Dad has lung cancer.
Bam! Just like that my world changed. New Year’s was just a few days away, and everything I had been planning and thinking about for the coming year, was now in disarray.
My dad has small cell lung cancer, which is the rarer and most aggressive form of the disease. He completed his first chemotherapy sessions last week, where the doctors dripped two chemicals into his body, carboplatin and etopiside, to stop the tumors from growing and spreading. I say chemicals because, in essence, that’s what today’s medicines are. In most cases, we take medicines not to cure the disease, but to treat and alleviate its symptoms—to bring the fever down, relieve the body ache, or control our blood pressure. And in cases like my dad’s, we take medicines to drive the cancer into remission and prolong our life.
Virtually all medicines, however, have side effects. The drugs that will hopefully prolong my dad’s life will also cause his hair to fall out; they will lower his white blood cell count, making him more susceptible to sickness and infections; and they will make him feel nauseous and lose his appetite.
Traditional medicine is about tradeoffs, it’s about accepting some negatives in exchange for a greater benefit.
So, what does this have to do with ‘Green’ Supply Chains?
If you go back a year or two ago, just about every magazine and newspaper had an article about the environment, how we’re in the midst of a “green” revolution that even corporate giants, like Wal-Mart, were not only supporting, but actually leading the charge. “’Green’ is good for business” was the battle cry, a logical extension of Total Quality Management, Six Sigma, Lean, and other business practices.
But the headlines are starting to change. “Little Green Lies” was the cover story in last October’s Business Week. “The Dark Side of ‘Green’ Bulbs” in the Wall Street Journal. “The Truth About Recycling” in The Economist. “The Six Sins of Greenwashing” and so on.
So, what’s going on here?
This brings me to the first inconvenient truth about green supply chains: many ‘green’ initiatives are like today’s pharmaceutical drugs—they have negative side effects that are finally getting recognized and talked about.
For example, compact fluorescent lights consume a lot less energy than incandescent bulbs, but they also contain mercury. So, on the one hand, power plants will emit a lot less CO2 and mercury, but on the other hand we could end up with a huge environmental problem if millions of these bulbs are tossed in the garbage and end up in landfills.
Using more bio-fuels will reduce our dependence on oil, but the trade-off is higher food prices and increased deforestation, as farmers race to create new feedstock plantations.
Recycling keeps materials out of our landfills, but only temporarily. And chemicals often have to be added to recycled materials like plastics to restore their properties and make them useful again. As the authors of the book Cradle-to-Cradle state: “Just because a material is recycled does not automatically make it ecologically benign, especially if it was not designed specifically for recycling”.
And just like pharmaceutical drugs, there’s a limit to what can be accomplished with current ‘green’ initiatives because today’s products, manufacturing processes, and supply chains were not designed with sustainability in mind. I started my career as a product development engineer, and the first thing you’re taught is that fixing problems during the design phase takes exponentially less time, money, and resources than trying to fix problems after a product is already in volume production.
And that’s essentially what we’re trying to do today: we’re trying to fix the environment while keeping the production lines of a fast-growing, global economy running. We’re treating the symptoms, the negative side-effects, of supply chains that were not designed with sustainability as a criterion.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that companies shouldn’t optimize their transportation operations, or reduce the amount of packaging in their products, or look for ways to conserve energy and eliminate hazardous materials from their products and processes. These and many other ‘green’ initiatives are making a difference. Just look at what companies like Stonyfield Farm, HP, SC Johnson, Wal-Mart, and others are accomplishing.
What I’m saying, however, is that there’s a limit to what these initiatives can accomplish compared to the size of the environmental problem and how much time we have to fix it or drive it into remission.
And this brings me to the second inconvenient truth: creating “green” supply chains that are truly sustainable will be costly and messy, and we’re all going to have to pay for it, one way or another.
Yes, it’s true: ‘Green’ is good for business. But this is true because, for the most part, only “green” projects that are good for business (or required by law or Wal-Mart) get done.
Now, I don't have an argument with this. Companies are in business to make money, not lose it. I certainly don’t want to work for a company that drives itself into bankruptcy and leaves me jobless by undertaking “green” projects without any fiscal discipline. But we must also recognize that there’s a limit to how much progress we can make, and how quickly, if “good for business” is the only litmus test we use. Eventually, the law of diminishing returns will kick in, and then what will we do?
Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, gave a speech at the Aspen Ideas Festival last July where he questioned the notion that we’re in the midst of a “green” revolution. “Have you ever seen a revolution in history,” he asked, “where nobody got hurt?” “We’re having a green party, not a green revolution,” was Friedman’s conclusion, and I agree.
At some point, the party must end if a “green” revolution is to occur, and it will be costly and messy. There will be winners and there will be losers. Some jobs and industries will suffer or disappear, while others will develop, grow, and prosper. Some countries will emerge as leaders, while others will fall behind. And each of us will have to pay more, either via higher taxes or prices, for energy, food, transportation, clothing, and other consumer goods.
No pain, no gain—that’s what my dad used to tell me growing up, and it’s what he tells himself today as he battles cancer. No pain, no gain is also true when it comes to reducing the environmental impact of supply chains.
As we reach the limits of what traditional medicines can accomplish, the pharmaceutical industry is investing heavily in biotechnology and stem cell research, revolutionary new ways to treat diseases. It’s not about ingesting chemicals to treat symptoms; it’s about deciphering the inner workings of our DNA, understanding how a group of cells turn into a lung, or a heart, or a liver, so that when our organs are afflicted with disease, we can generate new ones. This is the future of medicine, and it’s quickly approaching.
And as we reach the limits of what current ‘green’ initiatives can accomplish, we need to transform the DNA of our supply chains. We must change the way we design products and supply chain networks; we must create completely new business models and redefine supplier and customer relationships; and we must reshape our expectations as consumers.
The sooner we stop the party and start the revolution, the better off we’ll be.
No comments:
Post a Comment