, pollution and waste
management (Linton et al. 2007; Srivastava, 2007), minimizing reliance on scarce environmental resources, while
minimizing waste (Closs et al. 2011), increasing revenues and profits through significant operational efficiency
gains
and reduced costs (Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Linton et al. 2007; Closs et al. 2011; Tate et al. 2012) as well
as
resource efficiency through reduction of material consumption, packaging and production waste (Wittstruck
and
Teuteberg, 2011), compliance with regulatory requirements (Closs et al. 2011) and finally, long-term global
viability
and sustainability (Linton et al. 2007; Closs et al. 2011). The definition of sustainable supply chain management
that
is used for this research is as follows:
Sustainable supply chain management is the efficient integration of and cooperation with all stakeholders along
the supply chain
while including environmental, social and economic factors, thus ensuring benign operations.
The literature focuses on SSCM as a lowering of risks and an improvement of risks, efficiency and therefore
costs
and profits, whereas the benefit of stronger relationships is rarely mentioned. Advantages described are mainly
quantitative factors. Next to reputation and the related license to operate, qualitative factors could be included
i.e.
the levels of trust and satisfaction between the stakeholders, supply chain partners and consumers. Moreover,
research on SSCM benefits and impacts is mainly centered towards the focal firm, whereas the definitions have
evolved to include the value network. Moreover, there is a need to include the supplier perspective in SSCM
research, especially because ‘the supply base has more direct impact on the environmental footprint of the
supply
chain than the buying firm’ and therefore adoption of environmental practices at the supply base is ‘an area of
high
potential impact’ (Tate et al. 2011).
SSCM can be achieved in different phases. Hunt and Auster (1990) defined five stages in the ‘environmental
management development continuum’ ranked by the level of protection from environmental risk i.e. the
beginner,
the firefighter, the concerned citizen, the pragmatist and the proactivist. Alternatively, Closs et al. (2011) took a
»
resource-based view and divided environmental management into three categories: conservation, usage
reduction
and good business management practices. The first category comprises of ‘initiatives to better manage and
minimize reliance on energy, water and other natural resources’ (Pullman et al. 2009). This approach affects
product design, choice of materials, packaging, logistics and transportation, along with product disposal (Closs
et
al. 2011). The second category focuses on reducing (toxic) waste, and thus increasing recycling and finding
other
purposes for end-of-life items. The third, most proactive element includes initiatives on collaboration across
value
chain partners, design efforts and green purchasing (Carter and Jennings, 2002). This last element concerns
proactive supply processes, which are of most interest to this master thesis, and are therefore elaborated on in
the
next paragraphs with a focus on green purchasing and collaboration.
Sustainable sourcing
The concept of environmental purchasing (Carter and Carter, 1998; Humphreys et al. 2003; Tate et al. 2012) has
frequently been described as green purchasing (Min and Galle, 1997; Bowen et al. 2001a; Chen, 2005;, Hervani
et al.
2005; and Hamner, 2006), along with sustainable sourcing (Walton et al. 1998; Hall, 2000; Koplin et al. 2007;
Pagell
and Wu, 2009) and environmentally conscious purchasing (Handfield et al. 2002). The notion covers the process
of
‘introducing and integrating environmental issues and concerns into the purchasing process’ (Handfield et al.
2002)
and serves as an integral component of SSCM by ‘managing all aspects of the upstream component of the
supply
chain to maximize triple bottom line performance’ (Pagell and Wu, 2009). Among these aspects are ‘the
acquisition
of raw materials, supplier selection, evaluation and development, suppliers’ operations, in-bound distribution,
packaging, recycling, reuse, resource reduction and final disposal of the firm’s products’ (Zsidisin and Siferd,
2001).
Environmental purchasing is an effective way of ‘managing a company’s environmental policy by diffusing
environmental management techniques along the supply chain’ (Humpreys et al. 2003).
The purchasing function has received more attention in environment-related literature due to several factors.
First,
increased global competition for resources has made resource management ‘much more frugal’ (Kraljic 1983,
Akinc
1993). Since dependence on supply has grown, performance of a firm increasingly depends on the actions of
suppliers (Vonderembse and Tracey, 1999; Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001) thus the need emerges to ‘effectively
manage
suppliers (Kannan and Tan, 2002) and build long-term strategic alliances (Vonderembse and Tracey, 1999). As
purchasing fulfills ‘a critical boundary-spanning function’ that connects a firm with the suppliers and external
environment (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001; Chen, 2004), the role of purchasing has gained ‘visibility and additional
responsibility’ (Vonderembse and Tracey, 1999). It controls and generates pressure on production performance
(Chen, 2004), and is so able to facilitate environmental management activity focused on waste minimization,
energy efficiency and innovation (Simpson and Power, 2005). Hence, purchasing shifted from a tactical activity
to a
strategic component that has an impact on the competitive success of a firm and its corporate environmental
performance (Handfield et al. 2002). Next to sustainable product supply, researchers started to include supply
management activities that ‘improve the environmental performance of the suppliers that provide them’
(Bowen et
al. 2001b). Proactive purchasing activities address environmental issues within the firm as well as within the
supply
chain (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001). The main aim of vendor relations should be ‘to reduce and eliminate any waste
involved in the procurement of materials i.e. ‘poor quality parts, early or late shipments, shipment count and
invoicing discrepancies, rework, poor process yields, boxes or pallets, poor forecast and changes in production
schedule’ (Akinc, 1993). Purchasing is the most capable of ‘leading programs of collaborative waste reduction
and
cost-effective environmental solutions’ (Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Chen, 2004; Simpson and Power, 2005).
It
can enhance the effectiveness of a source reduction strategy in a number of ways: a) reducing the purchased
volume
of items that are difficult to dispose of or are harmful to the ecosystem, b) reducing the use of hazardous virgin
materials by purchasing a higher percentage of recycled or reused content, or c) requiring that suppliers
minimize
unnecessary packaging and use more biodegradable or returnable packaging (Min and Galle, 1997). Companies
can
realize advances in efficient resource utilization by selecting and purchasing optimal items (Schliephake et al.
2009). Additionally, sustainable sourcing can ‘have a positive impact on both the image of a company as much
as on
the drive for sustainability of the business (Koplin et al. 2007). It is an ‘effective tool’ for risk mitigation with
respect to environmental impacts of consumption and a ‘promoter’ for development of clean production
technologies (Chen, 2004; Vachon, 2007). Wolf (2011) added that ‘buying practices can impact suppliers’ ability
to
improve their sustainability’. Sustainable sourcing actions mainly include the following factors: ensuring that
supplier processes and products are environmentally sound, purchasing recyclable/reusable packaging and
containers, participating in design for reuse and recycling, identifying and sourcing non-hazardous alternatives,
and
identifying local sourcing options (Zuidwijk, 2012). The sourcing function is the ‘key actor to search for,
evaluate,
and monitor suppliers’ (Koplin et al. 2012). Hence, sustainable sourcing activities fall into the following three
elements (Walton et al. 1998; Kannan and Tan, 2002): supplier selection, supplier performance evaluation, and
supplier development.
The following definition of sustainable sourcing is assumed in this research:
Sustainable sourcing involves the processes of selecting, monitoring and integrating suppliers, in order to
manage the upstream inflow
based upon triple bottom line factors and enhance the firm’s resource-efficiency and sustainability.
Sustainable supplier selection and evaluation
Supplier selection is one of the ‘critical issues faced by operations and purchasing managers to help
organizations
maintain a strategically competitive position’ (Chen et al. 2006). Using selection criteria ‘compatible with the
company’s corporate strategy’ enables achieving alignment between suppliers and the focal firm ‘in terms of
goals
and objectives’ (Jabbour and Jabbour, 2009) and purchase goods and services based on environmental
specifications
(Lamming and Hampson, 1996). With these criteria, suppliers can be pre-selected through, for instance, the use
of
supplier questionnaires or material specifications (Hamner et al. 2006) and when accredited, supplier tenders
can
be evaluated based upon their individual ‘rating’ with respect to environmental features (Belvedere, 2013). As
the
selection and evaluation address compliance to the agreed upon standards, requirements and performance,
they
provide a strategic and risk-management tool vis-à-vis the suppliers (Vachon, 2007). In line with SSCM, these
processes enhance the ‘supply-base continuity’ which is the notion that ‘all members of the chain do not only
stay in
business but they do so in a manner that allows them to thrive, reinvest, innovate and grow’ (Pagell et al. 2010).
Hence, for those companies that focus on sustainability, commodity and price-based relationships are ‘no
longer
acceptable’ (Humphreys et al. 2003; Simpson and Power, 2005; Bai and Sarkis, 2010). Consequently, criteria for
supplier selection have become more complex, with the involvement of environmental, social and customer
satisfaction factors’ (Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Kannan and Tan, 2000; Simpson and Power, 2005;, Athawale
and Chakraborty, 2011). Environmental criteria have been divided into quantitative and qualitative criteria, and
related to the following categories according to the classification of Humphreys et al. (2003):
􀁸 Quantitative: environmental costs of pollutant effects, environmental costs of improvement
These items are for instance solid waste amounts, air emissions, clean technologies, redesign and recycling.
􀁸 Qualitative: management competencies, green image, design for environment, environmental management
systems (EMS), and environmental competencies.
Criteria included are i.e. management commitment, training, stakeholder relationships and prevention policies.
Standards focused on environmental issues are increasingly inserted in the selection and evaluation criteria of
suppliers (Walton et al. 1998; Seuring and Müller, 2008; Hoejmose et al. 2012). Next to the criteria of
compliance to
mandatory standards set by governments, companies can embrace voluntary standards that can function as
strategic instrument of value chain coordination (Ponte, 2004). These voluntary standards ‘arise from a formal
coordinated process in which key participants in a market or sector seek consensus’ e.g. the ISO standards and
offer
the advantage of verification and transparency versus private standards (Ponte, 2004). Just as with selection
criteria, standards are both process and product-based. One prevalent process-based standard is the
ISO140001
certification which is meant to ‘impose environmental safeguards on suppliers’ (Chen, 2004; Vachon, 2007).
Product-based standards are also in place, such as the European Directive RoHS which sets requirements on the
(amount and type of) hazardous materials used. Other environmental metrics that are proposed for supplier
selection decisions relate to environmental practices and performance. These include in general pollution
control,
pollution prevention, environmental management systems, resource consumption and pollution production
(Humphreys et al. 2003; Bai and Sarkis, 2010). Next to criteria, code of conducts are commonly used though
these
might ‘not be sufficient’ to ensure adequate implementation of sustainable sourcing (Hoejmose et al. 2012). In
summary, the following three levels can be found in greening the supply chain: product-based green supply,
greening the supply process and advanced green supply (Bowen et al. 2001b) of which the last category is
considered the most proactive and hence most preferred. However, though environment-focused supplier
selection
is encouraging in theory, in practice it is more difficult to insert it in the dynamic of the supply chain (Jabbour
and
Jabbour, 2009). A one-size-fits-all strategy might not be feasible, since different customer-supplier relationships
‘may require distinctive selection strategies based upon the time horizon and the content of the relationship in
terms of the nature of integration between the two parties’ (Masella and Rangone, 2000). Supplier selection
should
not impart including future capabilities and performance. Furthermore, supplier selection should rather be
tailored
to the type of supplier relationship, whether it concerns critical, strategic, leverage or commodity items (Kraljic,
1983; Masella and Rangone, 2000). As a result, ‘some strategies are more likely than others to promote
sustainable
behavior among suppliers’ (Hamner et al. 2006). The definition of sustainable supplier selection adopted for this
research is:
Sustainable supplier selection is the search for, assessment of and decision to contract potential suppliers
based upon requirements
that incorporate economic, environmental and social concerns and thus manage supply chain risks and supply-
base continuity.
An important factor that could be incorporated in the selection process is the benefit of compliance to the
supplier,
underscoring the supply-base continuity concept. Hence, instead of proposing the measures as solely
mandatory, »
they could be hinted as opportunities for continuous improvement and chain benefits can be pointed out.
Though
compliance is necessary for selection, it provides a more comprehensive argumentation and incentive for the
supplier to improve, and this way the supplier perspective is included as well. Moreover, the viability of
selection as
a SSCM process should be looked into in different industries and across different buyer-supplier relationships.
Sustainable supplier evaluation and supply incentives
Because supplier performance is at ‘risk of opportunism without the protection of appropriate safeguards or
monitoring’ (Simpson and Power, 2005), suppliers should be evaluated on their commitment and environmental
performance on a regular basis (Lamming and Hampson, 1996). It allows firms to ‘evaluate a supplier’s
performance,
compare it with the performance of other suppliers and provide suppliers with a direction to drive improvement
objectives’ (Simpson and Power, 2005). Supplier assessment systems range from a) detailed questionnaires on
the
supplier’s willingness to cooperate, b) supplier compliance auditing, c) supplier EMS auditing to d) star ratings
(Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Hamner, 2006). Though transaction costs initially increase when monitoring
suppliers, payoff can be realized through reduced risk, lower total (transaction) costs in the long term and
increased trust (Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001). Supplier assessment also provides several advantages for suppliers,
as it
offers the possibility to demonstrate quality and compliance, to achieve cost savings through eliminating
efficiencies and to embed themselves in the customer’s value chain (Lamming and Hampson, 1996). However,
criteria such as the ISO14000 certification alone ‘cannot provide sufficient information to screen suppliers and
to
evaluate their performance’ (Chen, 2004). Strategies to influence suppliers with standards such as ISO14001
have
limited appeal, and ‘without additional strategic efforts, very few firms will adopt new governance systems’
(Delmas and Montiel, 2009). Though product-based initiatives are adopted increasingly, process-based
standards
are moderately implemented; the cooperative risk-sharing and reward-sharing agreements are almost non-
prevalent
(Bowen et al. 2001b). The dilemma that arises is that ‘suppliers can produce greener products without
necessarily
becoming green themselves’ (Simpson and Power, 2005) and so limit the potential benefits of sustainability
along
the supply chain. Therefore, supplier selection and monitoring are limited. The following definition of
sustainable
supplier evaluation is used in this research:
Sustainable supplier evaluation involves the process of assessing a supplier’s performance on environmental
and social criteria in
order to compare across the supply base, reduce risks and inefficiencies, and investigate points of
improvement.
Since it takes time and money for suppliers to implement good environmental practices and requiring the same
approach for their own suppliers, this strategy will only work if they adopt an ‘environment-focused mindset’
(Hamner, 2006). Supply incentives are meant to ‘motivate suppliers to improve by signaling that improved
performance is rewarded with increased business and preferred status for future business’ (Simpson and Power,
2005; Krause et al. 2000). However, existing supply chain contracts focus upon sharing costs, revenues and
(inventory) risks (Simchi-Levi et al. 2013; Chopra and Meindl, 2013), while incentives for sharing responsibilities
with regards to sustainability and environmental practices remain to be incorporated. Market forces,
competition
and cooperation (Krause et al. 2000; Tate et al. 2011) have been found to be ‘increasingly important to suppliers
in
the competitive world, and play a more important role to engage in environmental activities’ (Chen, 2004).
Sustainable supply incentives are defined as follows:
Sustainable supply incentives involve rewards to proper environmental and social performance of suppliers in
the form of increased
(future) business or preferred status.
Though evaluation can be a useful element in the buyer-supplier relationship to assess if suppliers have indeed
implemented sustainable practices, it should take into account the supplier’s process next to the product
output.
Even though it could be beneficial for both the focal firm and the supplier, it is mentioned that evaluation alone
will
not lead to the adoption of environmental practices. Incentives as an additional or alternative process have
evolved
from a carrot-and-stick approach to competitive constructions and shared responsibilities. The feasibility of
these
incentives to inducing actual adoption of SSCM practices has not been studied to great extent. This might be
due to
the fact that it is harder to measure than traditional contracts and incentives.
Supplier development and integration
On the other hand, supplier involvement and development might play a more direct and critical role in
achieving
improvement (Krause et al. 2000). Green or environmental purchasing is linked positively to the degree of
partnership with suppliers in environment-related projects (Carter and Carter, 1998). With the increasing
scarcity
and thus risk of supply interruptions (Kraljic, 1983), cooperation becomes a ‘strategic response to the challenges
that arise from the dependencies among supply chain members’ (Xu and Beamon, 2006). In general, two or
more
companies working together ‘can achieve greater success then when acting in isolation’ (Simatupang and
Sridharan,
2002). Herein, a relationship ‘built on trust, communication and collaboration may be more effective’ in
ensuring
sustainable sourcing compared to transactional relationships (Hoejmose et al. 2012). When asked by the buyer
‘to
»
engage in environmental practices, the suppliers expect support from their larger buyers’ (Tate et al. 2011).
Hence,
more emphasis should be placed upon relationship-building (Kannan and Tan, 2000). A collaborative
procurement
approach can improve the understanding of suppliers with regards to their environmental effects and causes in
the
supply chain and potential competitive advantage when complying with criteria (Lamming and Hampson,
1996).
Integration of business processes is seen as favorable from both the economic as well as the environmental
perspective, as it ‘may deliver greater value through shared information and activities that accelerate product
design
at lower cost, or create more efficient resource utilization and minimal process duplication’ (Schliephake et al.
2009). Environmental benefits can be achieved in the form of less raw material consumption and waste,
enhanced
product packaging and increased social responsibility (Linton and Jayaraman, 2005). A constructive dialogue
between buyer and supplier can enhance quality, keep environmental harm to a minimum, and aid continuous
improvement (Vonderembse and Tracey, 1999; Zsidisin and Siferd, 2001). Furthermore, if these collaborative
activities have ‘only marginal (if any) impact, then suppliers will select their pollution prevention technologies’
(Vachon, 2007). Thus, the waste prevention approach will catalyze along the value network. In addition, a good
buyer-supplier relationship is ‘important in finding solutions to achieve greater efficiencies and costs savings’
(Schliephake et al. 2009). Organizations developing pollution prevention technologies ‘would benefit from
environmental collaboration with suppliers’ Vachon (2007). Consequently, to fully prosper from a SSCM
approach,
companies need to develop inter-organizational cooperation along the chain (Carter and Rogers, 2008). This
research defines sustainable supplier development as follows:
Sustainable supplier development involves strategic efforts focused on relationship-building with suppliers such
as collaboration on
intra- and inter-organization processes, supplier involvement and education with the aim of long-term supply
chain improvement.
Whereas on sustainable supplier selection extensive literature exists, supplier development and involvement are
still only infrequently included (Tate et al. 2012). Strategies to induce collaboration are hardly described,
whereas
benefits on the economic, social and environmental level are denoted frequently. As different buyer-supplier
relations might ask for different approaches to collaboration, further research could study what strategies are
optimal within a specific buyer-supplier context and how companies can reach a mature buyer-supplier
relationship.
»
Challenges in sustainable sourcing strategies
In spite of the fact that benefits of SSCM are extensively described, there are significant barriers to implement
successful proactive strategies. According to the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968), ‘freedom in a
commons
brings ruin to all’. Unless this freedom is restricted, the individual costs incurred to solve the problem will be
higher
than the expected benefits. Barriers can be categorized into three types: behavioral, economic and structural.
I. Behavioral barriers include managerial attitudes and perceptions of risk (OECD, 1995 and OECD, 2003).
Carroll (1979) identified four management values that could be of influence on managers’ environmental
agenda: economic, ethical, legal and discretionary values. Managers assume different roles towards social issues
such as waste. For example, managers might be concerned about being the corporate seagull, and moving their
strategy away from day to day workings (Lamming and Hampson, 1996). Strong top-management buy-in,
commitment and the recognition of environmental impact on the long term are of key importance for
successful
adoption of environmental management (Petulla, 1987; Carter and Jennings, 2002; Walker et al. 2008;
Hoejmose et al. 2012). Gupta (1995) added that ‘direct involvement of corporate managers and operations
managers’ is essential for a successful waste prevention strategy. Additionally, the attitude of personnel is
emphasized as the single most important aspect for waste prevention and resource efficiency (Pongrácz, 2009).
Moreover, tension can arise ‘when environmental and financial goals within the organizations conflict’ (Sarkis
et al. 2011). Along the supply chain, behavioral barriers can arise, for instance, mitigation of efforts when a
powerful firm is less dedicated to the reduction of environmental effects (Walton et al. 1998). The definition for
behavioral barriers that is used in this research is the following:
Behavioral barriers include managerial and personnel attitudes and awareness with respect to sustainability
that may lead to
mitigation of efforts or lack of involvement imposing a barrier to implementation.
II. Structural barriers are mainly related to organizational structures (OECD, 2003) including a lack of resources,
technological barriers and requirements set by consumers and authorities (Pongrácz, 2009). The lack of total
chain perspective (Schliephake et al. 2009) or perceived issues in coordination or communication (Seuring and
Müller, 2008) as well as the lack of a champion within a supply chain could imply barriers to greater resource
efficiency (Schliephake et al. 2009). The decision to employ environmental management practices can also be
part of a strategic choice, whether taking a Constraint or a Component perspective (Angell and Klassen, 1999).
The former most dominant perception ‘considers environmental performance requirements to be an externally
imposed constraint’ while the latter infers that ‘operating issues such as pollution control, waste minimization,
and material reduction, reuse, and/or recycling form a distinct portion of operations strategy’ (ibidem). Thus,
environmental issues can be either reactively or proactively managed at the strategic and operational level
which impacts the ease of participation. Structural barriers are defined as follows:
Structural barriers involve the lack of resources, procedures, policies or strategies with respect to sustainability
that impose a
barrier to implementation.
III. Economic barriers are described as the ‘green financial burden’, a concept that is defined as ‘the additional
expense that is involved in manufacturing a product to ensure ecological sustainability’ (Barari et al. 2009;
Seuring and Müller, 2008). This burden includes additional investments incurred due to greening and the
penalties levied for not meeting the standards. Furthermore, transaction costs are involved by the
incorporation of environmental supplier management in the forms of financial, capital and personnel resources
(Simpson and Power, 2005). Thereby, when the ‘low-hanging fruit’ is picked, companies need to invest in more
long-term projects which might result in higher costs (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Demand for lower prices is
also seen as a cost associated to sustainable supply chain management (Walker et al. 2008). The following
definition of economic barriers is assumed in this research:
Economic barriers involve (perceived or actual) additional costs or lower profits due to sustainability imposing a
barrier to
implementation.
Although these barriers exist, there are ways to overcome them. Behavioral barriers can be surmounted by ‘a
shared
organization-wide long range vision’ that motivates change (Carter and Rogers, 2008), is fair and supportive
(Carter and Jennings, 2004) and integrates SSCM into the corporate policy (Seuring and Müller, 2008).
Moreover,
training and education of employees and suppliers could support in the adoption of SSCM practices (Seuring
and
Müller, 2008). Companies can also fuel their prevention strategies by learning through a multi-organization
network (Clarke and Roome, 1995), which can be enhanced by information provision and signaling (Wittstruck
and Teuteberg, 2012). By investing in their supplier development, companies can realize adoption of
sustainable
practices and simultaneously create firm-specific relationships that might become difficult to imitate (Pagell et
al.
2010) and thus provide competitive advantage (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995; Tate et al. 2011). Adoption at
the
supply base is increased ‘if the supplier perceives that the additional transaction costs associated with adoption
of
the environmental practice are part of maintaining the ongoing relationship’ (Tate et al. 2011). Management
systems
such as ISO14001 and codes of conduct can also secure a higher priority of SSCM (Seuring and Müller, 2008).
With respect to economic barriers, Hardin (1968) referred to the idea of ‘mutual coercion’ whereby ‘social
arrangements or mechanisms coerce all participants to behave in a way that helps the common good. It can be
attempted through e.g. a command-and-control approach or market mechanisms or cap-and-trade and
emission
taxes (ibidem). Thereby, companies should consider the costs of noncompliance or reactive strategies to
regulations
next to the financial burden of implementing sustainable practices, as well as the fact that energy costs will
continue to rise and materials become more scarce (Shrivastava, 1995; Carter and Rogers, 2008). The benefits of
SSCM should be considered as well as the fact that it can increase profits (Petulla, 1987; Gupta and Sharma,
1996;
Siegel, 2009; Chopra and Meindl, 2013) notwithstanding that profit does not necessarily have to be the ‘driving
force’ of an organization (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Closs et al. 2011).
The attitude of top management and personnel is highlighted by most researchers. Furthermore, legislative and
competitive pressures are said to play substantial roles in transforming the management’s priorities. In general
it is
declared that when a company adopts a supply chain perspective, the advantages of cooperation and mutual
learning will become clear. Nonetheless, specific best practices for certain industries are not pointed out
whereas
industrial or buyer-supplier relationship differences might considerably impact the success of SSCM adoption
(Carter and Easton, 2011; Tate et al. 2012), providing a direction for research.
2.6 Conclusion of the literature review

Environmental concerns are increasingly being embedded in research on business strategies for various
reasons;
whether due to external pressure due to legislation or stakeholders, or internal motivations related to altruism
or
continuous improvement. Next to the detrimental impacts of hazardous waste, risks associated with needlessly
squandering resources are gradually acknowledged i.e. supply risk in the form of resource scarcity, competition
and
reputation risk. The integration of the triple bottom line approach (people, planet, and profit) within corporate
policies and CSR is at present almost preordained. The notion of resource and material efficiency gained
researchers’ attention, as it can provide a signal for improvement along the stages of the supply chain as well as
within the phases of a product’s life cycle.
»
A related development is the shift from employing individual, firm-specific and reactive strategies, to embracing
a
holistic supply chain approach that is proactive. Academics have started to highlight the strategic importance of
stakeholders and the associated benefits of collaboration and integration in a global corporate environment.
Stakeholders are being seen as ‘licensors to operate and exist’ instead of obstructive externalities. Research is
now
increasingly underlining the idea of shared competitive advantage and shared value, which implies lower waste
volumes, minimized reliance as well as efficiency and viability of the supply chain. The emergence of the notion
of
supply base continuity highlights this view, wherein trust and collaboration are the primary drivers of
sustainability of a supply chain. The ‘extended organization’ involves integration, communication, and a focus
on
value enhancement within the relationship. Purchasing is stressed to have a key role in green supply, which is
increasingly seen as a strategic asset rather than an operational function, and moving from arms-length
transactions
to long-term partnerships.
Processes designed for inducing collaborative practices range from selection to evaluation and assessment, to
supplier involvement and development programs. Since new types of inter-firm relationships have evolved,
managing these relationships becomes more and more crucial next to alignment across the factors people,
planet
and profit. The factors risks, rivalry, resource scarcity and rising prices are top priority herein. Consequently,
alignment has moved from providing purely monetary incentives to enabling development structures wherein
collaboration, dialogue, shared commitment and education prevail. From reinforcing the suppliers, the literature
has moved to ‘raising’ and developing suppliers. Though literature exists on supplier development and supply
incentives to motivate suppliers to adopt environmentally friendly systems have been developed, the feasibility
and
appropriateness of these strategies remain to be confirmed by empirical evidence. Furthermore, instead of a
specific
focus on waste prevention, the majority of the articles take a broader stance on the environment at large.
Even though the proposed structures have proven feasible and beneficial in some studies, it is being recognized
that
there are difficulties with regards to implementation. Different types of buyer-supplier relationships and
industries
can impact the level of success of the programs, or define other processes as optimal. Academics have
designed
general sustainable supply processes, but variances in the application thereof and success factors within
different
industries are still rarely considered. Hence, these processes need to be further refined. One concern is that
suppliers might provide green products, but not be green themselves. How to avoid this type of ‘window-
dressing’
or mitigation behavior and induce genuine mutual commitment remain topics to be studied in-depth.
Academic relevance of this research
Previous research shows several gaps with regards to the feasibility of SSCM practices. First, the focal firm
perspective is taken primarily, which condemns the actual impact of suppliers on the focal firm’s supply chain
and
environmental footprint. Secondly, the viability of certain SSCM practices has not been confirmed by empirical
evidence nor tested for feasibility within specific industries. Moreover, these different practices have not been
largely compared in their (perceived) effectiveness on the supply base, and in particular the impact of supplier
development. Additionally, the influence that various types of buyer-supplier relationships have on the
adoption of
these practices is not yet studied into detail. The barriers that can confront implementation are studied in
general,
though these might differ across industries and different relationships.
These gaps indicate a need for theory-building as well as for empirical testing (Melnyk and Handfield, 1998;
Carter
and Rogers, 2008; Seuring and Müller, 2008; Tate et al. 2012). This research aims to fill the theoretical and
empirical
gap by testing the perceived impact of different SSCM practices on the adoption of waste prevention policies
by the
supply base. Next to the perspective of the focal firm, the supplier perspective will be assessed by interviewing
suppliers of the practitioner, inquiring their response to potential focal firm’s actions regarding waste
prevention
policies. Implementation barriers are also studied as these might differ across the manufacturing industry and
hence
impact the actual adoption of waste prevention policies by the supply base. Since it is useful from a practitioner
standpoint to discover best practices, multiple cases are studied across the Dutch manufacturing industry that
are
not related to the practitioner nor the industry. The benchmark results are related to the specific industry
characteristics of the shipbuilding industry in order to provide a solid and feasible model both in theory as well
as
in practice. As waste prevention is the desired result, this research emphasizes SSCM from an environmental
perspective and therefore the term environmental supply management (ESM) is used from this point onwards.
2.7 Conceptual model

Based on literature review and the practitioner’s knowledge need, the conceptual model (Figure 4) was
designed
according to the description of Meredith (1993). Within the framework of environmental supply management,
the
conceptual model indicates the dependent variable ‘adoption of waste prevention policies at the supply base’
and
four environmental supply management practices (ESMPs), the independent variables: selection, evaluation,
supply
incentives and supplier development. The side variables are the three different types of barriers (behavioral,
structural and economic) as well as best practices. The arrows indicate the direction of the assumed
relationship.
Supplier selection is expected to have a positive influence, based on the literature stating that this ESMP is
supposed to have a positive impact on the degree of partnership with suppliers in environment-related projects
(Carter and Carter, 1998; Wolf, 2011) and is able to facilitate efforts on waste minimization (Simpson and Power,
2005). Since evaluation fulfills a controlling role, it is also expected to have a positive impact on waste
prevention
adoption (Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Simpson and Power, 2005). Hence, the influence of these two generic
ESMPs is considered in the following hypotheses:
H1: Supplier selection on environmental criteria is likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at
the supply base.
H2: Supplier evaluation on environmental criteria is likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at
the supply base.
Next to the supply processes, suppliers can be induced by means of incentives. Supply incentives are scoped to
include the following rewards: a) higher volume of the present item, b) consideration of future business and c)
awards or preferred supplier status (Krause and Scannell, 2002). Next to direct incentives, supplier development
will also be assessed as a motivation for suppliers. Supplier development is scoped to include collaboration,
Figure 4 Conceptual model
involvement of the supplier and training or education (Vonderembse and Tracey, 1999; Krause and Scannell,
2002;
Vachon, 2007; Carter and Rogers, 2008; Hoejmose et al. 2012). The relations are supposed to be positive, since
strengthening supplier relationships is believed to aid improvement of the supply chain (Lamming and
Hampson,
1996; Krause et al. 2000; Kannan and Tan, 2000; Hoejmose et al. 2012) whether based on collaboration or
competition (Chen, 2004; Tate et al. 2011). The following hypotheses relate to these two ESMPs:
H3: Supply incentives are likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at the supply base.
H4: Supplier development is likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at the supply base.
As discussed in the literature review, efforts in ESM might face resistance. It is expected that the mindset of the
supplier will play a particular role (Hamner, 2006) in addition to the TM commitment to environmental practices
(Petulla, 1987; Walker et al. 2008). When awareness and involvement in environmental initiatives is low,
adoption
is to be less likely. In addition, the perception of incorporating higher costs (Barari et al. 2009) impairs the actual
adoption of ESM by the focal firm and waste prevention policies by the supply base. For that reason, the
following
three types of barriers are assessed in these hypotheses:
H5: Behavioral (type I) barriers are likely to negatively impact the adoption of waste prevention policies at the
supply base.
H6: Structural (type II) barriers are likely to negatively impact the adoption of waste prevention policies at the
supply base.
H7: Economic (type III) barriers are likely to negatively impact the adoption of waste prevention policies at the
supply base.
In general, this research aims to discover the effectiveness of the different ESMPs and success factors in
inducing
adoption of waste prevention policies upstream. To investigate which supply process is optimal and how
barriers
can be overcome in practice, question 8 relates to best practices. A best practice is defined as “a practice in use
that
is deemed better than all other practices used elsewhere” (Dul and Hak, 2008).
8: What are best practices in the manufacturing industry with respect to inducing the supply base to adopt
waste prevention policies?
By answering these hypotheses and objectives, this research aims to answer the general research question:
Herewith, this research aims to overcome the knowledge gap of the practitioner and extend the literature by
adding
empirical confirmation for the use of specific environmental supply management practices. The research
evaluates
the conceptual model both from a focal firm perspective as well as from the supply side point of view.
In the next chapter, the supply chain management practices are analyzed at the practitioner level.
3 | Case description
Floating topic.
This chapter elaborates on the supply chain management practices in place at Damen, visualizing the supply
chain
as well as the business context of Damen.
3.1 Supply chain

According to the business activities at the headquarters, the supply chain is visualized in Figure 5 (Damen,
2013):
Figure 5 Supply chain Damen
The supply chain is set to be flexible and dynamic and aims to simultaneously ensure high productivity by
means of
material availability (Damen, 2013). Co-makers and suppliers are involved in the supply chain from Engineering
onwards (orange borders). Strategic purchases are considered already during Sales and Design where each
product
group is responsible for its own major suppliers. Damen has more than 6,000 suppliers that serve a range of
shipyards around the globe (Kaijen, 2013). The majority evolved as ‘friendly suppliers’ who helped the company
develop and whom Damen helped to evolve (Kaijen, 2013). However, processes with respect to supplier
relationship
management are said to be immature (Van Rikxoort, 2013), related to the fact that SCM is placed lower in the
corporate hierarchy compared to product group departments (Jacquier, 2013, see Appendix 7). The generic
supplier
selection process, which involves grading and ranking potential suppliers on twelve properties i.e. quality,
responsiveness, ISO14001 and safety/health/environment (Damen, 2013). Criteria on waste do not exist.
Supplier
assessment takes place on operational measures, and does not include environmental concerns. Incentives are
not
used. Moreover, requirements with regards to packaging are minor (Kaijen, 2013 and Van Heulen, 2013). A
single
specification is given for delivery to DSGo, stating that the components should be packed in a ‘seaworthy
manner’.
This implies that the goods can be shipped (abroad) without incurring damages. Even though the terms of
delivery
define the packaging requirement and the fact that ‘costs associated with [..] destruction of materials, waste
residues and so on may be charged by Damen in addition to the price’ (Damen, 2013); this rarely happens
(Peursem,
2013). Additionally, the Supplier Non Conformity database that registers non-conformances with regards to
deliveries is still used infrequently, and feedback to suppliers is therefore only given occasionally (Peursem,
2013).
Customer
Sales & Design
•Design check
•Strategic purchase
Engineering
•Purchase
•Components systems
Procurement
•Material
coordination
•Purchase/ordering
Logistics
•Consolidation
•Direct deliveries and
transport
Production
•Production
•Production support
Services
•Delivery to client
•Services
Nonetheless, several initiatives on improvement of supply chain coordination and environmental concerns exist.
QLIFT
This initiative together with other players in the Dutch shipbuilding industry aims to build an open source
standard for continuous improvement in the maritime sector. It focuses on supply chain cooperation, sustaining
relationships, improved effectiveness and using value sourcing (Burgers et al. 2013). Criteria for sourcing
decisions
are defined based upon Quality, Logistics, Innovation, Flexibility and Total Costs (QLIFT). No results are known.
Supplier Code of Conduct
Damen communicates that it will select qualified suppliers ‘giving preference to those that are socially and
environmentally progressive’ (Damen, 2013). Thereby, it defines that ‘waste of all types, including water and
energy,
are to be reduced or eliminated at the source or by practices such as modifying production, maintenance and
facility
processes, materials substitution, conservation, recycling and re-using materials’ (Damen, 2013). Suppliers
should
stimulate prevention of waste and apply a Waste Management Plan (WMP). However, monitoring is not
applied.
Green Passport
Based upon legislation set by the International Maritime Organization, suppliers are required to register the use
of
hazardous materials in their components according to the ‘Inventory of Hazardous Materials’ (Damen, 2013).
This
inventory collects correct information on the contents of a ship to ensure safe dismantling or recycling
(Hogendorf,
2013). The ‘Green Passport’ requires suppliers to fill in a material declaration (MD), wherein it should be
indicated
whether certain IHM-relevant hazardous materials have been used and if so, in what amounts. The suppliers
need
to fill in a conformity declaration (CD). All data is saved in an internal database, to prevent suppliers from
having to
specify material use from the start on an MD. Once the supplier delivers new components for another vessel, he
only
needs to fill in a CD. The response of the suppliers has been above expectations (Hogendorf, 2013).
Though these initiatives are individually relevant, they do not cover the full range of waste prevention along the
chain. First, QLIFT focuses more on quality and less on waste. Moreover, the objectives mentioned in the Code
of
Conduct do express waste policies but focus mainly on production processes of suppliers and less on logistics
and
delivery. Thereby, the Green Passport does not cover prevention, but only registration of hazardous materials.
Lastly, although the systems are in place for supply chain collaboration and environmental-friendly practices
along
the chain, implementing these systems into practice seems problematic. Hence, waste prevention is a floating
topic.
»
3.2 Shipbuilding industry

The Dutch shipbuilding industry is renowned for its high-tech, high quality and specialist product portfolio
which
has led the industry to uninterruptedly serve a large and international customer base. However, the shipyards
face
increasing competition from emerging countries where this industry is rapidly developing. Ensuring continuity
thus asks for closer cooperation with suppliers and partners, product- and process innovation, and optimizing
performance (Burgers et al. (2013). Worldwide, the industry suffers from the recent credit crisis. Though the
cargo
vessel market has dropped significantly (Besijn, 2013), the repair activities turnover increased due to major
conversions. The large benefit for the Dutch shipbuilding industry is their expertise in niche markets, especially
high-tech projects (VNSI, 2012). Clients thus continue to turn to the Dutch shipbuilders to deliver high quality
and
high performance vessels. Still, the importance of sustainable operations and enabling synergies along the
supply
chain is emphasized (VNSI, 2012). The fast-paced development of technologies will enable Asian competitors to
deliver high-quality vessels in a short time horizon. Thus it is recommendable to exploit opportunities in
resourceefficient
operations in the near future.
3.3 SWOT analysis

A SWOT analysis (Appendix 8) was performed on proactive waste management at Damen. The main points are:
􀁸 Strengths: Damen is already committed to continuous improvement and has implemented several initiatives.
Moreover, as a key player in the industry with a good reputation it has good relationships with most suppliers.
􀁸 Weaknesses: the company lacks a top-down priority view on environmental concerns and hence the urgency
for change among the board and employees. When the client does not ask for it, it is not seen as important. As
Damen can be defined the “concerned citizen”ii regarding environmental management (Hunt and Auster, 1990),
it
might not find enough organizational and/or managerial support.
􀁸 Opportunities: the company can gain competitive and operational advantages by using resources more
efficiently, and simultaneously attract green and aware customers.
􀁸 Threats: when inactive on waste prevention, the company will face higher procurement costs due to
depletion
of resources and increased consumption. In addition, more resource-efficient competitors will be able to
replace Damen in fulfilling customer demand with lower cost prices. Conversely, when initiating waste
prevention, supplier resistance to new requirements may lead to Damen losing some of its (key) suppliers.
4 | Method & results

Seizing the supply chain.
This chapter describes the research design, the case selection and data collection, the measurement protocol
and
henceforth presents the empirical data that is gathered in the data analysis section.
4.1 Research design

Research objective and methodology
The objective of this research is practice-oriented and should yield the knowledge that is needed by the
practitioner
(Damen). This thesis aims to answer the research questions defined in the conceptual model (2.6) which
underlies
the research (Meredith, 1993). The design of the conceptual model was preceded by the formulation of the
general
research objective, which followed after exploration of practice of theory. Even though exploration of practice
did
not result in available hypotheses, exploration of theory showed relevant research directions as defined in the
section 2.6. Consequently, a hypothesis-testing methodology is employed (Dul and Hak, 2008).
The choice for this methodology is based upon the fact that this research intends to refine the existing
theoretical
frameworks on ESM in general by adding empirical findings focused on one environmental concern in
particular:
waste prevention. Instead of focusing on environmental sustainability at large and environmental activities on
waste, this research takes into consideration the specific topic of waste prevention based upon the knowledge
need
of the practitioner. Prevailing theory on ESM and related practices is tested within the manufacturing industry
with a specific focus on the shipbuilding industry, from both a focal firm and supplier point of view. By
assessing
different perspectives and focusing on a specific environmental concern, this research tests whether existing
ESM
frameworks hold in a particular industry and which ESMPs are deemed best within this industry. Hence, this
research examines the feasibility of ESM practices within a particular context and with a specific goal. Herein,
the
hypothesis-testing methodology is believed optimal (Dul and Hak, 2008).
Type of research question
The research question can be classified as causal and probabilistic (Dul and Hak, 2008) as it investigates how
waste
prevention can be induced at the supply base with the underlying intention to find best practices. In addition,
since
this research intends to find the best ESMP to induce waste prevention at the supply base, it calls for the ESMP
that is most likely to engage suppliers in waste prevention and entails a probabilistic relation. The hypotheses
are
formulated accordingly. The causality is implied by the dependent and independent variables.
Research strategy
In spite of the fact that for testing a probabilistic hypothesis the comparative case study is only rated third-best
(Dul and Hak, 2008), case study research is optimal for this study in a real life context. The preferred experiment
strategy is not feasible since setting up a suitable experiment requires a vast amount of time and resources, not
available for this master thesis. In addition, the experiment manipulates variables and does not consider these
in
their real life context. The survey research is also not feasible as it requires a large number of instances to
deliver
appropriate results (Dul and Hak, 2008) which does not fit within the thesis trajectory’s time frame. As this
research intends to gather multiple perspectives on ESMPs in a real life context, there is a need for comparative
analysis, which involves identifying and describing cases to compare different situations (Dul and Hak, 2008).
Furthermore, case research is particularly strong in ‘how’ questions (Yin, 2009) and allows for pattern matching,
comparing the expected pattern with the observed pattern (Dul and Hak, 2008). Therefore, the employed
research
method is the comparative case study (Voss et al. 2002; Dul and Hak, 2008; Carter and Rogers, 2008) analyzing
cases in a qualitative manner. In light of the practitioner, this research strategy has high validity (Voss et al.
2002).
While the focal unit concerns the environmental supply management practices (ESMPs), the object of
measurement is the manager who is related to ESMPs at the case company or at the practitioner.
Case selection
Multiple cases were used to overcome observer bias since only one observer-interviewer (the author)
performed the
research., and since they augment the external validity (Voss et al. 2002). Instances are selected from the
practice
domain including the practitioner and ‘other practices that are similar’ (Dul and Hak, 2008). The following
sample
frame (Brymann and Bell, 2007) was used: a) the company is a manufacturing or assembly company that is b)
located in the Netherlands and c) operates internationally, d) employs over 100FTE in the Netherlands and e)
has
an environmental policy in place. Initially, the case companies were also scrutinized on whether they are
ISO14001
certified as this would indicate commitment or engagement of the firm towards environmental issues (Min and
Galle, 1997; Bowen et al. 2001) which would be valuable to test (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Yet, selecting cases
based
on different criteria can be useful in case research to find contrary or alternative explanations (Eisenhardt and
Graebner, 2007). In order to determine the optimal ESMPs to induce adoption of waste prevention at the supply
base, different and varying perspectives are assumed to be beneficial. Correspondingly, the criterion of
ISO14001
certification was discarded from the selection criteria. The sampling frame is chosen as the cases face similar
regulations regarding the environment and waste (management) on their manufacturing locations in the
Netherlands with the intention to ensure literal replication (Voss et al. 2002). Thereby, the case companies
would
resemble the operations of the practitioner. However, since the research depended upon the availability of case
companies’ respondents, the actual sample was a mere convenience sample (Dul and Hak, 2008). Additionally,
to
ensure that a multitude of data could be collected, cases from the shipbuilding industry were excluded. This
decision was made since competition and issues with confidentiality might conflict with this research’s
objective.
Final sample
To ensure sample control, case C16 was discarded as it did not fit the research design. This company appeared
to
have recently outsourced its entire manufacturing capacity from the Netherlands to Asia. The final sample (see
Appendix 9) includes 7 internal interviews with different purchasing managers to gain a broad insight in the
internal perceptions on ESM. This approach was considered useful as the company is not currently engaged in
ESM
practices and support for ESMPs is unknown. In addition, 10 external cases are included in this research sample
to
compare Damen with other players in the manufacturing industry and to discover best practices. The external
cases
can be divided into 3 Damen suppliers, which will be related to as “suppliers” and 7 not-Damen-related
manufacturing firms in the Netherlands which will be related to as “benchmarks”.
4.2 Data collection

As advised in case study research, multiple sources of data were used to overcome the bias of subjectivity of
the
researcher (Voss et al. 2002). The data were collected according to a planned-systematic approach (Van Tulder,
2012) in the following ways:
􀁸 Internally, data were collected through unstructured interviews and a conclusive questionnaire evaluating
answers based upon a numeric Likert-type scale. The unstructured interview method was preferred due to the
flexibility in phrasing and sequencing of questions. The conclusive questionnaire was chosen to reduce the
variability of the answers and so ensure comparability among the internal and external interviews.
􀁸 Externally, data were collected through structured interviews along a similar, comprehensive questionnaire.
Moreover, during my internship at the practitioner, I was able to gain deeper understanding (Carter and Rogers,
2008) and additional data on the practitioner by means of direct observations and informal conversations
enabling
triangulation of data (Yin, 2009).
Research protocol
Internally, interviewees were approached by e-mail enclosing a meeting invitation with a short introduction on
the
research (Appendix 10a). External interviewees were initially contacted by phone, either indirectly by
approaching
the company’s receptionist, or directly in case of an acquaintance (Appendix 10b). Based upon the response, a
confirmatory e-mail was sent with the details of the appointment and a sample of questions, or in case of
indecision,
an e-mail with an introduction of the research accompanied by a sample of questions (Appendix 10c-e).
Interviewees were informed beforehand of the purpose of the interview and the research, and will receive a
summary of the final findings to ensure a mutual benefit to the interview. The response rate both internally as
externally was satisfactory. Internally, the response rate was 100%. Only one reminder was sent. Out of 21
external
requests, 10 positive responses were received, 2 companies did not meet the criteria, 6 managers were not
available
in the given time frame and only 3 non-responses were filed.
The interviews were preferably held with managers within procurement and purchasing, assuming they have an
overview on the day-to-day purchasing practice as well as future supply strategies. If these managers were not
available or if advised specifically by the case company, interviews were held with employees familiar with the
company’s environmental practices, for instance quality managers. To avoid confidentiality issues interviewees
are
held anonymous, assigned randomly to the titles Case 1, 2, etcetera and mentioned as ‘he’.
Interviews were held along a set of questions and questionnaire (Appendix 11) based upon preceding literature
on
the topics of ESM and waste prevention. The questions aimed at defining an overall framework of the cases’
perceptions with respect to environmental management and waste prevention. Thereby, the questions
specifically
aimed to discover which type of ESMP would induce suppliers most to adopt waste prevention policies. A
number
of questions were asked to define the case company’s circumstances, such as the size of the company and the
size of
the supply base. Several types of questions were used: open, binary and numerical five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). First, the choice of question format depended upon the type of
question
that was asked: factual information questions were formatted in an open or binary fashion; individuals’ attitudes
were displayed as open or in a numerical Likert-type scale format (Brymann and Bell, 2007). Secondly, open
questions provided the opportunity for respondents to give spontaneous answers on their own terms (ibidem).
Conversely, the binary format ensured ease of completion and enhanced comparability among cases, benefits
that
hold true for the numerical format as well. Thirdly, different types were chosen to find a trade-off between
timeLess
is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies 34
consuming data coding, interview variability and comparability. In order to cover for variation in interpretation
of
the Likert-type scale, interviewees were engaged in conversation to explain their choices.
The interviews were held in Dutch and recorded on tape to reduce the observer bias (Voss et al. 2002). Before
recording the interviewees were asked for permission. All interviewees gave this permission. Additionally, notes
were taken by the interviewer during the interview. Recording is chosen to avoid a loss of crucial data and to
enable
the interviewer to interact with the interviewee. After the interview, interviewees were thanked for their
contribution by means of a follow-up e-mail. Transcription of the recordings occurred as soon as possible after
the
interview. The original interview transcripts were truthfully translated in English. To avoid an eventual ‘change of
mind’ of the interviewees with regards to their first interview response, the transcripts were not sent back to the
interviewees for review. Only when data was considered incomplete, which was almost non-occurring, an
interviewee was contacted promptly to fill in the gaps.
Measurement procedure
The constructs that form the independent and side variables have been defined in the literature review (Chapter
2).
The definitions are adjusted to fit within the context of environmental supply management (ESM) as shown in
the
conceptual model (Chapter 2.7) and are listed in Table 1 for clarification.
Construct Definition
Supplier selection
The search for, assessment of and decision to contract potential suppliers based upon requirements
that incorporate environmental concerns and thus manage supply chain risks and supply-base
continuity.
Supplier evaluation
The process of assessing a supplier’s performance on environmental criteria in order to compare it
across the supply base, reduce risks and inefficiencies, and investigate points of improvement.
Supply incentives
Rewards to proper environmental performance of suppliers in the form of increased (future)
business or preferred status.
Supplier development
Strategic efforts focused on relationship-building with suppliers such as collaboration on intra- and
inter-organization processes, supplier involvement and education with the aim of long-term supply
chain improvement.
Behavioral barriers
Managerial and personnel attitudes and awareness with respect to ESM that may lead to mitigation
of efforts or lack of involvement imposing a barrier to implementation.
Structural barriers
The lack of resources, procedures, policies or strategies with respect to ESM that impose a barrier
to implementation.
Economic barriers
The (perceived) additional costs or lower profits with respect to ESM that impose a barrier to
implementation.
Best practice An ESM practice in use that is deemed better than all other practices used elsewhere.
Waste prevention policies
Practices that are part of a sustainable and integrated strategy that underscores continuous
improvement and aims to avoid waste and the generation thereof by employing a resource-efficient
attitude to products and processes within the chain.
Table 1 Definitions of constructs
The supposed relationships of the independent and side variables with respect to the dependent variable have
been
clarified in the conceptual model (Chapter 2.7).
How these constructs are calculated is described next in order to be able to derive results and subsequently
conclusions from the data. From the questionnaire and interview questions a selection was made of those
questions
that specifically define the relationships between the variables in the conceptual model. These parameters are
used
to assess the cases in a similar way in order to increase the reliability of the computation. Weights are assigned
to
each parameter by adding one or several ‘+’ indicating the relevance and translating this into a weight
percentage.
The percentages are used to calculate the construct score. The questions and the reasons for distribution of the
weights are explained in Table 2 and Table 3 (next page).
Table 2 shows that the construct ‘incentives’ is measured differently among internal cases and external cases.
Since
the practitioner does not have incentives in place, question 6f was not deemed suitable. On the other hand,
external
cases were assumed to possibly have specific incentives on waste prevention in place, which allowed these
cases to
relate to the impact of these incentives on the supplier’s environmental performance.
Question w. % Reason
Selection
(4f) To what extent does supplier selection play a role with
regards to waste prevention?
++ 40
When indicating that criteria are
necessary, the role of selection is
underlined to further extent. Hence, 4g
is weighted a bit heavier.
(4g) To what extent is it necessary to include waste prevention
criteria?
+++ 60
Evaluation
(5f) To what extent does supplier evaluation have an impact on
the supplier’s performance?
+++ 40
As 5g focuses specifically on waste
prevention and the influence of the
process evaluation herein, it is
distributed a slightly larger weight.
(5g) To what extent can supplier evaluation on environmental
performance play a role in reducing waste?
++ 60
Incentives (I)
(6e) To what extent can you motivate suppliers by means of
incentives to improve their environmental performance?
+++
60
(100)
The internal cases were only asked to
answer 6e, hence this score is 100. As
incentives on waste prevention
specifically are not very common, the
question is rated a bit lower than 6e.
(6f) To what degree do incentives on waste prevention impact
the suppliers’ environmental performance? (only external)
++ 40
Collaboration (C)
(7h) To what extent can collaboration engage suppliers in waste
prevention efforts?
100 Fully relevant.
Table 2 Measurement of relationship between independent and dependent variable
Question w. % Reason
Barrier type I: behavioral (internal and external)
(1d) To what degree do you perceive (higher) management to be
committed to waste prevention?
+++ 25
TM commitment and personnel
awareness were highlighted as crucial
supporters of sustainable practice in the
previous literature, hence 1d and 3 are
most relevant. Training and evaluation
are a bit less relevant, followed by the
perception of the awareness of suppliers
and the overall perception of the
research topic.
(3) To what extent are the purchasing personnel aware of the
environmental impacts of purchased supplies?
+++ 25
(3b) Is training of personnel seen as important? ++ 16.67
(5b) To what extent are environmental criteria seen as important
within evaluation?
++ 16.67
(7g) To what extent do you experience awareness of suppliers on
the environmental impact of their products?
+ 8.33
(8f) What is your overall opinion on waste prevention in the
supply chain?
+ 8.33
Barrier type II: structural (only external)
(1a) To what extent do you consider the environmental policy to
be proactive?
+++ 38
A proactive strategy that indeed
restructures the corporate environment
proves that waste prevention is a highly
relevant topic. As a priority within the
policy, the topic does have attention but
is emphasized less. Hence, 1c receives a
lower rating.
(1b) To what degree is waste prevention a priority within the
environmental policy?
++ 25
(1c)To what extent have processes been redesigned to reduce
waste?
+++ 38
Barrier type III: economic (only external)
(8b) To what extent do you (expect to) face lower costs? +++ 37.50
As the financial burden is cited greatly
by academics, this question receives
most attention. Disposal costs gets the
lowest weight, as procurement managers
might have less insight herein as in costs
of purchasing.
(8c) To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the amount of
waste?
++
25
(8d) To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the cost of
purchasing?
++
25
(8e) To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the cost of
disposal?
+
12.50
Table 3 Measurement of relationship of side variables
4.3 Data analysis

Data analysis is performed in two steps: within-case and across-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). The first type
assesses unique aspects of each case and is only applied to the internal interviews since this involves the same
case
company (Appendix 13). The second analysis is performed in several phases in order to define consensus across
cases and identify outliers in perceptions on the impact of different environmental supply management
practices
(ESMPs) in order to find best practices and to increase the internal validity of the findings (Voss et al. 2002). In
addition, I also use the transcripts and remaining interview and questionnaire questions for supplementary
analysis:
they outline the respondents’ framework and fulfill an explanatory function.
Across-case analysis
Across-case analysis aids in finding patterns that enhance the ‘generalizability of conclusions drawn from cases’
(Voss et al. 2002). The first-cut analysis searches for the common perspective (ibidem) within a) the internal case
study and b) the external benchmark. Subsequently, cross-examination is performed across these two studies.
Following, the cases are segregated into subsets (i.e. internal cases, external cases, benchmarks and suppliers)
for
further cross-examination. Finally, the different external categories are analyzed against the internal perspective.
First-cut analysis: internal respondents
Table 4 presents the construct scores of the internal respondents (Appendix 12). The table below first presents
the
individual cases’ scores on the different ESMPs as well as the behavioral (type I) barrier and indicates how many
cases scored a specific ESMP at the mid-point of the scale or higher. The last column presents the number and
percentage of cases that rate a specific ESMP as optimal. When cases rank two or three constructs on the same
level, these are equally divided in the ranking, resulting in uneven numbers.
ESMP C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 % ≥3.00 #|% of cases
1st score
Supplier
selection
4.00 2.80 4.00 1.00 4.60 3.60 3.60 71.4 1.00|14%
Supplier
evaluation
4.40 2.40 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.40 4.00 85.7 1.83|26%
Supplier
incentives
5.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 85.7 1.83|26%
Supplier
development
4.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 85.7 2.34|34%
Barriers C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 % <3.00
# of cases
1st score
Type I 3.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 3.50 3.00 14.3 n/a
Table 4 Internal cases: construct scores per respondent and preferences
It appears that internal cases are mainly positive, with more than 70 percent answering above intermediate
level.
Supplier development is seen as primary driver for upstream waste prevention adoption, though opinions are
scattered. Still, the majority expects that suppliers will indeed collaborate on an intermediate level (Type I).
Evaluation and incentives are both ranked second, whereas selection is only slightly preferred (14%). The high
score
on supplier development is supposedly due to the primarily long-term and historic relationships that Damen
has
with its suppliers: “it is not easy to switch suppliers” (C1) and collaboration is “essential” (C5). Even though
selection and
evaluation are seen as inseparable, the latter scores higher as the enforcement is more rigid and selection is
already
complicated due to plenty criteria. Incentives, defined as a) higher volume of the present item, b) consideration
of
future business to c) awards and preferred states, are believed to have an impact. Allegedly, this relates to the
fact
that Damen already ‘awards’ some of its crucial suppliers with the title ‘co-maker’. Still, most respondents do
not
expect that financial incentives will be given to suppliers purely based on whether their “waste streams are in
order”.
In addition, though the majority of the cases (85.7%) do not perceive behavioral barriers to play a significant
role in
ESM, the transcripts show that top management (TM) commitment is highlighted. Even though Damen is
ISO14001 certified, the interviewees stress that the environmental priorities are not part of purchasing. Only
when
TM incorporates waste prevention and sustainability into its general corporate policy, an environmentally
conscious mindset will be integrated into supply management processes. Green purchasing thus has to be
prompted from the top-down, which will occur ‘when it brings cost advantages and reductions’ as the primary
driver of the
business is stated to be costs.
Cross examination: internal cases
Two respondents stand out with negative answers. According to C2, waste prevention efforts serve no
commercial
need: “If you want to be green, you will be window-dressing because it is all about making profit, and not about
reducing waste and
wastage”. Though C2 believes that waste can be reduced, it should be the result of a focus on efficiency as
“everything
you waste is unnecessary, so if you direct on efficiency that is always better”. C4 has low expectations with
regards to supplier
selection, since “there are already quite some criteria to eliminate potential suppliers” and new criteria will lead
to a trade-off
elsewhere. Since C4 is focused on sourcing in Asia where sustainability is not yet widely incorporated, the
respondent might face more resistance to environmental selection criteria, opposed to i.e. C5 who is
responsible for
the NPR-procurement and more focused on European suppliers. C5 shares the most positive perspective, and
believes in cost reduction when preventing waste and collaborating with suppliers in a more sustainable way.
First cut-analysis: external cases
Table 5 presents each external cases’ construct scores in a similar fashion as Table 1 with, next to the behavioral
(type I) barriers, additionally the structural (type II) and economic (type III) barriers. It should be noted that the
external replies can differ based upon the relationship with Damen. Damen-suppliers (C10/11/13) are part of
the
multiple case study to assess the supply-side perspective, nevertheless their contribution may be biased to
certain
ESMPs compared to the benchmarks who are not involved in a supplier- or a client relationship with Damen.
Hence, later on a distinction is made across the two categories to interpret the differences in responses.
ESMP C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C17 %
≥3.00
# of cases
1st score
Supplier
selection
3.40 3.60 5.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.60 3.60 3.00 77.,7 1.00|11%
Supplier
evaluation
3.00 3.40 3.00 4.00 2.80 3.80 3.60 3.80 3.80 88.8 1.50|17%
Supplier
incentives
2.60 2.00 4.20 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.,00 4.00 4.40 55.6 2.50|28%
Supplier
development
4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 100 4.00|44%
Barriers C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C17
%
<3.00
# of cases
low score
Type I 2.75 3.75 3.42 2.92 3.08 4.08 3.67 3.42 4.75 22.2 1.00|11%
Type II 2.63 2.88 3.25 3.63 2.38 3.63 2.75 4.38 3.38 44.4 2.50|28%
Type III 3.63 3.25 2.38 1.63 2.38 2.75 2.63 4.00 2.25 66.6 5.50|61%
Table 5 External cases: construct scores per respondent and preferences
All ESMPs are acknowledged to play at least an intermediate role in inducing waste prevention by the external
cases (scores≥3). Supplier development ranks highest, with almost a majority of votes, followed by incentives.
However, the opinion on the impact of supply incentives is ambiguous and perceptions vary widely. Most
interviewees believe that the supplier should have an intrinsic motivation, not an extrinsic one. Agreements
based
on achievable results are better according to C11 and C13, who lean towards collaboration and evaluation
which
might be related to the fact that C11 and C13 are suppliers of the practitioner and are inclined to answer in
favor of
collaboration. On the other hand, “business relations are primarily transactional” and thus evaluation is better
equipped
according to benchmark C17. Remarkable is the fact that when cases are asked to indicate their actual
cooperative
efforts with suppliers, the scale is lower (Appendix 14). Considering obstacles to implementation, the overall
response is positive. Most companies already have the required infrastructure in place, such as the ISO14001
certification (66%), employee training (83%) and 50% have redesigned internal processes to at least
intermediate
extent (Appendix 14). Still, about two-third of respondents fears higher costs due to legislation, implementation
of
practices and rising resource prices, even though benefits are seen in e.g. lower amounts of waste, purchasing
cost
and disposal. Economic barriers are the most significant deterrent.
Cross examination: external cases
Among the external cases, C15 provides only positive answers whereas C11, C12 and C13 score primarily
negative.
C15 serves a small supply base (50 suppliers) with 10 primary ones which means that it might be relatively
easier to
induce suppliers to adopt waste prevention policies compared to i.e. C11 with approximately 5000 suppliers.
Especially when taking a look at the score of the type III barrier (score: 4.00), C15 is an outlier. It sees “less
waste as
less cost” and experienced that “though you might have less material yields at the end of your process – selling
waste for the residual
value – you also have less purchasing costs and that factor is much higher”. Other cases might not have had
similar positive
experiences, and thus rate the economic barrier as higher. Back to the rather negative cases, it can be noted
that C11
and C13 are not ISO14001 certified and might thus lack the structural framework for sustainable practices. As
ISO14001 does not apply for the industry of C12, this case has an alternative sustainability certificate (PEFC).
Yet,
C12 states that top management is purely committed due to cost reasons as within the industry “the discussion
on cost
really comes down to dimes” and “everything is reused from a cost recovery perspective”. C11 and C13 both
rate selection low;
respectively due to the fact that C11 does not consider waste as risky nor problematic within the supply chain
and
C13’s supplied products “have a low impact on the people and the planet”. The negative view on incentives
comes from the
idea that “the supplier will already adopt the practices with conviction if he is able to get a value from
implementation” (C11) whereas
C13 states that it is simply not part of the supplier’s margins nor their own due to the circumstances within his
industry. C8 scores particularly low on type I, as it rates its top management commitment to waste prevention
on a
low level and experiences its suppliers to be remotely aware of their impact. In line with C13, C8 states that the
lack
of commitment is due to the “survival mode” of his industry with costs as the main driver. Even though
unexpected,
among the negative cases there are two suppliers of the practitioner (C11 and C13). This negativity might be
explained by the fact that they serve the shipbuilding industry that is currently not highly involved in ESMPs,
and
thus they are not triggered to supply sustainable themselves.
Cross-examination between subsets and categories
Table 6 presents the construct scores across subsets (internal/external) and categories (suppliers/benchmarks).
Internal respondents External cases Suppliers Benchmarks
ESMP # cases 1st
score % ≥3.00
# cases
1st score % ≥3.00
# cases
1st score % ≥3.00
# cases
1st score % ≥3.00
Supplier
selection
1.33|19% 71.,4 1.00|11% 77.7 1.00|33% 33.3 0.00|0% 100
Supplier
evaluation
1.83|26% 85.7 1.50|17% 88.8 1.50|50% 100 0.00|0% 83.3
Supplier
incentives
1.83|26% 85.7 2.50|28% 55.6 0.00|0% 33.3 2.50|42% 66.7
Supplier
development
2.00|29% 85.7 4.00|44% 100 0.50 |17% 100 3.50|58% 100
Barriers # cases
low score % <3.00
# cases
low score % <3.00
# cases
low score % <3.00
# cases
low score % <3.00
Type I n/a 14.3 1.00|11% 22.22 0.00|0% 33.33 1.00|16% 16.67
Type II n/a n/a 2.50|28% 44.44 0.00|0% 0 2.50|42% 66.7
Type III n/a n/a 5.50|61% 66.66 3.00|100% 100 2.50|42% 50.0
Table 6 Comparison of categories
Cross examination: internal respondents and external cases
External cases appear more negative comparatively. Since internal respondents have not had experience with
waste
prevention policies, their perspective might be more positive. Both subsets emphasize on the ESMP supplier
development and expectations are high on the willingness of suppliers to take efforts. However, only a few
cases do
currently collaborate on environmental practices with their suppliers. Opinions on supplier development vary: it
can “ensure performance improvements” according to C1, whereas C8 mentions that companies are still
constrained by
contracts, according to the basic principle ‘you have something, I have something, let’s arrange something”
(C4). While C3
states that “supplier selection and evaluation are inextricably linked”, selection is ranked last in general while
evaluation is
favored more. As C1 indicates, evaluation can “close the gap between our expectations and those of the
supplier with regards to the
relationship”. Evaluation ensures that “you will gain mutual understanding and you will exchange knowledge”
(C14). Whereas
internally evaluation and supply incentives are equally rated, external cases favor incentives in spite of only a
slight
majority rating it as intermediate or higher. Internally, opinions are more one-sided ranging from
“counterproductive“
to “valuable if penalties are enforced” and “helpful if mutual benefits are pointed out” inducing the supplier to
“run faster”. Both
subsets emphasize the cost aspects connected to waste prevention which form a barrier to implementation and
appear to be the primary corporate driver due to the financial crisis or cost-based competition. ESM items are
often
seen as “side-issues” and thus remain of lower priority, especially when it is not incorporated in the company
policy.
Cross-examination: “suppliers” and internal respondents
In general, internal respondents are more positive than suppliers and rank all ESMPs positively while suppliers
respond in a milder fashion, which might be due to (negative) experience with EMPs. Notwithstanding that both
categories rate evaluation positively, the process is only preferred by suppliers. They indicate that, though “it
depends
on the impact and the ability to bend the supplier” (C10, C13) evaluation has an impact since the supply base
will respond to
a critical report (C12, C13) and changes that are asked for that are “not unrealistic”(C13). Instead, by internal
respondents the ESMP evaluation is perceived as “too subjective” and “more data is needed and should be
made available” in
order to ensure that it has an impact (C7). Still, both categories indicate that this process has at least a medium
impact. A large contrast exists with regards to supplier development: it is preferred by internal cases and the
before-last option to suppliers. This might be due to the fact that internal cases reflect upon collaboration from
a
Damen-perspective, where long-term supply relations are highly valued. Still, the majority of respondents
acknowledge a substantial impact of supplier development on the adoption of waste prevention policies by the
supply base. Another divergence is found on selection, as suppliers rank this ESMP second while internal cases
rank supplier selection last. The one supplier indicating it as preferred ESMP believes that “asking for it has
effect, as it
induces the supplier to think about it” (C10). Nonetheless, the majority of subset cases agree that other priorities
prevail
in selection i.e. price and quality and any additional environmental criterion “should not raise costs” (C1; C2;
C7). It is
costs that are also seen as one of the major barriers by both categories, indicated in ranking and in transcripts.
Behavioral barriers are seen as having only a minor impact and suppliers rate top management to be
substantially
committed. This highly positive response might be influenced by the relationship with Damen, as suppliers may
wish to appear proactive and engaged with the topic. Perspectives on supply incentives also differ widely, even
though both the internal respondents and the suppliers feel that this is not part of their margins.
Cross-examination: “benchmarks” and internal respondents
A cross-examination between benchmarks and internal respondents provides a comparison between different
focalfirm
perspectives. The benchmarks are slightly more positive than the internal cases. Both categories mainly rank
the ESMPs as having a positive impact on the adoption of waste prevention policies at the supply base.
Internally
opinions on the optimal process are widespread whereas benchmarks’ preferences focus on two ESMPs: supply
incentives and supplier development. Resemblance can be found in the fact that supplier development is
ranked
first by both categories, seen by the benchmarks as “helping each other” and “developing suppliers” with
mutual benefits
(C15; C8;C12) compared to the internal emphasis on historic trust-based supply management. Nonetheless,
benchmarks do state that collaboration depends upon the specific relationship with the supplier, which might
also
be merely transactional (C17). Selection and evaluation are not preferred by benchmarks due to the fact that
environmental criteria are of lower importance within the large collection of criteria.
Cross-examination: “benchmarks” and “suppliers”
Comparing benchmarks and suppliers, large differences exist. First, selection is seen as impactful by all
benchmarks
whereas none prefer the process. On the other hand, only one of the suppliers confirms that the process does
have
an impact and rates it first. Remarkably, this supplier states to be highly dependent upon one main supplier.
However, most benchmarks and suppliers state that selection can be of influence, though it is rated lower
compared to other ESMPs since the “’priority of environmental criteria is low”. Secondly, while suppliers prefer
evaluation, benchmarks agree that it has considerable impact but do not list it as optimal. Suppliers conversely
believe that evaluation can guide their suppliers by indicating goals for improvement and state that “most
suppliers are
willing to initiate an improvement plan”. This preference might indicate that suppliers wish to receive a similar
evaluation
from Damen. On supply incentives, opinions are also divided. The suppliers only slightly acknowledge an impact
whereas 42% of the benchmarks ranks this option second as they largely believe that incentives can play a
positive
role. On the other hand, suppliers regard supply incentives as “counterproductive” or “too costly”. Lastly,
considering
collaboration both categories are fully convinced of the impact, still it is only preferred by benchmarks and
ranked
just third among the suppliers. In their opinion, collaboration can “work as a trigger” in spite of not necessarily
being a
“motivation for waste prevention”. On barriers, the opinions are almost one-sided with the only difference that
the
benchmarks indicate that structural barriers can also have a significant influence, while one benchmark states
that
behavioral factors can impair the adoption of waste prevention policies. Again, economic barriers are found to
be
most significant.
Generally, it appears that the “suppliers” are the outliers across the categories and their preferences with
respect to
ESMPs vary widely. Between the internal respondents and the benchmarks higher coherence exist which is
unexpected since they are part of different industries. For the same reason, suppliers were supposed to answer
more
coherently to internal respondents. Possible explanations for being outliers may be found in the fact that
suppliers
are asked for the supplier and buyer view, and are informed that the practitioner to which they supply is
inquiring.
Supplier perspective to focal firm requirements
The assessments from a supplier perspective are meant to analyze the perception and potential responses of
the
suppliers on any actions regarding ESM from the focal firm and so provide a more tangible explanation. The
answers might have been positively biased by knowing that this research was performed under guidance of the
practitioner. Furthermore, it should be noted that the respondent of the third supplier (C13) was not
significantly
informed of the relationship between the supplier and Damen since he only recently acquired his position. The
following results were found:
􀁸 The suppliers indicate a high level of commitment to and cooperation with Damen, and indicate a relatively
high interdependency within the buyer-supplier relationship. All suppliers respond positively when asked if
waste prevention can be achieved in their relationship with Damen and state that they will ‘join’ when Damen
puts stricter requirements on waste and waste prevention. Thereby, all suppliers state that they are willing to
comply, even though one supplier indicates that it will need to check whether it is able to comply.
􀁸 Motivations to reduce and prevent waste differ: one supplier states that he is “intrinsically motivated as it is
part of
their own policy and key values”; another supplier states that he will be motivated if “it offers benefits in the
form of
collaboration and cooperation” whereas the remaining supplier states that the ‘Green Passport’ is already a
motivator to reduce waste in their supplies. What appears, is that the first two suppliers mainly focus on the
relationship, whereas the third supplier relates to the waste in his products. This last response might be due to
the discrepancy in knowledge on the relationship between Damen and the supplier.
􀁸 The conditions under which collaboration on waste prevention is considered vary accordingly, ranging from
the value that is achieved by “working together and learning together on the long term” to a “return on
investment” in the
form of a preferred supplier status or ‘co-makership’ classification. Pointed out by all suppliers is that mutual
benefits should arise from the efforts in waste prevention. One supplier asks specifically to ensure involvement
of more suppliers with the focal firm at once to ensure efficient operations as a ‘team’.
􀁸 With regards to costs, a single remark is made: “compliance might induce higher costs, and these should be
covered by
Damen”. This statement is reasoned by the fact that the specific supplier perceives that his own supply chain
will not have the appropriate ‘margin-room’ to face additional costs.
Collaboration and preferred status thus appear as major stimuli for suppliers to adopt waste prevention
policies.
4.4 Interpretation of findings
Based on the across-case analysis and the preceding literature, the goal of interpretation is to hypothesize the
relationships among the a priori defined constructs of the conceptual model in order to answer the general
research
question. The hypotheses are grounded by existing theory in order to build and test the evolving new theory
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Carter and Rogers, 2008), according to the hypothesis-building and testing approach of this
research (Dul and Hak, 2008).
The interpretation is guided by the following rules. First, the ESMPs are considered to play a positive role with
regards to the dependent variable (waste prevention adoption by the supply base) when at least (≥) 75% of the
cases values the ESMP on and above the mid-point of the scale (≥3.00). At least 12 out of 16 cases have to
value the
ESMP substantially before it is deemed to be influential. This percentage is chosen due to the confirmation bias
that
might be present among the respondents’ answers, wishing to appear more positive then they might actually
be.
Second, an implementation barrier is considered to play a negative role towards waste prevention adoption by
the
supply base when at least (≥) 6 out of 16 cases (37.50%) indicate a score below the mid-point of the scale
(<3.00).
This fraction is selected since barriers might be underestimated by the cases, in the respondents’ effort to
appear
positive. Hence, a number smaller than the majority is chosen.
The following table (Table 7) defines the average construct scores and percentages on preferences.
Internal cases External cases Overall score
Construct # cases 1st score % ≥3.00 # cases 1st score % ≥3.00 % cases 1st score % ≥3.00
Supplier
selection
1.33|19% 71.4 1.00|11% 77.7 14.5% 75.0
Supplier
evaluation
1.83|26% 85.7 1.50|17% 88.8 21% 87.5
Supplier
incentives
1.83|26% 85.7 2.50|28% 55.6 27% 68.8
Collaboration 2.00|29% 85.7 4.00|44% 100 37,5% 93.8
Barriers # cases low score % <3.00 # cases low score % <3.00 # cases low score % <3.00
Type I n/a 14.3 1.00|0% 22.2 12.5% 18.7
Type II n/a n/a 2.50|28% 44.4 28% 44.4
Type III n/a n/a 5.50|61% 66.6 72% 66.6
Table 7 Construct preferences overall
Hypothesis-testing
The ESMPs are assessed in the order of the specific research questions as presented in the conceptual model,
by
relating the respondents’ answers to the preceding academic framework and answering the hypotheses.
􀁸 H1: Supplier selection on environmental criteria is likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at
the supply base.
The majority of cases state that supplier selection can play a positive role towards waste prevention policies in
the
manufacturing industry (75%), just reaching the 75% threshold. Environmental topics are considered to become
more important. Selection on environmental criteria and waste prevention is believed to impact the ‘supplier’s
ability to improve their sustainability’ to a positive extent (Wolf, 2011). Nevertheless, most cases declare that
first
the main selection criteria should be met (i.e. price, quality and reliability), and if that is the case, the suppliers
that
“deal better with the issue of waste than other suppliers, should be given priority when equally suitable”. Even
though cases
acknowledge selection to play a role, for example in reducing supply risks such as pollution or reliability
(Shrivastava, 1995; Vachon et al. 2007), this role “is not major” and environmental criteria are primarily seen as
“last or
low priority”, “mediate attention level”, “low risk” and “not very spectacular”. Still, the majority of cases has
environmental
criteria added to its selection process (80%) confirming Lamming and Hampson (1996); Kannan and Tan (2000);
Simpson and Power (2005); Bai and Sarkis (2010) and Athawale and Chakraborty (2011). Hence, it can be used
to
achieve alignment between the focal firm and the supplier (Jabbour and Jabbour, 2009). In addition, numerous
cases believe suppliers should be required to be ISO14001 complaint (Walton et al. 1998; Ponte, 2004; Chen,
2004;
Vachon, 2007; Seuring and M・ler, 2008). Still, some cases point out that selection on i.e. ISO14001 will not have
an
impact when the critical suppliers do not adopt it whether due to financial reasons or commitments elsewhere.
Especially when the supply base will become too limited, asking for compliance to environmental criteria is “not
feasible” (C4) and the impact of selection is limited ((Delmas and Montiel, 2009). Thereby, confirming the stance
of
Masella and Rangone (2000), C7 indicates that the selection should be tailored to the type of products and C17
mentions accordingly that “with some suppliers it is more important than with others”. Thus, the H1 is
confirmed.
In conclusion, the following statement defines the relationship of supplier selection to the dependent variable:
S1: Supplier selection plays a positive, though limited role compared to all ESMPs in the adoption of waste
prevention policies by the
supply base.
􀁸 H2: Supplier evaluation on environmental criteria is likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies
at the supply base.
Evaluation is also acknowledged to play at least an intermediate role by the majority of the cases (87.5%) and is
hence interpreted to play a positive role towards upstream waste prevention, confirming H2. The relevance of
evaluation is stated as “it is valuable to see whether companies are addressing these issues or if they are
window-dressing” (C9),
confirming Simpson and Power (2005). If suppliers fail certain compliance to certain criteria, the focal firm can
“comment and they [the supplier] will consider it again” (C10; Delmas and Montiel, 2009).
Cases state that suppliers are primarily evaluated on operational factors such as reliability and timing of
deliveries,
incidents or damages with the supplied products and similar logistical measures. The inclusion of environmental
criteria varies among the cases, and ranges from the product-based indicators e.g. use of hazardous materials
to
process-based measures e.g. waste streams, compliance to EMS and goals with regards to environment
(Humphreys
et al. 2003). It mainly concerns pollution control factors that are demanded by legislation (e.g. ROHS and
REACH),
rather than pollution prevention or advanced green supply (Bowen et al. 2001b). Whereas C8 does indicate that
it
wants to “share the responsibility”, it was found that no cooperative risk-sharing or reward-sharing agreements
are in
place according to the description of Bowen et al. (2001). Still, only 21% of the cases indicate that the process of
evaluation is optimal for inducing waste prevention at the supply base. As with selection, it is stated that the
impact depends on the financial position of the supplier (C8; C9; C12), whether it is “his thing” and whether the
focal
firm is able to “cause impact, then it is easier to move” (C10). Thereby, C9 indicates that it is “difficult to control”
and costly,
and a third party might be more apt to critically assess suppliers than the focal firm (Hoejmose et al. 2012).
Nevertheless, several cases indicate the benefits of evaluation for supplier such as “it is easier for a compliant
supplier to
orientate on the rest of the market” (C9), thus confirming a competitive advantage for the supplier (Lamming
and
Hampson, 1996). Thereby, firms indicate that the assessment serves as an informative tool to the supplier, since
it
can relate to its improvement areas (Simpson and Power, 2005) and “suppliers start asking us [focal firm]
questions on
certain topics” (C14). In several cases, the outcomes of the evaluation are also linked to future business
potential
(C17), providing a larger incentive and thus impact to improve the suppliers’ environmental performance.
Relating to the statements and scores of the cases, the conclusive statement on evaluation holds the following:
S2: Supplier evaluation plays a positive role compared to all ESMPs in the adoption of waste prevention
policies by the supply base.
􀁸 H3: Supply incentives are likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at the supply base.
On supply incentives 68.75% of the cases indicate an impact of intermediate level and higher, which means that
it is
below the threshold value, and H3 is rejected. Although 27% of the cases indicate this as their second preferred
option, the motivations for this choice are different. Supply incentives can work to “create awareness, dialogue
and
emphasizing that the environment is important” (C8) and can create a “navigation effect” to suppliers which
induces them to
improve (C14). It is also seen as a way of signaling within supplier contract management, “directing suppliers to
some
extent” (C2;C13) by rewarding performance with continued business (Simpson and Power, 2005). A positive
element for the supplier that is disclosed is that, especially with regards to waste prevention, reductions are
easily
quantified (C14). However, as pointed out by several cases, it is important that the supplier reaches the correct
mindset and “want it themselves”, otherwise supply incentives are expected to work “counterproductive” (C10;
C11; C17;
Hamner et al. 2006). The carrot-and-stick approach is supposed to work when the supplier provided with
financial
incentives, but that is costly to the focal firm or even outside the budget in some industries (C17; C13). Though
it is
alleged to induce minor changes, it is expected to last only during the contract or incentive phase. Thereby, it is
stated that differences in cultures can influence the intended impact of incentives (C14). Overall, cases agree
that
motivation should be more intrinsic and other strategies might be more feasible to induce waste prevention at
the
supply base, as emphasized by Chen (2004). The impact of incentives can be concluded in a statement as
follows:
S3: Incentives play a positive, though limited role compared to all ESMPs in the adoption of waste prevention
policies by the supply base.
􀁸 H4: Supplier development is likely to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at the supply base.
Supplier development, on the other hand, scores highest across all ESMPs (93.8%) with 15 out of 16 cases
indicating
that collaboration will play a positive role, confirming H4. Thereby, this process is preferred compared to
selection,
evaluation and incentives by 37.5% of the cases. More emphasis is indeed placed on relationship-building
(Kannan
and Tan, 2000) and collaboration on environmental aspects is believed to induce adoption of waste prevention
policies at the supply base most (Vachon, 2007; Carter and Rogers, 2008; Pagell et al. 2010). It works to “get the
conversation going”, to create awareness and as a “trigger for the supplier from an economic perspective”
especially when there
is a common interest and it yields “a benefit at both sides”. It is about “helping each other” and “learning to
understand each
other’s business” by the exchange of knowledge and expertise (Clarke and Roome, 1995; Lamming and
Hampson, 1996;
Wittstruck and Teuteberg, 2012). Supposed benefits mainly concern the relationship with the supplier, though
some cases highlight the benefits of lower waste amounts, less packaging, lower emissions and lower costs
along
the supply chain (C15; C17; Linton and Jayaraman, 2005). Notwithstanding that supplier development receives
the
highest score across all cases, in fact some cases emphasize that companies are “bounded by the contracts,
promises and
payments from either side“ (C8) and the transactional nature of business should not be neglected (C17). That
could
provide a reason for the fact that “development” is not called out specifically during the interviews, nor any
competitive advantage that can be based on firm-specific relationships (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). As
appears
from the data, only 3 cases have included supplier training in their supply management practices. Still, the
majority
of cases expect suppliers to collaborate and adopt waste prevention policies (Vachon, 2007). Based upon the
findings, the statement for the ESMP collaboration is formulated as follows:
S4: Collaboration plays a positive role compared to all ESMPs in the adoption of waste prevention policies by
the supply base.
􀁸 H5/6: Behavioral (type I) and structural (type II) barriers are likely to negatively impact the adoption of waste
prevention policies at
the supply base.
The behavioral and structural barriers are assessed in combination, as these two elements are intertwined to
great
extent i.e. a proactive corporate policy creates a higher awareness of personnel.
Only 12.5% indicate a score below the mid-point of the scale on behavioral barriers, meaning that the majority
of
cases specify to have at least some level of pro-environment mindset within the case organization. Since the
ESMP
score is below the threshold value, it will not be considered to have substantial negative influence on the
dependent
variable and thus H5 is rejected. Regardless of being valued more influential than behavioral barriers, with a
score of
44.4% structural barriers are also rated below the threshold and therefore the ESMP’s negative influence will be
considered insignificant, rejecting H6. Conversely, considering the specific elements and their data scores, a
number
of conclusions can be inferred. First, it appears that the mere majority states their top management to be at
least
reasonably committed to waste prevention (Petulla, 1987; Gupta, 1995; Walker et al. 2008; Hoejmose et al.
2012),
whether for “idealistic reasons” (C14), or based on “financial consequences”, “cost reasons” (C15) of potential
legal sanctions
and reputation risks. Two cases state that the commitment is the result of a (continuous improvement) policy
that
brings economic benefits. Most cases, especially internal cases indicate that top management commitment to
waste
prevention policies is essential to integrate these elements into the supply management processes. The
following
statement is derived: S5: Top management commitment to environmental issues plays a positive role towards
supply management in
order to induce suppliers to adopt waste prevention policies.
Secondly, a proactive corporate environmental policy is said to guide efforts with regards to environmental
purchasing as the mindset becomes a “standard” and “ongoing process” (Carter and Jennings, 2004; Seuring
and M・ler,
2008). Thereby, it is “the only way to ensure it is a priority” (C9), whether environmental issues in general or
waste
prevention in particular. Furthermore, securing the environmental objectives within the policy or standards such
as
ISO14001 or Cradle-to-Cradle creates an imperative for the business to integrate these elements across the
critical
processes of the company, eventually redesign processes and “improve continuously” (C15) along the supply
management processes (Seuring and M・ler, 2008). The following statement incorporates these findings:
S6: Proactivity and proper enforcement of a corporate environmental policy play a positive role towards supply
management in order to
induce suppliers to adopt waste prevention policies.
Thirdly, the supply management culture within the focal firm plays a role with regards to the awareness of
personnel within supply management and the importance of environmental criteria. This includes the views on
waste prevention itself and the focal firm’s perception on the awareness of suppliers. The perceived level of
importance of environmental criteria among personnel is supposed to mediate sustainable actions taken at
supply
management level. Since it is stated that “buyers are limited in their options” (C12) and ”afflicted with price and
reliability”,
awareness and consciousness of purchasing personnel is important to achieve adoption of sustainable
purchasing
and an emphasis on the “value of green suppliers” during training and within tasks of personnel (Walton et al.
1998;
Seuring and M・ler, 2008; Pongr當z, 2009). Even though the majority of the cases indicate a medium level of
awareness, acting upon this awareness remains to be done and “creating awareness is becoming more and
more essential”
(Carter and Rogers, 2008) as it can also create “opportunities” and “a lot can still be done”. Hence, the following
conclusive statement can be derived: S7: Proactive supply management culture plays a positive role towards
supply management in
order to induce suppliers to adopt waste prevention policies.
􀁸 H7: Economic (type III) barriers are likely to negatively impact the adoption of waste prevention policies at the
supply base.
Barriers associated with costs are ranked highest and most influential on the adoption of waste prevention
policies
at the supply base, with 66% of the cases declaring that the ESMP has a significant negative influence and
confirming H7. Although not asked to rate economic barriers specifically, internal cases mention costs and
financial
barriers as key opponents to implementing sustainable supply management strategies (Seuring and M・ler,
2008;
Barari et al. 2009; Sarkis et al. 2011). Corporate focus is mainly set on lowering costs and reducing the overall
price
level (Walker et al. 2008) due to the rising competition on price and the “need for survival within the industry”
(C8).
Costs that are mentioned to function as a barrier are the costs of implementing waste prevention (Simpson and
Power, 2005; Carter and Rogers, 2008) since inclusion of these policies is “costly” as “more people should be put
on it”
(C9). This is due to the fact that the first ‘turn’ will require “man power and money to convert the initiatives into
policies and
procedures“(C17; Simpson and Power, 2005; Carter and Rogers, 2008). Though some cases point out that “costs
will
stabilize against the benefits” (C10) as waste is also a cost, a large share of cases believes that any efforts in
environmental direction should “not raise costs” (C1; C2; C7). Thereby, the costs of waste disposal are largely
expected to rise due to upcoming legislation (C11; C13; C14, Angell and Klassen, 1999). Accordingly, two types
of
statements can be formulated, both from a focal firm perspective as well as from a supply-base view:
S8: Costs related to waste prevention policies play a negative role in the adoption of these policies by the
supply base.
S9: Costs related to waste prevention policies play a negative role at the focal firm to initiate ESMPs in order to
induce suppliers to adopt
waste prevention policies.
􀁸 8: What are best practices in the manufacturing industry with respect to inducing the supply base to adopt
waste prevention policies?
The highest ESMPs scores in general are related to C14 and C15. The reasons why these two cases stand out
among
the other cases are elaborated on.
􀁸 Case 14 attributes the inclusion of environmental concerns into its supply chain management to the
development of the ‘Green Procurement Policy’. This policy was induced by the top management based upon
directions of the parent company as part of a continuous improvement philosophy, enhanced from a different
cultural perspective with respect to the value of the environment and the community. The case company
communicates frequently with its suppliers and ensures a constant dialogue by means of data exchange and
monitoring through a supply dashboard, as well as audits and improvement plans.
􀁸 Case 15 attributes the inclusion of sustainable supply management practices to the company’s primary
location,
situated within a village and thus closely related to its neighboring environment. The company took great effort
into changing a potential environmental threat into an opportunity – preventing environmental harm to its
neighboring environment while at the same time improving its own processes. Consequently, the company
adopted a continuous improvement philosophy, reaping benefits of reduced hazardous materials, improved
product designs, reduced waste and currently manufacturing several product lines according to the Cradle-to-
Cradle (C2C) philosophy. The top management learned to recognize that next to initial investments to
improve and redesigning products and processes – directed by the potential harm to the neighborhood,
benefits could actually be obtained in the form of lower material costs, waste amounts and in being proactive
with regards to legislation.
The best practices have both implemented the ISO140001 standard and are involved in continuous
improvement
programs. Moreover, their suppliers are brought in dialogue and rated on their environmental performance. No
incentives are used, even though both cases believe that it can have an impact. Still, collaboration is valued
higher.
Impact of industry characteristics
Comparing the characteristics of the best practice cases’ industries with the shipbuilding industry (practitioner),
the following observations are made:
􀁸 Case 14 is based in the fast moving consumer market, though it is also engaged in B2B. The company is
driven
by innovation in technology and is part of a highly competitive market that is mainly driven by developments in
Asia. As the products contain hazardous materials, efforts are focused on reducing the need for these harmful
substances. The supply base of Case 14 is quite large and diverse.
􀁸 Case 15 is a furniture business and is mainly B2B focused. It used to use hazardous substances in
manufacturing, but it is now moving towards Cradle to Cradle manufacturing including all its products lines.
The company has a relatively small supply base and is highly embedded into its supply chain.
Compared to the shipbuilding industry, several similarities can be found. First the shipbuilding industry also
faces
technological advancements and competition from Asia (VNSI, 2012). This increased demand for lower prices
and
thus pressure on costs is thus felt by C14, nevertheless, this company has circumvented the economic barrier
and
initiated a sustainable supply strategy.
Secondly, the need to reduce the number of hazardous substances is also applicable to the shipbuilding
industry.
This type of waste is increasingly regulated by legislation and the use of harmful substances is therefore
becoming
more and more limited, also fueled by social pressure and companies’ neighboring environment. This pressure
is
thus felt by both the best practice case as well as the practitioner.
Moreover, the large and diverse supply base of C14 is another similar characteristic to the shipbuilding industry
that is served by a large variety of supplies, whether related to volume or revenue. Compared to the smaller
supply
base of C15, the difficulty in finding an optimal strategy in ESM is higher in the shipbuilding industry due to the
need to adopt practices to the according buyer-supplier relationships. Nevertheless, as C14 shows, this barrier
can
be overcome. C14 has designed a generic process that considers all suppliers and monitors suppliers
individually.
The developed supply dashboard keeps track of all suppliers and categorizes these into i.e. conflict material
suppliers, hazardous material suppliers and so on. By means of this dashboard, C14 enables itself to stay
informed of
all suppliers and their activities in one “flash”.
Differences can be found in the B2C strategy of C14, who might face more resistance in the consumer market
from
an environmental point of view, with highly aware customers. However, the focus of C15 on B2B is similar to the
approach of the practitioner, which shows that also in a B2B environment continuous improvement with
regards to
environmental aspects can be achieved.
However, it should be noted that the ‘specific mix’ of industry characteristics or company features might play a
role
for C14 and C15 in being ahead on waste prevention policies. First, the guidance of C14’s parent company was
“necessary to arrive at this level, it would have been difficult to achieve this in the Netherlands without the input
from abroad”.
Moreover, as C15 states, “our location gave the spin-off”. These specific factors may have been the key elements
to induce
the sustainable supply management practices at the cases and accordingly require the suppliers to think along.
An
initial external stimulus might thus be needed in order for the practitioner to transform its products, processes
and
mindset to engage in more environmentally-conscious operations beyond the company, within the supply
chain.
5 | Conclusion
It is time to set sail.
First, the theoretical and practical conclusions are stated. Subsequently, this chapter evaluates the
characteristics of
this study, relates to the limitations of this research as well as directions for further research.
5.1 Theoretical conclusion
The multiple case study shows that sustainable supply processes positively impact the likelihood of upstream
waste prevention adoption. Still, some ESMPs are stated to have more impact than others. This conclusion
points
out which processes are preferred and the variables that play a role in the implementation of ESM. It intends to
answer the general research question: How can waste prevention be induced at the supply base in the
shipbuilding industry? Based
upon the data analysis and theory development, the conceptual model has evolved as follows (Figure 6):
Figure 6 Conceptual model: conclusion
The likelihood of the first ESMP, supplier selection, to induce the adoption of waste prevention policies at the
supply base is found to be limited, as shown in Figure 6 with the dotted lines. Conversely, supplier evaluation
and
supplier development with suppliers are believed to be main stimuli for suppliers, both ranked to be
substantially
likely to induce suppliers to engage in waste prevention. The impact of collaboration is confirmed by the
supplyside
view. Even though the supply-base values an increase in status, the focal firm perspective perceives supply
incentives – and especially financial incentives – mainly as counterproductive as they will not result in a change
of
mindset but in a carrot-and-stick game. Thus, the ESMP supply incentives is indicated as having only a limited
probability of influencing the upstream adoption of waste prevention policies. When regarding environmental
supply management in general, several factors are found to influence the likelihood of inclusion of ESM
practices.
First, top management commitment to environment and waste prevention is highlighted as a key component
that is
likely to aid the development of green purchasing. Commitment of higher management is deemed to impact
the
supply management culture, which in itself is expected to positively affect the adoption of ESMPs if the culture
is
environmentally aware and considers the triple bottom line instead of just profit maximization or conversely
cost
minimization. However, the corporate environmental policy should be adequately enforced to indeed have
influence
on the supply management processes.
Regarding supplier development there is a gap between the current practices and the perceived potential
impacts.
Currently, organizations are mainly involved in mere transactional relations, whereas collaboration and supplier
development are marked as important factors to improve environmental performance. The main focus is still on
the
individual corporation itself and perspective that incorporates all stakeholders’ views is yet rarely taken.
Environmental issues have not yet received priority status at most case companies hitherto, and their current
corporate focus on costs is attributed to the recent financial crisis while efforts on ESM are seen as costly,
opposing
a barrier to implementation. The main driver for compliancy to environmental regulations is avoiding penalties
and
thus costs, employing a rather reactive strategy. In contrast, the best practice cases point out that a corporate
social
responsibility and proactive stance to reduce reputation risks can optimize the supply chain with regards to
waste
and waste prevention. The best practice cases take a holistic approach, beyond cost-thinking and have
completely
incorporated a continuous improvement philosophy.
Therefore, to become proactive and induce waste prevention at the supply chain, companies must ensure that
their
top management is committed to continuous improvement on the three factors of corporate social
responsibility:
economic, social and environmental. When integrating these three pillars into the organization’s culture and
supply
management processes with a focus on supply base continuity and collaboration, their supply base will be more
likely to adopt the waste prevention policies which can lead to mutual benefits. Recognizing these benefits
beyond
the costs is deemed essential to initiate a proper sustainable supply chain management strategy. The focal firm
should allow learning from its supply base while giving support to the supply base whether in the form of
incentives or collaboration, training and involvement. Overall, supplier development is found to be the keystone
in
inducing waste prevention at the supply base.
Contribution of research to theory
This research contributes to theory by empirically testing the feasibility of different ESMPs on one specific
environmental activity by means of a multiple case study within the Dutch manufacturing industry and refining
these results to the applicability within the shipbuilding industry. This research ratifies that certain ESMPs are
preferred to induce upstream waste prevention: evaluation and supplier development. Though unexpected
based on
the literature, supply incentives are seen as less probable to influence adoption of waste prevention policies at
the
supply base. This result might indeed be industry-specific. It is believed that the margins in the current
environment of Dutch manufactures cannot cover these expenses, and awards are not deemed to have a
substantially large impact. Complementary to previous studies on ESM this research indicates a need for
supplier
development and a holistic supply chain management approach. Still, in contrast to earlier research, the
traditional
transactional relationships are not largely replaced yet for a more comprehensive and responsible way of
managing
resources, risks and reputation. Again, this might be related to the specific industry. Regardless, two best
practices
confirm that the holistic approach is indeed beneficial to their company and supply chain. Furthermore,
according
to preceding academic statements, supply management is moving away from focusing on short-term financial
benefits to collaborative advantages on the long run. Then again, in contrast with previous research stating that
evaluation is limited as a tool, this ESMP is still preferred amongst the respondents of this research. The
selected
cases from the Dutch manufacturing industry value evaluation as it offers a direction and guide to
improvement. In
congruence with the literature, the role of selection is seen as limited. However, in practice selection and
evaluation
are deemed inseparable and seen as the first two steps that should be taken before any more mature supply
management practice can be adopted. Hence, this provides an additional factor to the literature on the
implementation of supplier development. With regards to implementation barriers this research confirms earlier
research, emphasizing the (perceived) financial burden. In contrast with the extensive literature on ample
benefits
of ESM, benefits on an economic level are only rarely pointed out by the respondents. In general, the research
contributes by assessing the supply-side perspective on the probability of positive responses to imposed
ESMPs by
the focal firm. This point of view builds upon previous research and considers the conditions under which
suppliers
are willing to engage in waste prevention policies.
5.2 Managerial implications
From a managerial perspective, this research provides a guide for the implementation of environmental supply
management practices by ranking the ESMPs from most to less likely in inducing waste prevention at the
supply
base. Before implementing these practices, it should be noted that implementation is likely to face behavioral,
structural and economic barriers, especially when top management is not committed to greening its supply and
not
willing to spend time and money on developing the appropriate systems. Hence, top management
commitment is
vital. Top management commitment to ESM can be achieved by pointing out the economic benefits, the
regulatory
pressure and advantages of collaboration when engaging in environmental supply management. This state of
mind
is believed to be the starting point of any ESMP implementation. From here on, the steps that should be taken
to
engage the supply base in waste prevention are the following:
􀁸 Incorporate environmental criteria into supplier selection and evaluation criteria as a first step, hereby
creating
environmental awareness among suppliers and the focal firm itself.
􀁸 Evolve the purchasing function from operational to strategic by acknowledging the critical role of purchasing
in reducing the environmental and economic impact of primary processes. This transformation includes a
change in the hierarchy of procurement within the organization, as it should be seen as key performance driver.
From transactional relationships, procurement should move to exclusively focus on strategic partnerships that
consider the long run rather than the short-term.
􀁸 Enhance the priority of environmental factors across the supply management culture that consider both the
focal firm and the supplier perspective. The focal firm has to ‘breathe’ the environmental supply management
culture, emphasizing the environment as a key priority in selecting and evaluating suppliers.
􀁸 Include supplier development factors such as collaborative efforts and dialogue, training and involvement
into
the supply management processes focused on mutual benefits. Procurement has to point out the advantages
that can be reached on both sides.
􀁸 Reap the benefits of a holistic supply chain that is sustainable and takes a proactive stance towards waste,
ahead of future environmental legislation.
Implications for the practitioner
Defined as a concerned citizen in the sustainable supply chain management continuum (Hunt and Auster,
1990),
Damen has to take significant steps before it is able to induce adoption of waste prevention policies at its
supply
base. The main concern to implement ESM at Damen is the fact that the maturity of supply chain management
is
still low, partly related to its position in the hierarchy. As the company is fully client-driven, SCM is subordinate
to
sales. Product groups define the strategic purchases which implies that SCM is considered only at operational
and
tactical level, leaving little room for strategic supply management improvements. Whether from an economic,
social
or environmental standpoint, SCM has lower decision-making power than the product groups. Moreover, the
corporate policy is focused on costs. Therefore, it is advisable for the company to link the product groups closer
to
SCM. Whether this means changes within the organizational hierarchy or emphasizing the relationship between
these departments remains an issue to be decided by the practitioner. In any case, enhancing the
communication
and cooperation between these two departments is recommended. If strategic partners are considered by SCM
and
the product groups simultaneously, SCM will be more apt to properly manage these relationships from the
start. It
enables SCM to adequately select and evaluate suppliers based upon their criteria including environmental
concerns, whereas product groups now mainly focus on cost prices. Hence, it is advisable to bring procurement
to a
strategic level and evolve decision-making with respect to supply management to a shared discipline as well as
responsibility of both product groups and SCM. Moreover, a mindset change is recommendable to guarantee
accurate implementation of ESM. A mindset that considers the environment and the associated regulatory costs
as
a management priority, while acknowledging the potential benefits that can be reached along the supply chain,
spurs the implementation of ESM. When SCM has gained responsibilities at the strategic level, ESM practices
can
be implemented according to the steps indicated before. As Damen already maintains close relations with a
selection of its suppliers and is moving on the scale of the environmental management continuum, supplier
development is expected to be a logical next step.
5.3 Limitations
First, during the exploration of practice, assumptions are made based upon data on waste amounts that are by
now
outdated. These assumptions might lead to discrepancies with regards to the associated relevance of specific
waste
types and the actual causes of waste. Since the further study is based upon this analysis, the research might
have
pursued a wrong direction in hindsight. Thereby, due to the non-availability of data or results on supply chain
management initiatives, there might be incongruities with the applicability of the results to the practitioner.
Secondly, the probabilistic nature of the hypotheses has a pitfall with regards to the usability for the
practitioner.
Testing a deterministic relation is preferred in managerial decision-making as they are stronger and are better
able
to predict outcomes (Dul and Hak, 2008). However, the probabilistic relation is equipped to study the research
topic which is a relatively new phenomenon within the industry and as a qualitative method was employed.
Thirdly, the choice of employing case research has some implications. With regards to drawing conclusions
from
the gathered data, generalizability is limited with multiple case studies (Voss et al. 2002; Yin, 2009). Thereby, the
sample size of this research is small due to limits in time, as well as willingness and availability of case
respondents.
Hence, this research is limited by the response bias of the interviewees. To validate all findings, a larger or more
specific sample focused on the shipbuilding industry is needed. Academic scholars not associated to any player
in
the industry may be better equipped to do so than myself.
Moreover, qualitative research is subordinate to biases and idiosyncrasies as it asks for perceptions of
interviewees
on their ideas of the case company’s environmental policy and activities and on how waste prevention can be
induced at the supply base. There can be a tendency among respondents to answer more favorably which
might
lead to a distortion of data. Stability of the data was achieved by conducting the internal interviews within one
week and the external interviews within one month time. In addition, respondents might be subject to the
selfserving
bias, attributing successes to internal factors and failures to external factors. However, these limitations
were restricted by asking several types of questions in order to outline the respondent’s circumstances and
perspectives in multiple ways. Additionally, interviews were recorded on tape to avoid bias and anonymity of
the
respondents was promised to avoid any possible valuation of the respondents within the internal organization
as
well as with external cases (Brymann and Bell, 2007). Still, the supply-side perspective analysis might be biased
as
the suppliers were informed of the practitioner’s involvement which may have led to distorted data on their
views.
Furthermore, reliability is achieved by ensuring that measures are used consistently: the same computations are
applied to the different ESMPs for both internal and external cases. However, due to the fact that the research is
qualitative, repetition may result in different findings (Yin, 2009) since replicating this research can unlikely be
performed with the same cases and within the same time frame. To ease future replication, all research steps
including the data collection approach and interview protocol as well as all computations are described into
detail
(Chapter 4 and Appendix 10-13) and data gathered is made available as far as the cases’ confidentiality allows.
Lastly, validity is ensured by defining the ESMPs based upon previous literature on similar topics. Concurrent
validity was achieved by inquiring for general company information, enabling cross-examination and
explanation
for differences related to varying criteria. Construct validity was increased by using multiple sources of data and
consequently data triangulation (Voss et al. 2002; Yin, 2009) which enabled cross-examination.
5.4 Directions for further research
First, the developed theory could be tested in a different industry next to the shipbuilding industry, for instance
the
fast moving consumer goods industry (FMCG) or the high-end technology sector to increase the
generalizability of
this study. As these industries are primarily B2C, the corporate focus might differ from the construction industry
as
the company’s impacts are more directly related to the customer and social and environmental responsibility
might
have already gained more attention. As the success factors might also differ from the shipbuilding industry, a
specific case study within the same industry might provide useful results and new best practices.
Secondly, as this research is qualitative, an additional step in research could be to either test ESM practices in a
quantitative manner or use mixed methods to assess relations across ESMPs. Quantitative research might be
able to
provide a more concrete imperative to management to include green purchasing practices into their policies, as
it
can quantify the outcomes. Moreover, it would be interesting to compare cases that have implemented the
environmental supply management practices and relate these outcomes to the expectations of cases that have
not
yet implemented ESMPs using actual figures and results.
Thirdly, reproduction of this research in a longitudinal fashion might indicate whether the perceived impacts of
ESM practices do indeed lead to the expected results at the supply base. Additionally, it can be studied whether
issues have occurred during implementation, and if or how these are overcome. Furthermore, the impact of the
moderating variables could be studied into greater detail, assessing causality and causal relations across
constructs.
From an agency-theory perspective, it might be relevant to investigate whether the background or (power)
status
of corporate decision-makers has an influence on the likeliness that ESM practices are adopted, whether at the
focal
firm or at the supply base. As it is not yet prevalent in the literature, continued research considering a supplier
perspective is recommendable as well as further research on the impacts of supplier development specifically.
From a practical perspective, it could be interesting for Damen to investigate whether the lack of customer
pressure
with regards to environmentally-friendly products and manufacturing could explain the fact that the company
lags
behind in comparison to other companies and industries.
In general, more theory building is needed within ESM with additional confirmatory empirical data.
Appendix
1) Damen Shipyards Group
The Damen Shipyards Group structure and the headquarters’ cluster are depictured below.
Figure 7 Damen Shipyards Gorinchem and cluster
2) Project plan
Following the project plan of Van Aken et al. (2007), the exploration of practice involved a background and SWOT
analysis.
Simultaneously, literature was reviewed on the relevant topics connected to the knowledge need, in order to frame
generic
processes and techniques.
Figure 8 Project Plan Research Project
3) Stakeholder map
Stakeholder analysis DSGo
Type Examples of specific stakeholders Damen Concerns vis-à-vis environment
NGOs
e.g. Greenpeace, UN, International Maritime Bureau
(IMB), Maritime and Coastgard agencies, MARPOL
convention, Living Seas program, Off the Beach
campaign
Climate change management, use of resources
and hazardous materials, waste management
and disposal, ship dismantling and end-of-life
procedures
Customers
B2C: individuals (mega yachts)
B2B: ports (tugs, workboats), fishermen (fishing
vessels), offshore (high speed craft and platform
supply vessels), dredging companies (equipment and
vessels), governments (e.g. ministries of defense for
naval vessels), shipping corporations (short-sea and
cargo vessels), municipalities (e.g. ferries), current
ship owners (repair)
Corporate responsibility, low footprint of
vessel e.g. lower emissions, competitive and
sustainable vessels (durability)
Suppliers
Ranging from small parts suppliers (e.g. nuts/bolts)
to critical items such as ship engines supplied by
Caterpillar and PON
Sustainability in supplier relations, risksharing,
use of sustainable resources, locality,
low footprint of logistics
Science Cooperation with engineers from TU Delft, TNO,
Marin
Knowledge generation and cooperation on
environmentally-friendly vessels
Employees
Trade union Metalektro, trade union FNV, works
council
Knowledge generation, awareness and clear
(assigned) responsibilities and/or awards on
green initiatives
Financial market Banks, especially for loans and pre-financing options
for customers.
Corporate social responsibility, continuity of
business, financial opportunities with ‘green’
and sustainable markets
National
authorities and
government
agencies
e.g. Dutch government, Municipality of Gorinchem,
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (MIM)
and Rijkswaterstaat, Committee of Avelingen-West
and Oost, International Maritime Organization
(IMO)
Sustainability trends and prospects,
sustainable mobility, regulations on waste
management, disposal and pollution of the sea,
quality of ecology e.g. of the river Merwede and
the near nature reserve.
Neighbors
Inhabitants of the city Gorinchem, near villages and
cities, neighboring companies on Avelingen-West
and Oost.
Sustainability with regards to water, land and
air
Classification
institutions Lloyds Register The Netherlands
Correct EMAS and environmental procedures,
compliance with regulations and standards
Table 8 Stakeholder map
4) Waste categories
Office waste Ferrous scrap (zinc) Hazardous waste:
Wood B Ferrous scrap (steel) Displays
Paper Ferrous scrap (aluminum) Fridges/freezers
Glass Office waste
Frying fat Waste oil bulk Lead batteries
Pallets Oil booms Aerosols
Oil-water sludge mixtures Silicone cartridges
Empty paint packaging Bilge water Oleiferous waste
Paint sludge Cloths Grease
Barrels Filters Paint (Solid, Pasty)
Blasting grit Empty packaging of metals/plastic
Construction waste Rust / Sludge Adhesive Resin Kit
Fat Tires and Rubber fenders
Asbestos Film Oil filters
Green waste Paint related products
Table 9 Waste categories at DSGo
5) Waste streams
The table below summarizes the processes, the types of waste that are generated and the according disposal
contractors. The
yellow notes point out the two major polluters – the types of waste that generate the largest amounts.
Figure 9 Waste streams at DSGo: visual estimation
6) Initial literature review

This appendix elaborates on the initial literature review on waste and proactive waste management. The definition of
waste is
ambiguous and varies widely among researchers. The following table gives an overview.
Year Author Definition Main concept
1941 Dyson (in Bautista-Lazo
and Short, 2012) Waste is unavoidable Part of business
1968 Hardin (in Chopra and
Meindl, 2013)
Waste is due to the tragedy of the commons:
‘Every individual and every company releases waste and pollution into the
environment in the form of sewage, chemicals and carbon dioxide. The
individual or the company would incur the entire cost of reducing the
amount of waste it discards, whereas the cost of throwing waste into the
environment is shared by the entire world. The common environment
available to all at no cost makes it difficult to get every company to invest in
waste reduction efforts even though this waste hurts everybody’.
Responsibility and
cost issue
1995 Porter and Van der Linde Waste is a ‘sign that resources have been used incompletely,
insufficiently or ineffectively’
Signal,
improvement
2004 Pongr當z et al.
Waste is a measure of inefficiency and thus a failure in the
company’s system, and can be classified according to its causes
related to either Purpose, Structure, State and Performance (see
next table)
Signal, causes,
improvement
2007 Vachon and Klassen Waste is the production of undesired output Output
2007 Linton et al.
Waste is the generation of by-products that are neither capture
nor used’ Output
2008 European Waste
Framework Directive
Waste shall mean any substance or object which the holder
discards or intends to discard Output
Table 10 Development of literature on waste
Class description (adopted from Pongrácz and Pohjola, 1997)
Class 1 Non-wanted items, created not intended, or not avoided, with no purpose.
Class 2 Items that were given a finite purpose, thus destined to become useless after fulfilling it.
Class 3
Items with well-defined purpose, but their performance ceased being acceptable due to a flaw in their
Structure or State.
Class 4
Items with well-defined purpose, and acceptable performance, but their users failed to use them for their
intended purpose.
Table 11 Waste definitions
7) Organizational chart
The figure below presents the organizational chart of DSGo and its according cluster. It shows that Supply Chain
Management
(Logistics in this figure) is a supporting department to the different product groups, who – in contrast – are in direct
line with
the sales department. Sales reports directly to management and has a major role within the organization, mainly due
to the
client-driven approach.
Figure 10 Organizational chart DSGo and cluster
8) SWOT analysis
Strengths Opportunities
􀁸 Commitment to continual improvement
􀁸 Key player in shipbuilding industry
􀁸 Reputation: innovative and high-quality
􀁸 Good relationship with suppliers and high level of
cooperation with regards to Green Passport
􀁸 Large amount of waste thus a high potential of value
recovery
􀁸 Supplier Non Conformity (SNC) library recording
incorrect deliveries and packaging is established
􀁸 Green and collaborative initiatives are launched already
(e.g. QLIFT)
􀁸 No industry champion yet: first-mover advantage
􀁸 Competitive advantage: higher resource efficiency and
differentiator ‘green supply chain’ 􀁸 chain
responsibility starts upstream: include suppliers,
provide basis for shared competitive advantage
􀁸 Digitalizing information flow: higher availability and
transparency of information
􀁸 Avoiding double work – reduce time and motion waste
simultaneously (green wastes)
􀁸 Green and aware customers: market potential
􀁸 Using renewable resources and recycled material
Weaknesses Threats
􀁸 Lack of top-down environmental commitment
􀁸 Lack of awareness employees and ease of using new
items 􀁸 no scarcity in parts inventory
􀁸 Coordination failures on transport modalities
􀁸 Suppliers: resistance to look for alternative ones due
to ‘years of friendly relationship’
􀁸 Non-existing classification of waste streams based upon
location leading to lack of knowledge on quantities of
waste generated and thus urgency
􀁸 Ambiguous ownership of ‘problems’ whether it
concerns waste or supplier defaults
􀁸 Cleanliness vs. availability of waste bins
􀁸 Speculative construction: need to rebuild, part of
company philosophy
􀁸 Legislation: legislative sanctions and liability
􀁸 Higher procurement costs due to depletion of
resources and rising prices of commodities caused by
increased global consumption and production
􀁸 Supplier resistance: losing critical suppliers, longer
lead time, higher costs of delivery
􀁸 Competition: green solutions by competitors, with
higher efficiency and lower costs
􀁸 Upcoming legislation and economic measures with
regards to waste (prevention)
􀁸 Rising disposal costs
􀁸 Reputational risk
Table 12 SWOT analysis: waste prevention at DSGo
9) Internal and external cases

Industry Respondent:
function Department Date Time
span
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Coordinator Project
Procurement Purchase 18-11-2013 56 min.
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Director Procurement Purchase 19-11-2013 34 min.
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Category Manager Purchase 19-11-2013 57 min.
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Manager
Procurement
Product Group:
Tugs 21-11-2013
1h and
22 min.
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC:3700)
Director Operations
Management
Team
26-11-2013 30 min.
Industrial and
commercial machinery
(SIC: 3500)
Manager
Procurement and
Production
Procurement 5-12-2013 58 min.
Food and kindred
products industry
(SIC: 2000)
Manager
Procurement and
Planning
Procurement 5-12-2013
1h and
11 min.
Transportation
equipment industry
(SIC: 3700)
Director Supply
Chain
Management
Team
6-12-2013 57 min.
Industrial and
commercial equipment
(SIC:3500)
HSEQ-Manager HSEQ 6-12-2013
1h and
10 min.
Lumber and wood
products
(SIC: 2400)
HSEQ-Coordinator HSEQ 10-12-2013 59 min.
Electro technical
engineering
(SIC: 3600)
Purchase Manager Purchase 12-12-2013 2h and
2min.
Electronic devices (SIC:
3500)
Director Purchasing
Processes, Systems
and Compliancy
Management
Team 12-12-2013
1h and
43 min.
Furniture
(SIC: 2500) HSEQ-Coordinator HSEQ 16-12-2013
1h and
11 min.
Food and beverages
(SIC: 2000)
Director Procurement
Product-Related
Management
Team
10-1-2014 58 min.
Table 13 Case and interview details
10) Case approach

A. E-mail invite internal cases
[Dutch]
Beste {naam},
Om mijn Master in Supply Chain Management (RSM Erasmus Universiteit) succesvol af te sluiten, schrijf ik mijn
afstudeerscriptie bij Damen.
Graag zou ik u willen interviewen ten behoeve van het scriptieonderzoek. Het interview zal gericht zijn op (de
strategie
betreffende) leveranciersselectie en -beoordeling in milieu-gerichte context, en zal daarnaast ook vragen over de
samenwerking
met leveranciers betreffen.
Uw bijdrage zal anoniem blijven om belangenverstrengeling te voorkomen. Ik hoor graag van u!
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Berdien Fennema
[English]
Dear {name},
In order to successfully finalize my master in Supply Chain Management (RSM Erasmus University), I am currently
writing my
master thesis at Damen.
I would be glad if I could interview you for the purpose of my thesis research. The interview will regard (strategies
concerning)
supplier selection and evaluation within an environmental context. Moreover, it will concern questions on the
collaboration
with suppliers.
Your contribution will remain anonymous to avoid conflict of objectives. I hope to hear from you!
Kind regards,
Berdien Fennema
B. Call script [English]
[Introduction] Good morning/afternoon,
My name is Berdien Fennema, and I am a master student at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam.
For the purpose of my master thesis, I am researching companies within the Dutch manufacturing
industry. The research concerns the supply processes within an environmental context.
[First question] Is it correct that {company name} still manufactures/ assembles its products within the Netherlands?
[Additional info] I am studying the master in Supply Chain Management.
[Question to operator] I was wondering if I could speak to someone within the Purchase/Procurement department
who
would be able to answer some questions?
[Question to department] I was wondering if I could interview you or a colleague who can tell me more about the
supply
processes at {company name}.
[Interview details] The interview will take about an hour, and can be conducted at your location.
It would be optimal if the interview can be scheduled before the Christmas holidays. Before this
deadline, I am available at any day and time to your convenience.
If you wish, I can send you a sample of interview questions in order to prepare for the
interview/further understand the context of my research.
The interview will be kept confidential.
[Closing] Thank you for your response.
I will send you an e-mail with a) further information on my master thesis and several sample
questions, b) a confirmation of the interview date and time.
C. E-mail request external cases
[Dutch]
Beste {naam},
Zoals telefonisch besproken, stuur ik u een korte toelichting op mijn onderzoek.
Om mijn Master in Supply Chain Management (RSM Erasmus Universiteit) succesvol af te sluiten, schrijf ik op dit
moment
mijn afstudeerscriptie gericht op duurzaam ketenmanagement in de Nederlandse maakindustrie. Graag zou ik
hiervoor een
collega van de Inkoopafdeling willen interviewen op korte termijn, liefst voor de kerst periode, en op een voor uw
collega gelegen
moment.
Het interview is gericht op (de strategie betreffende) leveranciersselectie en -beoordeling in milieu-gerichte context,
en zal
daarnaast ook vragen over de samenwerking met leveranciers betreffen. In de bijlage vindt u alvast een klein
overzicht van de
meeste relevante vragen (in Engels i.v.m. Engelstalige master). Het daadwerkelijke interview zal dieper ingaan op de
verschillende onderdelen.
Het interview neemt maximaal een uur in beslag, en zal, als dat schikt, op bedrijfslocatie worden afgenomen. Mocht
uw
collega dat wensen, dan blijft zijn/haar bijdrage anoniem om belangenverstrengeling binnen en buiten uw industrie te
voorkomen.
Ik hoop van harte dat {bedrijf} mee kan werken aan mijn onderzoek.
Ik hoor graag van u! Alvast bedankt.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Berdien Fennema
[English]
Dear {name},
As promised during our phone call, I will shortly illustrate (the purpose of) my research.
In order to successfully finalize my master in Supply Chain Management (RSM Erasmus University), I am currently
writing my
master thesis focused on sustainable supply chain management within the Dutch manufacturing industry. I would
gladly
interview {you/your colleague of the Purchase/Procurement department} preferably within short notice and before the
Christmas
holidays. Within this time frame, the interview can take place at any convenient date and time.
The interview concentrates on the (strategies concerning) supplier selection and evaluation in an environment-
context.
Moreover, it will concern a few questions regarding the collaboration with suppliers. Enclosed, you will find a sample
of the
most relevant research questions. The actual interview will be more extensive and go into more detail.
The interview will last for approximately 1 hour, and will, if convenient, be taken at your company location. If {you/your
colleague}
wish so, {your/your colleague’s} contribution will remain anonymous to avoid conflicts of objectives within and
outside your
industry.
I sincerely hope that {company} can contribute to my research.
I hope to hear from you! Thanking you in advance,
Kind regards,
Berdien Fennema
D. Confirmation e-mail external cases
[Dutch]
Beste {naam},
Zoals telefonisch besproken, stuur ik u bij deze een bevestiging van de interview-afspraak op {datum} van {tijd} van op
uw locatie
in {locatie}.
Graag licht ik mijn onderzoek nog kort toe. Om mijn Master in Supply Chain Management (RSM Erasmus Universiteit)
succesvol af te sluiten, schrijf ik op dit moment mijn afstudeerscriptie gericht op duurzaam ketenmanagement in de
Nederlandse
maakindustrie. Het interview is om die reden gericht op (de strategie betreffende) leveranciersselectie en -
beoordeling in
milieugerichte context, en zal daarnaast ook vragen over de samenwerking met leveranciers betreffen.
Het interview neemt maximaal een uur in beslag. Mocht u dat wensen, dan blijft uw bijdrage anoniem om eventuele
belangenverstrengeling binnen en buiten uw industrie te voorkomen.
Alvast hartelijk dank voor de medewerking aan mijn onderzoek. Graag tot de {datum}!
Met vriendelijke groet,
Berdien Fennema
[English]
Dear .. ,
As stated during our phone call, I hereby send the confirmation of the interview appointment on {date} at {time} on
your company
location in {town}.
A short elaboration on my research: In order to successfully finalize my master in Supply Chain Management (RSM
Erasmus
University), I am currently writing my master thesis focused on sustainable supply chain management within the
Dutch
manufacturing industry. The interview concentrates on the (strategies concerning) supplier selection and evaluation in
an
environment-context. Moreover, it will concern a few questions regarding the collaboration with suppliers.
The interview will last for approximately 1 hour. If {you/your colleague} wish so, {your/your colleague’s} contribution
will remain
anonymous to avoid conflicts of objectives within and outside your industry.
I thank you in advance for your willingness to contribute to my research.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Berdien Fennema
E. Sample questions: sent to all cases
1. Does your company have an environmental policy?
a) To what degree is waste prevention a priority within the environmental policy?
b) To what degree do you perceive (higher) management to be committed to waste prevention?
c) Is your company ISO14001 certified?
2. What are the main priorities of your purchasing department?
a) To what extent do you believe suppliers to influence the environmental impact of your products?
3. To what extent is the purchasing personnel aware of the environmental impacts of purchased supplies?
b) Do you train the purchasing personnel in environment-related issues?
c) Is this seen as important?
4. Are environmental criteria included in the supplier selection process?
a) To what degree is waste prevention important in supplier selection?
b) Are suppliers asked to have implemented an EMS, e.g. ISO14001?
c) To what extent do you believe supplier selection to play a role with regards to waste prevention?
5. Have you built environmental criteria into supplier assessment?
a) To what extent are suppliers scored on their environmental performance?
b) To what extent can supplier evaluation on environmental performance play a role in reducing waste?
6. Are incentive structures in place regarding environmental performance of suppliers?
a) To what degree do you recognize suppliers’ achievements in the form of awards/preferred status?
b) To what degree do incentives on waste prevention impact the suppliers’ environmental performance?
7. Do you work together with suppliers to reduce the environmental impact of your activities?
a) To what extent do you engage with suppliers in achieving waste reduction goals collectively?
b) To what extent do you share know-how and expertise in waste prevention with your suppliers?
c) To what extent do you experience awareness of suppliers on the environmental impact of their products?
8. To what extent do you expect/do your suppliers collaborate in waste prevention efforts?
a) To what extent do you (expect to) face higher costs?
b) To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the amount of waste?
c) To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the cost of purchasing?
F. Sample questions: sent additionally to suppliers
Please describe your relationship with Damen Shipyards. What are the key qualities of the relationship?
a) To what extent do you perceive an interdependency between your company and Damen Shipyards?
b) To what extent do you cooperate with Damen Shipyards?
c) To what extent do you link operations with Damen Shipyards?
Can waste prevention be achieved along the chain between you and Damen Shipyards?
a) How would you be motivated to reduce and prevent the generation of waste?
b) Under what conditions would you consider collaborating on waste prevention?
11) Interview protocol

A. Internal questionnaire
Theme Question Ext. Type Literature source
General info Date: Open n/a
Name: Open n/a
Interviewee job function: Open n/a
Selection 1. To what extent does supplier selection play a role with
regards to waste prevention?
4f Likert-type
n/a
2. To what degree it is necessary to include waste prevention
criteria in supplier selection?
4g Likert-type n/a
3. To what degree should suppliers be required to have an
environmental management system?
4e Likert-type Bowen et al. 2001
Evaluation 4. supplier evaluation to have an impact on the supplier’s
performance?
5f Likert-type
5. can supplier evaluation on environmental performance play a
role in reducing waste?
5g Likert-type
Incentives 6. can you motivate suppliers by means of incentives to improve
their environmental performance?
6e Likert-type n/a
Collaboration 7. that collaboration can engage suppliers in waste prevention
efforts?
6f Likert-type n/a
Outcomes 8. will your suppliers collaborate in waste prevention efforts? 8 Likert-type Bowen et al. 2001;
Krause and
Scannell, 2002
9. will your suppliers adopt waste prevention policies? 8a Likert-type
Table 14 Internal questionnaire
B. External questionnaire
Theme Question Type Literature source
General info Company: Open
n/a
Date: Open n/a
Name: Open n/a
Interviewee job function: Open n/a
Company size/Number of employees: Open n/a
Plant size/Number of employees: Open n/a
Supplier base/Number of suppliers: Open n/a
Company 1. Does your company have an environmental policy? Open n/a
1a. To what extent do you consider the environmental policy to be
proactive?
Likert-type Bowen et al. 2001
1b. To what degree is waste prevention a priority within the
environmental policy?
1c. To what extent have processes been redesigned to reduce waste? Likert-type Walton et al. 1998
1d. To what degree do you perceive (higher) management to be
committed to waste prevention?
Likert-type Min and Galle, 1997
1e. Is your company ISO14001 certified? Binary n/a
Purchasing 2. What are the main priorities of your purchasing department? Open Akinc, 1993
2a. To what extent do you believe suppliers to influence the
environmental impact of your products?
Likert-type Tate et al. 2012
3. To what extent is the purchasing personnel aware of the
environmental impacts of purchased supplies?
3a. Do you train the purchasing personnel in environment-related
issues?
Binary Krause and Scannell,
2002
3b. To what degree is training seen as important? Likert-type Krause and Scannell,
2002
Selection 4. Are environmental criteria included in the supplier selection
process?
Binary
4a. To what degree is waste prevention important in supplier
selection?
Likert-type Tate et al. 2012
4b. To what degree do you perceive to manage risk with supplier
selection?
Likert-type Vachon, 2007
4c. To what extent are suppliers asked to commit to your waste
reduction goals?
Likert-type
4d. Are suppliers asked to have implemented an EMS, e.g. ISO14001? Binary Bowen et al. 2001
4e. To what extent do you believe suppliers should be required to
have an EMS?
4f. To what extent do you believe supplier selection to play a role
with regards to waste prevention?
Likert-type n/a
4g. To what extent do you believe it is necessary to include waste
prevention criteria in supplier selection?
Likert-type n/a
Table 15 External questionnaire
Evaluation 5. Have you built environmental criteria into supplier assessment? Binary Walton et al. 1998;
Bowen et al. 2001
5a. What are these criteria? Open
5b. To what extent are these seen as important? Likert-type
5c. To what extent are suppliers scored on their environmental
performance?
5d. Is supplier assessment an ongoing process or is it used
occasionally? Please explain why.
Open
5e. To what extent do you provide feedback to suppliers about
results of the evaluation?
Likert-type
5f. To what extent do you believe supplier evaluation to have an
impact on the supplier’s performance?
Likert-type
5g. To what extent can supplier evaluation on environmental
performance play a role in reducing waste?
Likert-type
Incentives 6. Are incentive structures in place regarding environmental
performance of suppliers?
Binary
6a. What types of incentives are in place? Open
6b. To what degree do you promise higher volume of the present
item?
Likert-type Krause and Scannell,
2002
6c. To what degree do you promise (consideration for) future
business?
2002
6d. To what degree do you recognize suppliers’ achievements in the
form of awards/preferred status?
2002
6e. To what extent can you motivate suppliers with incentives to
improve their environmental performance?
Likert-type n/a
6f. To what degree do incentives on waste prevention impact the
suppliers’ environmental performance?
Likert-type n/a
Collaboration 7. Do you work together with suppliers to reduce the environmental
impact of your activities?
Binary Vachon, 2007
7a. To what extent do you engage with suppliers in achieving waste
reduction goals collectively?
Likert-type Bowen et al. 2001;
Vachon, 2007
7b. To what extent do you collaboration with suppliers on waste
prevention?
Krause and Scannell,
2002
7c. To what extent do you collaborate with suppliers on elimination
of packaging?
7d. To what extent do you share know-how and expertise in waste
prevention with your suppliers?
Likert-type Vachon and Klassen,
2006
7e. Do you invite suppliers’ personnel to your site to increase their
awareness of how their product is used?
Binary Krause and Scannell,
2002
7f. Do you train or educate the suppliers’ personnel? Binary Krause and Scannell,
2002
7g. To what extent do you experience awareness of suppliers on the
environmental impact of their products?
7h. To what extent do you believe that collaboration can engage
suppliers in waste prevention efforts?
Likert-type n/a
Outcomes 8. To what extent do you expect/do your suppliers collaborate in
waste prevention efforts?
Krause and Scannell,
2002
8a. To what extent do you believe will your suppliers adopt waste
prevention policies?
Likert-type
8b. To what extent do you (expect to) face higher costs? Likert-type Min and Galle,1997;
Barari et al. 2009
8c. To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the amount of waste? Likert-type n/a
8d. To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the cost of purchasing? Likert-type Krause and Scannell,
2002; Vonderembse
and Tracy, 1999
8e. To what extent do you (expect to) reduce the cost of disposal? Likert-type Krause and Scannell,
2002; Schliephake et
al. 2009
8f. What is your overall opinion on waste prevention in the supply
chain?
Likert-type n/a
C. Additional supplier questionnaire
Theme Question Type
Supplier
perspective
9. Please describe your relationship with Damen Shipyards. What
are the key qualities of the relationship?
Open
9a. To what extent are you committed to supply Damen Shipyards? Likert-type
9b. To what extent are you dependent upon the level of
volume/revenue bought by Damen Shipyards?
Likert-type
9c. To what extent do you perceive an interdependency between
your company and Damen Shipyards?
Likert-type
9d. To what extent do you cooperate with Damen Shipyards? Likert-type
9e. To what extent do you link operations with Damen Shipyards? Likert-type
9f. To what extent do you share knowledge and expertise with
Damen Shipyards?
Likert-type
9g. Can waste prevention be achieved along the chain between you
and Damen Shipyards?
Open
9h. How would you be motivated to reduce and prevent the
generation of waste?
Open
9i. Under what conditions would you consider collaborating on
waste prevention?
Open
9j. If Damen Shipyards would put stricter requirements on waste
and waste prevention, what is your perspective?
Open
9k. To what extent do you (expect to) comply with stricter
requirements on waste and waste prevention?
Likert-type
Table 18 Supplier questionnaire
12) Computation of scores

A. Internal cases
Independent variables W. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Selection (S)
(4f) To what extent does supplier selection
play a role with regards to waste prevention?
40% 4 4 4 1 4 3 3
(4g) To what extent is it necessary to include
waste prevention criteria? 60% 4 2 4 1 5 4 4
Total 4 2.8 4 1 4.6 3.6 3.6
Evaluation (E)
(5f) To what extent does supplier evaluation
have an impact on the supplier’s performance?
40% 5 3 3 4 5 5 4
(5g) To what extent can supplier evaluation on
environmental performance play a role in
reducing waste?
60% 4 2 3 4 5 4 4
Total 4.4 2.4 3 4 5 4.4 4
Incentives (I)
(6e) To what extent can you motivate suppliers
by means of incentives to improve their
environmental performance?
100% 5 2 5 4 4 4 4
Total 5 2 5 4 4 4 4
Collaboration (C)
(7h) To what extent can collaboration engage
100% 4 2 5 4 5 4 5
Total 4 2 5 4 5 4 5
Best construct Total
Selection 1 x
Evaluation 1.83 1/3x 1/2x x
Incentives 1.83 x 1/2x 1/3x
Collaboration 2.33 1/2x 1/3x 1/2x x
Table 19 Internal cases: computation table independent variables
Side variables W. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Barriers (B) Type I Behavioral
(8) To what extent will your suppliers
collaborate in waste prevention efforts?
40% 3 2 5 4 5 3 4
(8a) To what extent will your suppliers adopt
waste prevention policies 60% 3 2 5 4 5 4 2
Total 3.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 3.50 3.00
Table 20 Internal cases: computation table side variable
B. External cases
Independent variables W. C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C17
Selection (S)
(4f) To what extent does supplier selection
play a role with regards to waste prevention? 40% 4 3 5 1 3 1 3 3 3
(4g) To what extent is it necessary to include
waste prevention criteria?
60% 3 4 5 1 3 1 4 4 3
Total 3.4 3.6 5 1 3 1 3.6 3.6 3
Evaluation (E)
(5f) To what extent does supplier evaluation
have an impact on the supplier’s
performance?
40% 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 5
(5g) To what extent can supplier evaluation
on environmental performance play a role in
reducing waste?
60% 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3
Total 3 3.4 3 4 2.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8
Incentives (I)
(6e) To what extent can you motivate
suppliers by means of incentives to improve
their environmental performance?
60% 3 2 5 1 4 2 4 4 4
(6f) To what degree do incentives on waste
prevention impact the suppliers’
environmental performance?
40% 2 2 3 1 4 2 4 4 5
Total 2.6 2 4.2 1 4 2 4 4 4.4
Collaboration (C)
(7h) To what extent can collaboration engage
100% 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3
Total 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3
Best construct Total
Selection 1 x
Evaluation 1.5
1/2x
x
Incentives 2.5 x 1/2x x
Collaboration 3.5 x x 1/2x x 1/2x
Table 21 External cases: computation table independent variables
Side variables W. C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C17
Barrier type I: behavioral
(1d) To what degree do you perceive
(higher) management to be committed to
waste prevention?
25% 2 5 3 3 3 5 3 4 5
(3) To what extent is the purchasing
personnel aware of the environmental
impacts of purchased supplies?
25% 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 5
(3b) Is training of personnel seen as
important?
16.67% 3 4 4 2 3 0 4 3 5
(5b) To what extent are environmental
criteria seen as important within
evaluation?
16.6% 4 1 3 2 1 5 4 3 4
(7g) To what extent do you experience
awareness of suppliers on the
environmental impact of their products?
8.33% 1 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 5
(8f) What is your overall opinion on waste
prevention in the supply chain? 8.33% 3 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 4
Total 2.75 3.75 3.42 2.92 3.08 4.08 3.67 3.42 4.75
Barrier type II: structural
(1a) To what extent do you consider the
environmental policy to be proactive? 38% 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4
(1b) To what degree is waste prevention a
priority within the environmental policy?
25% 3 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 3
(1c)To what extent have processes been
redesigned to reduce waste?
38% 2 1 3 3 2 4 3 5 3
Total 2.63 2.88 3.25 3.63 2.38 3.63 2.75 4.38 3.38
Barrier type III: economic
(8b) To what extent do you (expect to) face
lower costs?
37.50% 3 3 4 1 4 3 1 4 1
(8c) To what extent do you (expect to)
reduce the amount of waste? 25% 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 3
(8d) To what extent do you (expect to)
reduce the cost of purchasing? 25% 4 3 1 2 1 1 3 4 3
(8e) To what extent do you (expect to)
reduce the cost of disposal? 12,50% 4 3 1 2 1 3 4 4 2
3.63 3.25 2.38 1.63 2.38 2.75 2.63 4 2.13
Largest barrier Total
Type I: Behavioral 0
Type II: Structural 2.5 x x
1/2x
Type III: Economic 6.5 x x 1/2x x x x x
Table 22 External cases: computation table side variable
13) Within-case analysis
The unique aspects of the internal cases on environmental supply management (ESM) and according practices are
described.
Case
description Unique aspects of perspective on ESM and ESMP within Damen
Coordinator
Project
Procurement
􀁸 Changing suppliers is not easy, as switching costs are high due to longer-term collaboration
􀁸 First leaps to be made regard flexibility and maturing SCM
􀁸 Logistics, purchase and production should all be involved on the level of environment
􀁸 Close the gap between the expectations of the supplier regarding the relationship and our expectation,
and administer these
􀁸 Collaboration and communication should increase, currently: trust-based and historical use of suppliers
􀁸 Though suppliers might understand the philosophy behind an environmental policy, implementing
systems might oppose a large barrier
Director
Procurement
􀁸 Focus on waste condemns other important elements, hence the focus should rather be on resource
efficiency and not on ‘tax measures’
􀁸 Comparing it to your own real life situation and society, I expect a lot of resistance
􀁸 Interfering with the supplier’s process means he will be inefficient, trying to serve several firms
􀁸 Wastage is caused by price. The less you pay, the more efficient your supplier will be
􀁸 Legislation carries on a bit too much
􀁸 Companies pretending to fulfill an example are window-dressing, efforts will only be taken if it adds to
the margin, it is just a commercial tool
Category
Manager
􀁸 Waste prevention should be a business case and economically viable before it is considered
􀁸 The recycling behavior abroad is much higher, i.e. no ‘throw-away culture’ exists in Vietnam
􀁸 Our policy states zero on CSR. Still, any CSR policy is focused on costs
􀁸 If your savings potential is high and potential legislation is threatening, each ESMP has impact
􀁸 Largest potential at the front, as you can only make minor improvements from thereon
􀁸 Stimulate it by TM or by legislation
􀁸 Scope of operations is very wide, thus a general ESM layer has limited impact
Category
Manager
􀁸 Too many criteria already exist to eliminate potential suppliers, selection has limited impact
􀁸 It takes time for the suppliers to adapt, especially when the cultural distance is large
􀁸 Do not pretend to know more about the supplier’s operations as a customer, be careful
􀁸 When you use power to induce suppliers to adopt practices, something is wrong with the relationship
􀁸 It is part of the company culture, only regulations and customer pressure can change the priorities
􀁸 The business and industry context have a lot of influence on the applicability of ESM
Category
Manager
􀁸 Incorporate KPIs on environmental concerns into contract management and an assessment matrix
􀁸 If you aspire being a sustainable company, you should require cooperation herein from your suppliers
􀁸 Incentives in the form of competition and future business will excite suppliers to stay focused
􀁸 Collaboration is an essential element in supply management to induce innovativeness and adoption
􀁸 Need to take a bird’s eye point of view, showing savings on a strategic level
Manager
Procurement
􀁸 Legislation triggers the consideration of waste, next to costs of waste management
􀁸 Costs should be leveled with the associated risks that are taken in the supply chain related to waste
􀁸 Criteria are a constant mix, the focus now is on cost price reduction due to our industry position
􀁸 Asking for criteria should have a goal, and you should be able to validate compliance
Director
Operations
􀁸 If extra costs are incurred, there is a debate as this is a factor that should be met first.
􀁸 Environmental concerns are increasingly getting more support
􀁸 ESMPs depend on the type of products and the waste they generate or the impact they have
􀁸 Creating awareness and presenting improvement plans to suppliers are part of our future policies
􀁸 You have to prevent at the source, and once it is in your system, you have to keep it to a low impact
􀁸 ESM should be a derivative of the corporate policy, which is driven by the client or legislation
􀁸 If you take steps together, you can tackle the issues better than alone, the strength lies in the chain
􀁸 The industry still needs to adapt to these issues
Figure 11 Within-case analysis
14) Additional external questionnaire data

The following table provides the additional relevant information gathered from the external questionnaire, in
addition to the data of the construct calculations.
Variables C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C17
Supplier
selection
2a To what extent do you believe suppliers to influence the environmental impact of your products? 4 3 5 3 4 1 4 4 5
4 Are environmental criteria included in the supplier selection process? 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
4a To what degree is waste prevention important in supplier selection? 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 3
4b To what degree do you perceive to manage risk with supplier selection? 4 4 3 4 4 1 4 1 5
4d Are suppliers asked to have implemented an EMS, e.g. ISO14001? 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
4e To what extent do you believe suppliers should be required to have an EMS? 4 3 2 1 5 1 5 4 5
Supplier
evaluation
5 Have you built environmental criteria into supplier assessment? 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
5c To what extent are suppliers scored on their environmental performance? 3 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 4
Supply
incentives
6 Are incentive structures in place regarding environmental performance of suppliers? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
6b To what degree do you promise higher volume of the present item? 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1
6c To what degree do you promise (consideration for) future business? 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 5
6d To what degree do you recognize suppliers’ achievements in the form of awards/preferred status? 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
Supplier
development
7 Do you work together with suppliers to reduce the environmental impact of your activities? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7a To what extent do you engage with suppliers in achieving waste reduction goals collectively? 2 1 2 5 2 1 3 4 1
7b To what extent do you collaborate with suppliers on waste prevention? 2 1 3 5 2 1 3 4 3
7c To what extent do you collaborate with suppliers on elimination of packaging? 3 2 3 5 4 1 4 5 5
7d To what extent do you share know-how and expertise in waste prevention with your suppliers? 5 1 3 2 3 1 4 4 5
8 To what extent do you expect/do your suppliers collaborate in waste prevention efforts? 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 4
8a To what extent do you believe will your suppliers adopt waste prevention policies? 2 5 3 3 2 5 4 4 4
Structural
barriers
1e Is your company ISO14001 certified? 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
3a Do you train the purchasing personnel in environment-related issues? 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
7e Do you invite suppliers’ personnel to your site to increase their awareness of how their product is used? 1 1 1 0 0 0
111
7f Do you train or educate the suppliers’ personnel? 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Table 23 Additional questionnaire data external cases
References
References are organized in the following manner: a) company documents, b) interviews, c) academic articles.
A. Company documents
Burgers, K. Kaijen, G. and ’t Jong, M. (2013) Introduction QLIFT: Improvement of supply chain performances, Integraal
samenwerken brochure
Damen (2013) Corporate brochure and corporate policy, environmental permit, information on departments and
strategies/goals
set per department
Lloyds (2013) Audit report DSGo, December 2013
Pruisen, N. (2013), Waste Management Plan, Excel file on waste, retrieved internally at Damen Shipyards Gorinchem,
the
Netherlands
Veldhuizen, M. (2013) Presentation Supply Chain, Damen Introduction New Employees, September 2nd 2013
B. Exploratory interviews
Boersma, A. (2013) Interview with regards to facility management, Foreman Maintenance Support, DSGo
De Quillettes, K. (2013) Interview on waste management and recycling possibilities, Owner RCN - Recycling
Consultants the
Netherlands
Gektsis, T. (2013) Interview and observation outbound logistics and packaging, Supervisor Central Warehousing, DSGo
Hogendorf, F. (2013) Interview on the Green Passport, Assistant Project Manager Engineering Management, DSGo
Huyskens, P. (2013) Interview on the E3 label, Programme Manager Sustainability, DSGo
Janssen, S. (2013) Interview with regards to purchasing. Coordinator Project Procurement, DSGo
Kaijen, G. (2013) Interview with regards to procurement, Category Manager, DSGo
Kornet, G. (2013) Interview with regards to facility management and waste prevention initiatives, Foreman Facility
Support,
DSGo
Peursem, A. (2013) Interview on central warehouse, logistics and packaging waste, Manager Central Warehousing,
DSGo
Roos, J. (2013) Interview on Production Management, Manager Production, DSGo
Van der Stel, D. (2013) Interview with regards to facility management and environmental permits, Facility Manager,
DSGo
Van Heulen, M. (2013) Interview with regards to environment-based supplier contracts, Procurement Manager, Amels
BV,
Vlissingen, the Netherlands
Van Rikxoort, M. (2013) Interview with regards to waste management and supply chain coordination, Category
Manager Non
Product Related, DSGo
C. Articles
Akinc, U. (1993) Selecting a set of vendors in a manufacturing environment, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.
11, pp. 107-
122
Angell, L.C. and Klassen, R.D. (1999) Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an agenda for research in
operations
management, Journal of Operations Management Vol. 17 (1999), pp. 575-598
Athawale, V.M. and Chakraborty, S. (2011) Application of Grey Relational Analysis Method in Solving Supplier
Selection
Problems, IUP Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 18-28
Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set
methodologies,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 124 (2010), pp. 252-264
Barari, S., Agarwal, G., Zhang, W.J., Mahanty, B. and Tiwari, M.K. (2012) A decision framework for the analysis of green
supply
chain contracts: an evolutionary game approach, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 (2012), pp. 2965-2976
Bautista-Lazo, S. and Short, T. (2012) Introducing the All-Seeing-Eye of Business: a model for understanding the
nature, impact
and potential uses of waste, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40 (2013), pp. 141-150
Belvedere, V. (2013) Lecture on Sustainable Operations Management, March 2013, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001a) The role of supply management capabilities in green
supply,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 2001, pp. 174-189
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001b) Horses for Courses: explaining the gap between
theory and
practice of green supply, Greener Management International, Volume 2001, No. 35, pp. 41-60
Boyd, D.E., Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. and Werhane, P. (2007) Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains:
a
procedural justice perspective, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40, pp. 341-356
Brymann, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business research methods, second edition, Oxford University Press Inc., New York,
USA
Carroll, A.B. (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol.
4, No. 4, pp. 497-505
Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998) Interorganizational determinants of environmental purchasing: initial evidence from
the
consumer products industry, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 659-695
Carter, C.R. and Easton, P.L. (2011) Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions,
International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 46-62
Carter, C.R. and Jennings, M.M. (2002) Logistics social responsibility: an integrative framework, Journal of Business
Logistics,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 145-180)
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new
theory,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N. and Tencati, A. (2009)The missing link between Corporate Social Responsibility and
Consumer Trust: the case of Fair Trade products, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 84, pp 1-15
Chen, C.C. (2005) Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13,
pp. 927-
933
Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T. and Huang, S.F. (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain
management, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 102, pp. 289-301
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2013) Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operation, 5th edition, published
by Pearson
Education Limited, Essex UK
Clark, S.F. and Roome, N.J. (1995) Managing environmentally-sensitive technology: networks for collaboration and
learning,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 191-215
Closs, D.J., Speier, C. and Meacham, N. (2011) Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: the role of supply
chain
management, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39, pp. 101-116
De Brito, M.P. (2007) Embedding sustainability in supply chain management, working paper OTB, TU Delft, the
Netherlands
Dul, J. and Hak, T. (2008), Case Study Methodology in Business Research, Elsevier, Oxford, UK
Dyson, B.H. (1941) Prevention of waste, Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers, Vol. 20 (9), pp. 360-374
Eccles, R.G. and Serafeim, G. (2013) The Performance Frontier: innovating for a sustainable strategy, Harvard Business
Review,
May 2013 edition
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1998) Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4,
pp. 532-550
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges, Academy of
Management
Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 25-32
Elkington, J. (1999) Cannibals with forks, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada
European Commission (2011a) Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf
European Commission (2011b), Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, retrieved from
http://eurlex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0013:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2013) EU Waste Legislation: overview, retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/legislation/index.htm
European Environment Agency EEA (2012), Thematic Assessment: Material Resources and waste – update 2012, SOER,
retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/material-resources-and-waste
European Union (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing
certain
directives, retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:PDF
Eurostat (2013), Waste statistics, retrieved from
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics>
Gupta, M.C. (1995) Environmental management and its impact on the operations function, International Journal of
Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 15. No. 8, pp. 34-51.
Gupta, M.C. and Sharma, K. (1996) Environmental operations management: an opportunity for improvement,
Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 40-46
Hall, J., Matos, S. and Silvestre, B. (2012) Understanding why firms should invest in sustainable supply chains: a
complexity
approach, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1332-1348
Hamner, B. (2006) Effects of Green Purchasing Strategies on Supplier Behavior, chapter featured in Greening the
Supply Chain
by J. Sarkis, published in 2006, Springer, pp. 25-37
Handfield, R. , Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S.A. (2002) Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment:
a study
in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 141, pp. 70-87
Handfield, R.S. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998) The scientific theory-building process: a primer using the case of TQM, Journal
of
Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 321-339
Hardin (1968) 􀁸 theory retrieved from Chopra and Meindl (2013)
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005) Performance measurement for green supply chain management,
Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 330-353
Hoejmose, S.U. and Adrien-Kirby, A.J. (2012) Socially and environmentally responsible procurement: a literature review
and
future research agenda of a managerial issue in the 21st century
Humphreys, P.K., Wong, Y.K. and Chan, F.T.S. (2003) Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier selection
process,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 138, pp. 349-356
Hunt, C.B. and Auster, E.R. (1990) Proactive environmental management: avoiding the toxic trap, Sloan Review,
retrieved from
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/proactive-environmental-management-avoiding-the-toxic-trap/
Jabbour, A.B.L.S. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2009) Are supplier selection criteria going green? Case studies of companies in
Brazil,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 109, No. 4, pp. 477-495
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2002) Supplier selection and assessment: their impact on business performance, The
Journal of
Supply Chain Management: a global review of purchasing and supply, Fall 2002, pp. 11-21
Klassen, R.D. and Whybark, D.C. (1999) The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance,
Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 599-615
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005) Sustainable Operations Management, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 4. (Winter 2005), pp. 482-492
Koplin, J., Seuring, S. and Mesterharm, M. (2007) Incorporating sustainability into supply management in the
automotive
industry – the case of the Volkswagen AG, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp. 1053-1062
Kraljic, P. (1983) Purchasing must become supply management, Harvard Business review, September-October 1983,
pp. 109-117,
retrieved from https://www.nevi.nl/sites/default/files/kennisdocument/LEV-PORT-art-013-bl.pdf
Krause, D., Scannell, T. and Calantone, R. (2000) A structural analysis of the effectiveness of buying firms’ strategies to
improve
supplier performance, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Krause, D. and Scannell, T. (2002) Supplier development practices: product- and service-based industry comparisons,
The
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Spring 2002, pp. 13-21
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996) The environment as a Supply Chain Management Issue, British Journal of
Management,
Vol. 7, pp. 45-62
Lilja, R. (2009) From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of
Finland,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 129-136
Linton, J. D., and Jayaraman, V. (2005) A conceptual framework for product life extension, International Journal of
Production
Research, Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 1807–1829.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007) Sustainable supply chains: an introduction, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1075-1082
Masella, C. and Rangone, A. (2000) A contingent approach to the design of vendor selection systems for different
types of cooperative
customer/supplier relationships, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, No.1, pp.
70-84
Melynk, S.A. and Handfield, R.B. (1998), “May you live in interesting times: the emergence of theory-driven empirical
research”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 321-9.
Meredith, J. (1993) Theory building through conceptual methods, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Meredith, J. (1998) Building operations management theory through case and field research, Journal of Operations
Management,
Vol. 16, pp. 441-454
Miles, H. and Humberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: a sourcebook, Sage publications, Beverly Hills, CA,
United
States
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (1997) Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications, International Journal of
Purchasing and
Materials, August 1997, pp. 10-17
Noci, G. (1997) Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental
performance, European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 3, pp. 103-114
OECD (2003) Emerging systemic risks in the 21st century: an agenda for action, retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/futures/globalprospects/37944611.pdf
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009) Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case
studies of 10
exemplars, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 38-56
Pagell, M., Krumwiede, D.W. and Sheu, C. (2007) Efficacy of environmental and supplier relationship investments –
moderating
effects of external environment, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 2005-2028
Pagell, M., Whu, Z. and Wasserman, M.E. (2010) Thinking differently about purchasing portfolios: an assessment of
sustainable
sourcing, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 57-73
Petulla, J.M. (1987) Environmental management in industry, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 113, pp.
167-183
Piluso, C. and Huang, Y. (2009) Collaborative profitable pollution prevention: an approach for the sustainable
development of
complex industrial zones under uncertain information, Clean Technological Environmental Policy, Vol. 11, pp. 307-322
Pongr當z, E and Pohjola, V.J. (2004) Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership and the roles of waste management.
Resources
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 40, No.2, pp.141–153
Pongr當z, E. (2009) Through waste prevention towards corporate sustainability: analysis of the concept of waste and a
review of
attitudes towards waste prevention, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17, pp. 92-101
Ponte (2004) Standards and sustainability in the coffee sector: a global value chain approach, Sustainable Commodity
Initiative,
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the International Institute for Sustainable Development,
2004
Porter, M. E. and Van der Linde, C. (1995) Green and Competitive: ending the stalemate, Harvard Business Review,
September-
October 1995, pp. 120-134, retrieved from
http://ww2.ie.ufrj.br/hpp/intranet/pdfs/artigo_porter_linde_thegreenadvantage_1995.pdf
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011) Creating shared value, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2011, retrieved
from
http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value
Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Carter, C.R. (2009) Food for thought: social versus environmental sustainability
practices and
performance outcomes, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 38-54
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., (1997) A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and
profitability,
Academy of Management Journal 40 _3., 534–559.
Sarkis, J. and Talluri, S. (2002) A model for strategic supplier selection, The Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Winter 2002,
pp. 18-28
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011) An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130, pp. 1-15
Schliephake, K, Stevens, G. and Clay, S. (2009) Making resources work more efficiently – the importance of supply
chain
partnerships, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 (2009) pp. 1257-1263, retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609001085
Seuring, S. and M・ler, M. (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
management,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, NO. 15, pp. 1699-1710
Sharma, S.K., Gupta, R.D., Kumar, A. and Singh, B. (2011) Suppliers issues for lean implementation, International
Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 3900-3905
Shrivastava, P. (1995) Ecocentric Management for a Risk Society, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.
118-137
Siegel, D.S. (2009) Green Management matters only if it yields more green: an economic/strategic perspective,
Academy of
Management Perspectives, August 2009
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002) The collaborative supply chain, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol.
13, No. 1, pp. 15-30
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P. and Simchi-Levi, E. (2009) Designing and managing the supply chain: concepts,
strategies, and
case studies, International edition 2009, published by McGraw-Hill, New York, USA
Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005) Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 60-68
Srivastava, S.K. (2007) Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 53-80
Tate, W.L., Dooley, K.J. and Ellram, L.M. (2011) Transaction cost and institutional drivers of supplier adoption of
environmental
practices, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 6-16
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M. and Dooley, K.J. (2012) Environmental purchasing and supplier management (EPSM): theory
and
practice, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18, pp. 173-188
Tencati, A. (2013) Lecture on Corporate Sustainability, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
Vachon, S. (2007) Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental technologies, International Journal
of
Production Research, Vol. 45, Nos. 18-19, pp. 4357-4379
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2007) Supply chain management and environmental technologies: the role of
integration,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 401-423
Van Aken et al. (2007), Problem Solving in Organizations: A Methodological Handbook for Business and Management
Students:
Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA
Van der Laan, E. (2013) Lecture on sustainability, GLIT course Fall 2012, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus
University
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Vereniging Nederlandse Scheepsbouw Industrie (VSNI) (2012), Scheepsbouw Nederland Jaarverslag 2012 – Annual
Report,
retrieved from http://www.vnsi.nl/Over_ons/Publicaties/Jaarverslag
Vonderembse, M.A. and Tracey, M. (1999) The impact of supplier selection criteria and supplier involvement on
manufacturing
performance, The Journal of Supply Chain Management: a global review of purchasing and supply, Summer 1999, pp.
33-39
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002) Case research in operations management, International Journal of
Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 195-219
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008) Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management
practices:
Lessons from the public and private sectors, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14, pp. 69-85
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998) The green supply chain: integrating suppliers into environmental
management processes. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34, pp. 2–11.
Wittstruck, D. and Teuteberg, F. (2012) Understanding the Success Factors of Sustainable Supply Chain Management:
empirical evidence from the electrics and electronics industry, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management,
Vol. 19, pp. 141-158, retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.261/full
Wolf, J. (2011) Sustainable Supply chain management integration: a qualitative analysis of the German Manufacturing
Industry,
Journal of Business Ethics, 2011, pp. 221-235
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press,
New
York, NY, United States
World Economic Forum (2012), Industry Agenda, More with Less: Scaling sustainable consumption and resource
efficiency,
Accenture Report, retrieved from
http://nstore.accenture.com/acn_com/PDF/WEF_CO_ScalingSustainableConsumptionResourceEfficiency_Report_2012.
pdf
Xu, L. and Beamon, B. (2006) Supply chain coordination and cooperation mechanisms: an attribute-based approach,
The Journal
of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
Yin, R.K. (1981) Case study crisis: some answers, Administrative Science Quarterly, March 1981, Vol. 26, pp. 58-65
Zhu, Q., and Sarkis, J. (2004) Quality management and environmental management practices: an analysis of different
size
organizations in China, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 53–64.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001) Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory development, European Journal
of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Volume 7, pp .61-73
Zuidwijk, R. (2012) Global Logistics and International Trade course, Fall 2012, Lecture 8, Rotterdam School of
Management,
Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
i Notion of sustainable development as defined by the World Council on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987:
‘development meeting
the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
ii The concerned citizen status of Hunt and Auster (1990) is given to corporations that ‘express a commitment to good environmental
management
but have not yet implemented effective, far-reaching, proactive programs’. Environmental departments are existent but are not
placed high in the
corporate hierarchy.__

Master Thesis: Disclaimer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis: Disclaimer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0 Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies

Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies

Preface & acknowledgments

4.4 Interpretation of findings........................................................................................................................................................ 45

1.2 Problem statement

2.6 Conclusion of the literature review

2.7 Conceptual model

26 Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies

3.1 Supply chain

3.2 Shipbuilding industry

3.3 SWOT analysis

Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies 29

4 | Method & results

4.1 Research design

4.2 Data collection

4.3 Data analysis

Less is more: an evaluation of sustainable supply strategies 53

6) Initial literature review

9) Internal and external cases

10) Case approach

11) Interview protocol

12) Computation of scores

14) Additional external questionnaire data

You might also like