Standardization of the Reverse Logistics Process: Characteristics and Added Value

Chapter

Abstract

Reverse Logistics initiatives aim at solving, at least partially, important problems linked to economical savings, durability, and environmental concerns. To improve the reverse logistics processes, a comprehensive approach is frequently needed, including standardization. Standards contain unambiguous requirements, and also, when needed, detailed testing methods. The European Standardization Organizations (ESO) offer a choice of ways for efficiently reaching consensus, in the form of high status written documents called European Standards, Technical Specifications or CEN Workshop Agreements. It is best to reflect early on the need for amended or new standards, and, if such a need exist, to start the standardization process in many cases as soon as possible. This applies also to EU research and technical development projects, which can usefully encompass a Work Package Standardization. Standardization can represent a key aspect of an improvement project in reverse logistics, in particular when harmonized requirements and/or testing methods are really needed. So far there seems to be no existing large-scale standards in that field, at least at the European or worldwide level. This chapter begins with a summary of standardization characteristics and advice for choosing the best procedure. It continues with a description of challenges to tackle in reverse logistics, and a review of existing standards and standards structures in that field. This is followed by a methodological approach to improve the current situation, relying in particular on the added value of the so-called “Integrated Approach”, to get large-scale beneficial impacts.

Keywords

Europe Uranium Shrinkage Marketing Expense 

References

  1. 1.
    RLEC, Reverse logistics executive council glossary http://www.rlec.org/glossary
  2. 2.
    Teuteberg F, Wittstruck D (2010) A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management research: what is there and what is missing. In: MKWI 2010—Betriebliches Umwelt und Nachhaltigkeit management, pp 1001–1015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guide VD, Van Wassenhove L (2009) The evolution of closed-loop supply chain research. Oper Res 57(1):10–18Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferguson M, Souza G (2010) «Closed-loop supply chains: new developments to improve the sustainability of business practices. XVIII in Supply chain integration: modeling, optimization and applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton pp 1–239 ISBN 978-1-420-09525-8Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Lineback D, Pirlet A, Van der Kamp J-W, Wood R (2009) Globalization, food safety issues and role of international standards. Qual Assur Safety Crops & Foods 1(1):23–27Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drake M, Mawhinney J (2008) Reverse logistics strategies in the United States. In: Proceedings of the international conference on reverse logistics and global closed-loop supply chains, Beijing, P.R.C., pp 180–190Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krikke H (2010) Opportunistic versus life-cycle-oriented decision making in multi-loop recovery: an eco–eco study on disposed vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:757–768Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO 2859 series (2009) Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes. www.iso.org
  10. 10.
    Emons H (2005) Quality control of sampling using reference materials. In: Chemical and environmental sampling-quality through accreditation, certification and industrial standard, CEN/STAR trends analysis workshop in co-operation with Nordic Innovation Centre, Brussels, April 14–15 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Collani E (2004) Review of statistical standards and specifications-A problem called ISO 2859-1 Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes Part 1. Econ Qual Control 19(2):265–276 ISSN 0940-5151Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 3951 series (2006) Sampling procedures for inspection by variables. www.iso.org
  13. 13.
    ISO 9000 series (2008) Quality management. www.iso.org
  14. 14.
    ISO 14000 series (2009) Environmental management. www.iso.org
  15. 15.
    ISO 26000 (2010) Guidance on social responsibility. www.iso.org
  16. 16.
    Ilgin MA, Gupta SM (2010) Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): a review of the state of the art. J Environ Manage 91(3):563–591Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pirlet A (2009) Standardization as an ICT implementation enabler. In: 2nd European conference on ICT for transport logistics, 29–30 Oct 2009, San Servolo VeniceGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandez I, Gomez A (2005) Analisis empirica de la logistica inversa. Una applicacion de la metodologia AHP. IX Congreso de Ingenieria, Gijon, 8–9 sept 2005, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    TS 14243 (2010) Materials produced from end of life tyres. Specification of categories based on their dimension(s) and impurities and methods for determining their dimension(s) and impurities. www.cen.eu
  20. 20.
    Measures and Actions for Coordinated Regional Logistics Policies In: The framework of the CORELOG EU Project Interreg III B CADSES NP, edited by Direzione Generale Reti Infrastrutturali, Logistica e Sistemi di Mobilità, Regione Emilia-Romagna (in cooperation with all CORELOG partners)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEN-CENELEC Management CentreBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations