University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

662
Only 3 companies reported the extended requirement for their main suppliers to ask
for information on biodiversity issues of their own suppliers. None of these
companies were from the red risk zone, but two were from the green zone, giving a
further indication that biodiversity risk zone boundaries are not strictly defined. With
only 3 companies out of the 120 in this category, there is a strong suggestion that
focal company influence diminishes with distance down the supply chain. This
situation has to change and keep pace with changing business attitudes towards
sustainability (Whatling et al., 2009).
Discussion
Supply Chain Biodiversity Management Partnerships
The indication from the companies reporting good biodiversity consideration is that a
structured environmental management system (EMS) is the most effective way
forward. However, the use of EMSs is not mandatory and there is no requirement for
accredited systems to be used by purchasing departments on any regular basis. Their
effectiveness versus non-accredited (in-house) systems, in terms of including
adequate processes, has been questioned (Andersen and Skovgaard, 2008). A study
by Hewlett-Packard (HP, 2008) into small and medium sized enterprises (SME) use
of EMSs in their Eastern European supply chain, found that organisations using only
accredited systems fared no better in environmental management solutions than those
with an in-house designed system. HP emphasises to their suppliers that a wellfunctioning
EMS, tailored to the size of the company, is more important than having
certification. For HP the processes in SMEs do not necessarily have to be as
comprehensive as those in larger companies (Andersen and Skovgaard, 2008).
Counter to the HP findings, a Remas (2006) study found a significant link to specific
regulatory performance, with sites using EMSs performing better, although results
varied throughout Europe.
Whichever approach is used, the role of supply chain management (SCM) of
biodiversity should be to take into account the dual role of businesses as buyers and
sellers, facilitating the sharing of best practice and preventing duplication of effort
along the supply chain as much as possible. With every product or service category
in the supply chain there is the potential for a focal (buying) company to have a
direct impact (positive or negative) on biodiversity. These potential impacts can be
considered cumulative and may be summed within the focal company supply chain
or more specifically a single product line. In practice, however, apportioning an
impact to a focal company or product is difficult, when the supplier may be
supplying the same materials to a number of other (often cross sector) companies.
Therefore, cooperation is required within industry sectors, to balance issues of
confidentiality and monopolisation with efficiency and environmental gains
throughout product life-cycles. Combining purchasing power and sharing best
practice and expert opinion, whilst preventing duplication of effort, could also create
additional leverage to drive improvements and reduce biodiversity impact on the part
of the first tier supplier, as well as further down the supply chain. This all sounds
challenging, but the concept is not entirely without precedent as the following
examples illustrate.