Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN BRIEF
Hokey Min is an Associate Professor of
Logistics and Operations Management at
Auburn University. He earned his Ph.D.
degree in management science from Ohio
State University. His research interests
include logistics, materials and purchasing
management, international operations
management, and service quality.
William Galle is Professor of Management
and Coordinator of Continuous Quality
Improvement at the University of New
Orleans. He earned his Ph.D. degree from
the University of Arkansas. Dr. Galle is
currently researching trends in electronic
purchasing.
Over the last two decades, growing concerns about ecosystem quality
have led to a renewed interest in environmentalism. Purchasing professionals should also be concerned and need to rethink purchasing
strategies which have traditionally neglected environmental impacts.
To help foster environmentally concerned purchasing strategies, this
article presents the findings of an empirical survey of NAPM members in firms with a high level of awareness and frequent applications
of green purchasing. Environmental factors are identified that may
reshape supplier selection decisions. The role of green purchasing
in reducing and eliminating waste is discussed. Also, effects of
green purchasing on packaging decisions are explored. Finally,
some important practical guidelines are suggested which may enhance
the effectiveness of regulatory compliance, pollution prevention, and
resource recovery.
BACKGROUND
Module 4
10
The authors would like to thank Dr. Richard Boyle of the Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies
for his assistance and support for this research. The authors also wish to thank the NAPM members
who responded to the questionnaires and provided valuable data for this research.
FIGURE 1
Green Purchasing
Strategies
Source Reduction
Waste Elimination
Recycling
(On-site and
Source
Reuse
Changes and
Off-site)
Biodegrading
Control
Input Material
Low-Density
Purification and
Packaging
Substitution
Design
Nontoxic
Scrapping or
Incineration
Dumping
11
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To help answer these questions, a survey questionnaire was developed for selected industry groups
which are heavy producers of scrap and waste
materials. These industries include chemicals (26.6
percent of the responding firms), food (12.3 percent), printing (9.8 percent), paper (9.2 percent),
oil/gas extraction (6.7 percent), textiles (3.9 percent),
furniture (3.9 percent), petroleum refineries (2.9 percent), lumber (2.5 percent), apparel (1.9 percent),
and others (20 percent). The survey was sent to a
random sample of 3,000 NAPM members employed
in those industries. From this sample, a total of 527
responses were received, a response rate of 17.6 percent. The Statistical Packages for Social Sciences
(SPSSX) was used to analyze the data.8
This research examined the influence of environmental factors on supplier selection strategies. As
shown in Table I, the most important influences on
supplier selection are potential liability, followed
by cost associated with the disposal of hazardous
material, and compliance with state and federal
environmental regulations. The importance of the
factors may stem from fear of liability litigation
and fines and subsequent negative publicity. For
example, the Clean Air Amendments have provided broad enforcement authority enabling the
Raw Rank
Adjusted Rank2
1.488 (0.966)
1.703 (1.073)
1.844 (1.111)
1.852 (1.104)
2.135 (1.046)
2.145 (1.047)
2.420 (1.288)
2.640 (1.115)
2.745 (1.102)
2.829 (1.190)
10
12
in Table III, (see page 14) frequently recycled commodities are paper, cardboard, aluminum, pallets,
plastics, and ferrous metal.
Reuse
Rank2
Recycling
1.832 (1.075)
Reuse
2.865 (1.282)
Low-density packaging
3.169 (1.278)
TABLE II B
Raw
Rank
Adjusted
Rank3
Scrapping or dumping
2.571 (1.228)
3.248 (1.513)
Biodegradable packaging
3.437 (1.349)
Recycling
Strategies
13
TABLE III
Rank
Paper
16.3%
Cardboard
13.8%
Aluminum
12.5%
Pallets
11.9%
Plastic
8.1%
Ferrous metal
7.4%
Motor oil
7.1%
Non-ferrous metal
6.2%
Glass
4.7%
Wooden structure
4.0%
10
2.9%
11
Others
2.1%
12
Corrugated foam
1.4%
13
Syringes
0.8%
14
Vinyl
0.6%
15
Graphite
0.2%
16
*Note: Frequency represents the percentage of the responding firms that recycled each commodity.
TABLE IV
Rank
Pallets
25.8%
Cardboard
14.5%
Paper
14.3%
9.6%
Wooden structure
5.8%
Aluminum
5.2%
Plastic
4.6%
Motor oil
4.1%
Ferrous metal
4.0%
Others
3.5%
10
Non-ferrous metal
2.9%
11
Corrugated foam
2.7%
12
Glass
2.0%
13
Syringes
0.5%
14
Vinyl
0.3%
15
Graphite
0.1%
16
*Note: Frequency represents the percentage of the responding firms that reused each
commodity.
of scrapping may be associated with the availability of investment recovery programs which assist
purchasing professionals in the most profitable
disposal of their scrap. Investment recovery programs are organized or sponsored by both profit
14
TABLE V
Raw Rank
Adjusted Rank2
1.346 (0.665)
1.625 (0.736)
1.754 (0.867)
Nontoxic elements
1.805 (0.932)
Recyclability
1.847 (0.897)
Reusability
2.263 (1.096)
Biodegradability
2.512 (1.143)
Low-density
2.784 (1.062)
Environmentally Friendly
Rank
18.3%
Paper balers
13.2%
12.1%
9.3%
4 (tie)
9.3%
4 (tie)
9.2%
Barrels
6.9%
Polyethylene films
5.8%
5.6%
4.9%
3.4%
10
1.1%
11
Others
1.1%
12
15
TABLE VII
Average Seriousness1
Raw Rank
Adjusted Rank2
1.832 (0.917)
Uneconomical recycling
1.964 (0.977)
Uneconomical reusing
2.028 (0.996)
2.355 (1.201)
2.453 (1.012)
2.541 (0.977)
2.583 (1.190)
2.987 (1.156)
3.005 (1.154)
23. J. Cavinato, Reading the Regulatory Tea Leaves, Dis tribution, (January 1991), pp. 68-70.
24. V. Dassapa and C. Maggioni, Reuse and Recycling Reverse Logistics Opportunities, (Oak Brook, IL: Council of
Logistics Management, 1993).
25. Stilwell, Canty, Kopf, and Montrone, op. cit., 1991.
26. S. Selke, op. cit., 1990.
REFERENCES
1. A.O. Garvin, The 12 Commandments of Environmental
Compliance, Industrial Engineering, vol. 25, no. 9 (1993),
pp. 18-22.
2. V.N. Bhat, Green Ma rketing Begins with Green
Design, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, vol.
8, no. 4 (1993), pp. 26-31.
3. Packaging in the 90s - The Environmental Impact,
Modern Materials Handling, (June 1990), p. 54.
4. E.J. Stilwell, R.C. Canty, P.W. Kopf, and A.M. Montrone,
Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress,
(New York: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1991).
5. J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, P. van Beck, L. Hordijk, L.N.
Van Wassenhove, Interactions between Operational
Research and Environmental Management, European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 85 (1995), pp. 229-243.
6. L. Webb, Green Purchasing: Forging a New Link in the
Supply Chain, PPI: Pulp and Paper International, vol. 36,
no. 6 (1994), pp. 52-56.
7. J. Carbone, CFC Phase-Out Spurs Green Purchasing,
Electronic Business Buyer, (July 1994), p. 91.
8. SPSSX Users Guide (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).
9. Its Not Easy Buying Green, Purchasing, (December 16,
1993), pp. 31-32.
10. P. Winsemius and U. Guntram, Responding to the
Environmental Challenge, Business Horizon, (MarchApril 1992), pp. 12-20; L.M. Litvan, Going Green in
the 90s, Nations Business, (February 1995), pp. 30-32.
11. T. Eisenhart, Theres Gold in that Garbage!, Business
Marketing, (November 1990), pp. 20-24.
12. M.P. Last, Legally Bound to Mother Earth, N A P M
Insights, (March 1991), p. 8.
13. R.M. Monczka and R.J. Trent, Purchasing and Sourcing
Strategy: Trends and Implications (Tempe, AZ: Center for
Advanced Purchasing Studies, 1995).
14. J.R. Stock, Reverse Logistics (Oak Brook, IL.: Council of
Logistics Management, 1992).
15. State Recycling Laws Update, Year-end Edition (Riverdale,
MD: Raymond Communications, 1992).
16. J.A. Cooke, Block vs. Stringer: Which Pallet is Best,
Traffic Management, (February 1993), pp. 36-38.
17. J. Murphree, One Purchasers Trash is Anothers Treasure, NAPM Insights, (August 1993), pp. 24-26.
18. C. Boerner and K. Chilton, The Folly of Demand-side
Recycling, Environment, vol. 36, no. 1 (1994), pp. 7-32
19. T. Andel, New Ways to Take Out the Trash, Trans portation and Distribution, (May 1993), pp. 24-30.
20. T.G. Gorny, Performance-Oriented Packaging Requirements: Dont Be Unprepared, NAPM Insights, (November 1990), p. 4.
21. See for example T. Andel, The Environments Right for
a Packaging Plan, Transportation and Distribution,
(November 1993), pp. 66-74; S. Selke, Biodegradation and
Packaging, (Wiltshire, Great Britain: Pira Information
Services, 1990).
22. See for example J.J. Coyle, E.J. Bardi, and C.J. Langley,
Jr., The Management of Business Logistics, (St. Paul, MN:
West Publishing Co., 1992).
17