Servicizing in Supply Chains and Environmental Implications

Part of the Springer Series in Supply Chain Management book series (SSSCM, volume 3)


Recently, a new type of innovative business models have been developed based on the premise that economic value is not necessarily associated with the production and distribution of products, but rather with the use and functionality that the products can offer. It has been argued that such models, often referred to as servicizing business models, may have a positive impact on the environment because they can enable firms to achieve both economic and environmental sustainability. However, they may also present unique implementation challenges because they require the business-as-usual relationship between the different partners in a supply chain to change from product-based to use- or function-based. In this chapter, we outline a taxonomy of different servicizing business models observed in practice, based on different operational characteristics. Based on these characteristics, we also provide an overview of the reasons why servicizing may improve environmental performance. More importantly, we also provide a discussion of why servicizing may backfire and lead to worse environmental outcomes due to the firm and/or consumer decisions. Finally, we identify implementation challenges that may prevent the adoption of servicizing business models in practice.


Supply Chain Business Model Rebound Effect High Environmental Impact Total Environmental Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agrawal V, Bellos I (2015) The potential of servicizing as a green business model. Forthcoming in Manag Sci.
  2. Agrawal V, Ferguson M, Toktay LB, Thomas V (2012) Is leasing greener than selling? Manag Sci 58(3):523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon (2015) Amazon EC2 pricing. Amazon web services.
  4. Atlas Copco (2015) Contract air: air-over-the-fence service for compressed air or gas. Atlas Copco.
  5. Bellos I, Ferguson M, Toktay LB (2016) To sell and to provide? The economic and environmental implications of the auto manufacturer’s involvement in the car sharing business. Working paper.
  6. Booz Allen Hamilton (2005) Performance-based logistics perspective. Booz Allen Hamilton.
  7. Corbett C, DeCroix G (2001) Shared-savings contracts for indirect materials in supply chains: channel profits and environmental impacts. Manag Sci 47(7):881–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbett C, DeCroix G, Ha A (2005) Optimal shared-savings contracts in supply chains: linear contracts and double moral hazard. Eur J Oper Res 163(3):653–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission-DG Environment (2014) Development of guidance on extended producer responsibility (EPR). European Commission.{}target_review/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf
  10. Greening L, Greene D, Difiglio C (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energ Policy 28(6):389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guajardo J, Cohen M, Kim S, Netessine S (2012) Impact of performance-based contracting on product reliability: An empirical analysis. Manag Sci 58(5):961–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim S, Cohen M, Netessine S (2007) Performance contracting in after-sales service supply chains. Manag Sci 53(12):1843–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lifset R, Atasu A, Tojo N (2013) Extended producer responsibility: national, international and practical perspectives. J Ind Ecol 17(2):162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michelin (2015) Michelin fleet solutions. Michelin.
  15. Quaker Chemical Corporation (2015) Chemical management services. Quaker Chemical Corporation. Google Scholar
  16. Reiskin E, White A, Johnson Kauffman J et al (1999) Servicizing the chemical supply chain. J Ind Ecol 3:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rolls-Royce (2015) TotalCare. Rolls-Royce.
  18. Rothenberg S (2007) Sustainability through servicizing. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 48(2):83–91Google Scholar
  19. Stahel W (1994) The utilization-focused service economy: resource efficiency and product-life extension. In: Allenby B, Richards D (eds) The greening of industrial ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Toffel M (2008) Contracting for servicizing. Working paper.{}papers.penalty0{}cfm?abstract_id=1090237
  21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Wastes-resource conservation-conservation tools. U.S. EPA. Google Scholar
  22. White A, Stoughton M, Feng L (1999) Servicizing: the quiet transition to extended product responsibility. Tellus Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Xerox (2010) Life cycle assessment of a solid ink printer compared with a color laser printer. Xerox.
  24. Zipcar (2015a) Washington DC rates & plans. Zipcar.
  25. Zipcar (2015b) Zipcar wheels when you want them. Zipcar.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McDonough School of BusinessGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.School of BusinessGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations