Best Practice Application of LCM by Retailers to Improve Product Supply Chain Sustainability

  • David Styles
  • Harald Schoenberger
  • José Luis Galvez-Martos
Conference paper


Retailers are strategically positioned to leverage environmental improvement across product supply chains. This paper condenses retailer best practice into a proposed framework for systematic supply chain improvement based on eight best environmental management practice (BEMP) techniques. Third party product environmental certification is the preferred mechanism of improvement owing to transparency and credibility advantages, followed by use of retailer-defined environmental requirements, and implementation of supplier improvement programmes based on benchmarking and dissemination of better management practices. A BEMP to encourage consumption of front-runner ecological products is defined based on use of front-runner ecolabels. The performance of front-runner retailers is used to derive benchmarks of excellence for each technique, primarily expressed as sales shares of improved products within priority product groups. Life cycle management underpins best practice.


  1. 1.
    Ganesan S, Morris G, Jap S, Palmatier RW, Weitz B (2009) Supply Chain Management and Retailer Performance: Emerging Trends, Issues, and Implications for Research and Practice. J Retailing 85:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Accenture (2009) The Sustainable Supply Chain: Balancing cost, customer service and sustainability to achieve a high-performance supply chain. AccentureGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Commission (2011) Pilot reference document on best environmental management practice in the retail trade sector. (Draft January 2011), IPTS Seville. <>
  4. 4.
    TWG (2010) Technical Working Group for the Retail Trade sector. Workshop 18-19th November 2010, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EC (2006) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. IPTS SevilleGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coop CH (2010) Coop Group Sustainability Report 2009. Coop CH BaselGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M&S (2010) How we do business report 2010: Doing the right thing. M&S, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tukker A, Emmert S, Charter M, Vezzoli C, Sto E, Andersen M, Geerken T, Tischer U, Lahlou S (2008) Fostering change to sustainable consumption and production: an evidence based view. J Cleaner Prod 16(11):1218–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horne R (2009) Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int J Consumer Stud 33(2):175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Upham P, Dendler L, Bleda M (2011) Carbon labelling of grocery products: public perceptions and potential emissions reductions. J Cleaner Prod 19(4):348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    BASF (2008) Non-iron bed linen by BASF SE. BASF LudwigshafenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henkel (2009) Case study Persil Megaperils by Henkel Ag & Co. KGAAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MSC (2009) Net benefits. The first ten years of MSC certified sustainable fisheries. MSC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morris M, Dunne N (2004) Driving environmental certification: its impact on the furniture and timber products value chain in South Africa. Geoforum 35(2):251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paoli GD, Yaap B, Wells PL, Sileuw A (2010) CSR, Oil Palm and the RSPO: Translating boardroom philosophy into conservation action on the ground. Trop Conserv Sci 3:438–446.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Styles
    • 1
  • Harald Schoenberger
    • 1
  • José Luis Galvez-Martos
    • 1
  1. 1.European Commission, JRC-IPTSSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations