OCTOBER 19-20, 2012 - YMCA University of Science & Technology

4.5.2 Government’s Initiative
Proceedings of the National Conference on
Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering,
YMCA University of Science & Technology, Faridabad, Haryana, Oct 19-20, 2012
The government should ignite, encourage and promote the green activities carried out by the manufacturing
supply chain.Zhu et al. (2005) mentioned that China has encouraged (pressured) GSCM practice adoption to help
spur economic development. One can find literatures which also claim government regulation as the major driver
of environment/green efforts of manufacturing companies (Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 1997; Walton et
al., 1998; Eagan and Kaiser, 2002; Scupola, 2003; Lin, 2007; and Peng and Lin, 2008).The government
manufacturing companies should become role models to others. They should come out with transparent
legislation for environmental responsibility. Environmental regulations such as EuP (Eco-Design of Energy-
Using Products), REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals), ELV (End of life Vehicle
Directive), WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment) and RoHS (Restrictions on Hazardous
Substances) of the European Union are putting pressure on the companies for adopting green practices. One can
find similar types of laws in other countries like China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and the US. Such laws compel the
manufacturing companies to closely look into the production processes and supplier selections. Within a few
years, products will be sold in most parts of world under such legislation. The government should apply pressure
so as to compel the companies to become green without any compromise.
4.5.3 External Pressures for Adopting GSCM
GSCM may be considered complimentary management practices relate to the institutional pressures that
encourage their adoption. Institutional pressures persuade organizations to undertake similar strategic actions
(Hoffman, 1997; Scott, 2001) to increase their external legitimization (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Hoffman
and Ventresca, 2002). Regulatory pressures are often associated with an organization’s decisions to adopt GSCM
practices (Birett, 1998). These pressures arise from threats of non compliance penalties and fines (Davidson and
Worrell, 2001) and requirements to publicly disclose information about toxic chemical releases(Konar and
Cohen, 1997).For instance, regulatory changes in automotive paints have pressed car manufacturers to require
their suppliers to reduce their use of regulated chemicals in the production process(Geffen and
Rothenberg,2000). In addition to regulatory pressures, Market Pressures may influence an organization’s
decision to adopt on GSCM practices (Rao, 2002; Gupta and Piero, 2003). Over the last ten years, market actors
have been placing greater pressures on organizations to consider their impacts on the natural environment
(Hoffman, 2000). Overall, 15 percent of US consumers routinely pay more for green products, and another 15
percent seek green products if they do not cost more (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004). While these findings suggest
that markets are creating opportunities for environmental friendly organizations, the majority of consumers still
are not influenced by a company’s proactive environment practices. However, these same customers may be
persuaded to change their purchasing decisions if a company violates environmental laws or emits high levels of
toxins (Prakash, 2000). As a consequence, EMS and GSCM adoption may provide a vehicle for organizations to
‘signal’ to market participants that their environmental strategies adhere to or exceed generally accepted
environmental standards. Doing so may lead to greater acceptance of the organization’s strategic approach
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and insulate organizations from competitor’s criticisms (King and Lenox, 2001).
EMS and GSCM adoption also may help organizations develop an environmentally conscious reputation. Such a
re-reputation may invite patronage from consumers and generate opportunities for business with other
organizations that value these principles (Darnall and Carmin, 2005). Finally, organizations are subjected to
Pressures from the community that includes environmental groups, community groups, media, labor unions
and industry associations (Hoffman, 2000). Each of these groups can marshal public support for or against an
organization’s environmental performance (Clair, Milliman and Mitroff, 1995; Turcotte, 1995).
4.5.4 Green Procurement
Green procurement is defined as an environmental purchasing consisting of involvement in activities that include
the reduction, reuse and recycling of materials in the process of purchasing. Besides green procurement is a
solution for environmentally concerned and economically conservative business, and a concept of acquiring a
selection of products and services that minimizes environmental impact Supplier selection: (1) purchase
materials or parts only from “Green Partners” who satisfy green partner environment quality standards and pass
an audit process in following regulations for the environment-related substances (2) consider suppliers who
acquire ISO 14000, OHSAS18000 and/ or RoHS directives(3) select suppliers who control hazardous substances
in company’s standard lists and obtain green certificate achievements EPP is the act of purchasing products or
services that have a less adverse effect on human health and the environment.
4.5.5 Green Manufacturing
Green manufacturing is defined as production processes which use inputs with relatively low environmental
impacts, which are highly efficient, and which generate little or no waste or pollution. Green manufacturing can
lead to lower raw material costs, production efficiency gains, reduced environmental and occupational safety
879