Knowledge challenges for responsible supply chain management of chemicals in textiles – as experienced by procuring organisations

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e7

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Knowledge challenges for responsible supply chain management ofchemicals in textiles e as experienced by procuring organisations

Natasja Börjeson*, Michael Gilek, Mikael KarlssonSchool of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Södertörn University, Alfred Nobels Allé 7, 14189 Huddinge, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 October 2013Received in revised form28 February 2014Accepted 4 March 2014Available online xxx

Keywords:Responsible procurementKnowledgeCorporate social responsibilityChemical risks

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 86084747.E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Börjeso

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.0120959-6526/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Börjeson, Nas experienced by procuring organisations,

a b s t r a c t

A great number of chemicals e many of which are hazardous to human health and the environment eare used along the complex supply chains of textiles. These complexities and hazards make knowledgefor understanding chemical properties and management practices at multiple nodes central to theresponsible management of textile supply chains. This study investigates the knowledge requirements of,and the knowledge strategies used by, textile procuring organisations in response to both externalstakeholders and internal pressure. Based on a qualitative study of small and medium-sized Swedishtextile procuring organisations, the paper describes these knowledge challenges and analyses how effortsto meet them relate to expressed commitments and capabilities for responsible supply chain manage-ment (RSCM), as well as to organisational characteristics (i.e. whether the organisation is private orpublic, small or large, and whether textiles is a core or peripheral activity). It was found that severaltextile procuring organisations expressed commitment towards achieving RSCM. However, most orga-nisations felt that they lacked capacity to rise to the challenge. There was a poor state of knowledgeregarding many chemical substances and inherent difficulties in gaining knowledge of chemical risks andhow to manage these. Moreover, the input of knowledge was limited and based on only a few keysources. Such factors proved to be obstacles for procuring organisations when attempting to facilitateresponsible management upstream in complex supply chains.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today, many organisations are faced with managing highlycomplex environmental and health risks along globalised supplychains in which buyers, suppliers and customers are widelydispersed but linked by material, capital and information flows(Crona and Parker, 2012; Karlsson, 2005; Lambert and Cooper,2000; Seuring and Müller, 2008). The presence of hazardouschemicals in textiles is a striking example of these complexities forat least four reasons: First, textile procuring public and private or-ganisations nowadays seldom own production facilities but, rather,employ the service of suppliers and sub-suppliers dispersed overthe globe (Müller et al., 2009), a choice usually motivated by lowlabour costs in developing countries (Ciliberti et al., 2008). Second,the environmental and health impact of textile production is highand risks caused by the use of hazardous chemicals are evident atseveral steps along the supply chain (Assmuth et al., 2011). Manysubstances linked to fibre production (e.g. pesticides), washing (e.g.

n).

., et al., Knowledge challengeJournal of Cleaner Production

nonylphenol ethoxylates), dyeing (e.g. azo dyes) and functionaladditives (e.g. flame retardants, biocides, water repellents) causesignificant risks. However, even more challenging from an organ-isational point of view is the shortage of knowledge and data onproperties of most substances on the market and used in the textilesector (Assmuth et al., 2011; Boström et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b;Scruggs and Ortolano, 2011). This is particularly so in relation tothe potential combination (or ‘cocktail’) effects of mixtures ofsubstances despite evidence that these may be even more prob-lematic (Kortenkamp et al., 2009). Third, the applicable regulatoryframeworks are not globally coordinated, and span fromweak lawsand negligent control in some, often upstream, countries, tocomparatively ambitious chemical regulations closer to procuringorganisations’ home countries (Eriksson et al., 2010). For example,even though the EU REACH regulation has a quite strong trans-national outreach, chemicals legislation in textile producingdeveloping countries are commonly far less ambitious (Erikssonet al., 2010). Fourth, the ever and often rapidly changing nature offashion impedes capacity to develop solid knowledge on bothsubstances and effective legislation over time; for example, whensubstances like dyes are substituted from one season to another.

s for responsible supply chain management of chemicals in textiles e(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.012

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.012



N. Börjeson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e72

At the same time, expectations are increasing on textile pro-curing organisations to assume responsibility for their supplychains. Today, many organisations are squeezed between a complexweb of risks and suppliers on the one hand, and increasingly strongpressure from stakeholders for responsible supply chain manage-ment on the other (Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; De Bakkerand Nijhof, 2002; Guercini and Runfola, 2009; Kogg, 2009; Seuringand Müller, 2008). Embarking on such a route, however, gives riseto a multitude of challenges relating to e.g. the institutional andpolicy context, control and auditing procedures, as well as collab-oration and communication with suppliers and other stakeholders(Boström et al., 2011; Locke et al., 2009). Knowledge is central forthese challenges but is often limited due to a variety of factors(Boström et al., 2011, 2012a; Scruggs and Ortolano, 2011;Siebenhüner and Marlen, 2007). Despite a growing literature onknowledge management in supply chains (Marra et al., 2012), theknowledge-related aspects of responsible supply chain manage-ment of chemicals have so far not received sufficient attention,neither regarding challenges upstream and in-house, nor when itcomes to the potential impact of varying characteristics, commit-ments and capabilities between organisations.

This article thus explores how retailers and professional users oftextiles, i.e. textile procurers, experience and deal with knowledge-related challenges associated with responsible supply chain man-agement (RSCM) of chemicals. It assesses how knowledge-relatedactivities relate to variations in expressed commitments forRSCM, organisations’ capabilities to pursue RSCM, and the struc-tural characteristics of procuring organisations; i.e. whether theyare private or public, small or large, and whether textiles are theircore or peripheral activity. The paper is organised as follows: First,it describes the theoretical context of RSCM and related knowledgechallenges (Section 2). Following an account of methods (Section3), the paper summarises and analyses findings from interviewswith actors in the field (Section 4). Conclusions and a discussion ofpossible avenues for improving the generation and use of knowl-edge on chemicals in the textile sector, as well as identify furtherresearch requirements, are presented in Section 5.

2. Theoretical context

Modern business has gone through a considerable shift as pro-duction has become outsourced and supply chains global. A well-cited and illustrative quote defines the supply chain as somethingthat “encompasses all activities associated with the flow andtransformation of goods from raw materials stage (extraction),through to the end user, aswell as the associated information flows”(Handfield and Nichols, 1999). The construct of supply chainmanagement thus considers the supply chain as one integratedentity. This broad view includes the fact that several networks oforganisations e including the final procurer e are often involved inthe process of production, through both up- and downstream link-ages (Mentzer et al., 2001). All firms participate in supply chains, allthe way from the raw materials up to the final consumer, eventhough the closeness of relationships along the supply chain varies(Lambert and Cooper, 2000). Organisations therefore no longercompete with each other as independent units but rather throughtheir supply chains (Lambert and Cooper, 2000). This puts newmanagement demands on procuring organisations since it is notsufficient to manage solely their own organisation (Seuring et al.,2008). Supply chain management literature considers e.g. thatprocuring organisations wanting to be successful need to intervenein themanagementof thenetworkof all upstreamfirms thatprovideinputs (directly and indirectly) (Handfield and Nichols, 1999).

In this article, we apply the concept of responsible supply chainmanagement (RSCM). RSCM-studies are concerned with how

Please cite this article in press as: Börjeson, N., et al., Knowledge challengeas experienced by procuring organisations, Journal of Cleaner Production

different management practices relate to the promotion of sus-tainability and how performance objectives such as health andenvironmental concerns are perceived and addressed. Drivers andmotivations behind these aspirations, as well as key factors insupply chains that are complex, including costs, and collaborationefforts and communication difficulties, are also studied (e.g. Lockeet al., 2009; Seuring and Müller, 2008). The movements of infor-mation that flow up and down the chain are frequently mentionedin this literature (e.g. Scruggs and Ortolano, 2011), but the broaderconcept of knowledge, which this article centres on, is not asprevalent in the analysis of responsibility and sustainability insupply chains.

Clearly, there is no single agreed upon definition and theory ofknowledge (see e.g. Godfrey-Smith, 2003). It can, however, beargued that knowledge constitutes a fundamentally different andwider concept than information. Whereas information can be seenas collected and shared descriptive data (e.g. about chemicalsproperties as such or prevalence of substances in a material),knowledge is often depicted as what is known and acted upon byindividuals, organisations etc. and includes a set of implicit andexplicit types and processes of knowledge connected with‘knowing what’, ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing why’ etc. (e.g.McInerney, 2002; Snowden, 2002). In the present case, knowledgethus refers to e.g. capacity to understand and interpret data andother information on substances, and what implications that mighthave for RSCM. Consequently, in line with basic assumptions madein the field of knowledge management (e.g. McInerney, 2002;Nonako and Toyama, 2003), it can be argued that developing,sharing, and effectively using organisational knowledge are pro-cesses of central importance for reaching ambitions of responsiblesupply chain management. However, despite a growing body ofrecent studies exploring interrelations between knowledge man-agement and supply chain management, Marra et al. (2012)conclude in a recent review that knowledge management in com-plex supply chains is in need of more research.

RSCM-studies acknowledge that responsibility to manageenvironmental and health issues needs to be shared and isdependent on cooperation and close interactions along the supplychain, even though the role of the procuring organisation as themain driver of sustainability efforts is emphasized (e.g. Boströmet al., 2012a; De Bakker and Nijhof, 2002; Locke et al., 2009). Thedivision of knowledge responsibility along a supply chain is indeedcentral in the case of chemicals in textiles, given the four challengeslisted in the introduction. In our context, we interpret responsiblesupply chain management to mean “a management strategy wherethe procuring organisation assumes the main responsibility ofstriving towards implementation of health and environmentalobjectives along the supply chains as well as the connected infor-mation flows”. Following this definition we focus on: (i) re-sponsibility for the chemicals in textiles used and dispersed bysuppliers and sub-suppliers; and we consequently (ii) view theprocurer as the actor responsible for managing the information andknowledge flows up and down the supply chain, i.e. the “knowl-edge-driver”.

Hence, several factors may influence how individual textileprocurers experience and deal with knowledge-related challengesassociated with responsible supply chain management (RSCM) ofchemicals. In this study we focus on exploring the importance andinterrelation of organisational characteristics (e.g. ownership andsize) as well as expressed commitment and capabilities, whichhave been argued to be of key importance for RSCM (Locke et al.,2009). Previous studies have found that organisations need notonly commitment to engage in responsible supply chain manage-ment, but also the capabilities to make these chains work (Hall,2000). Consequently, it can be assumed that a procurer’s


Table 1Type of procuring organisations included in the study, as well as main functions ofthe interviewees.

Core activity Function of interviewee(s)

Org1 Clothes retailer I-1: CSR and quality assuranceOrg2 Clothes retailer I-2: CSROrg3 Clothes retailer I-3: EnvironmentOrg4 Clothes retailer I-4: ProcurementOrg5 Sports and leisure wear I-5: Logistics

I-6: CSROrg6 Leisure wear I-7: SustainabilityOrg7 Hotel I-8: Housekeeping managerOrg8 Train transports I-9 and I-10: Procurement of

uniformsOrg9 Train transports I-11: Quality assurance and

environmentI-12: Uniforms

Org10 Public transports (buss and trams) I-13: Procurement of clothesOrg11 Procurement for public

organisationsI-14: Procurement of clothesI-15: CSR

Org12 Municipality (education etc.) I-16: Environment in procurementOrg13 County council (health care etc.) I-17: Environment

N. Börjeson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2014) 1e7 3

possibilities to deal with knowledge-related challenges and toachieve RSCM relate to an organisation’s commitment (i.e. inter-nally and externally driven and stated motives and incentives) andcapabilities (i.e. internal competences, resources and potentials).Furthermore, capabilities for knowledge generation linked tochemicals used, and the risks of these in supply chains, are ofutmost importance when attempting to implement sustainabilityissues and risk management upstream an outsourced supply chain(e.g. Renn, 2008; Scruggs and Ortolano, 2011).

3. Methods

Empirically, this paper is based on qualitative, semi-structuredinterviews with representatives from 13 Swedish public as wellas private textile procuring organisations plus two other organi-sations (Table 1). As we wish to explore knowledge challenges andmanagement under a variety of settings, a broad range of procuringorganisations were approached according to three characteristics1:

1) Ownership: publicly or privately owned organisation, i.e. clas-sified without considering the specific form of association (e.g. alimited company or an agency).

2) Size: small and medium-sized (SME) or large (LE) organisationsand enterprises, as defined in EU law.2

3) “Character”: Textiles as core or peripheral commodity; relates toif textiles are the organisations core business activity, as inselling clothes or primarily procuring textiles.

The empirical material includes semi-structured interviews withsix private companies selling clothes, including fashion, outdoor andchildren’s clothing; three public organisations in the train and publictransport sector; one private hotel chain; one municipality; onecompany conducting procurement on behalf of a municipality; andone county council. In addition, one environmental NGO and oneresearch institute and consultant (specialised in chemical risks andCSR) were included in order to listen to outsider’s perspectives. Theinterviewswere semi-structuredas thismethod is appropriate for in-depth studies on processes and perspectives. All interviews wereconducted in 2008e2009 in various Swedish cities. In line with theaimsof thestudy, ourambitionwas to interviewrepresentativeswithexpertise and responsibilities linked to chemicals, sustainability is-sues and procurement. However, it must be noted that since none ofthe studied organisations had employees with specific academictraining in chemistry or toxicology, this category of respondentscould not be included among the organisations. Still, since the re-spondents all filled key functions relating to procurement, environ-ment and sustainability (Table 1) in their respective organisations,the performed interview study can be argued to be suitable for ouraims of investigating and comparing knowledge requirements andstrategies of organisations. Thus, in total 19 representatives from allthe approached organisations were interviewed on 16 occasions (ofwhich three were group interviews), and the staff interviewed hadresponsibilities and functions related to procurement, qualityassurance, CSR, administration, research or consulting.

Besides the procurers in Table 1, one interviewee (I18) from alarge environmental NGO was working on chemical risks, and oneperson (I19) from a consultant and research institute worked onCSR-related issues and chemical risks.

1 Some approached organisations declined to participate in the study, which maylead to comparatively fewer laggards than forerunners among respondents, butsince we want to analyse how organisations meet knowledge challenges given theirvarying commitments to RSCM, we do not see this as a methodological problem.

2 Se further at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition. We apply the same cut-off criteria for public organisations.


All interviews were conducted as personal meetings betweenone representative of the research team and the interviewee orinterviewees at the informants’ working environment and lastedbetween 40 and 120 min. The language used was Swedish and theinterviews were taped and later transcribed verbatim. All in-formants were guaranteed anonymity, which for some was a pre-requisite for participating.

The interviews circled around four general topics: knowledge;processes, measures and priorities; communication; and chal-lenges and incentives. The classification of the three characteristicsownership, size and “character” above were controlled, and thetopics of commitment and capabilities were common threadsduring the interviews in order to build a rich picture of the situationin each procuring organisation.

A round-table discussion with concerned stakeholders was alsoconducted as well as participatory observations at several stake-holder meetings and workshops on the issue of chemicals in tex-tiles arranged by, among others, the Swedish Chemical Agency, theSwedish Society for Nature Conservation and the Swedish Waterand Wastewater Association. These participatory observationswere made by a member of the research team and summarised asnotes. In total, 20 participatory observations were conducted be-tween April 2008 and September 2013. Many of the organisationsincluded in the original interview study from 2008 to 2009 wererepresented at these roundtables and workshops, allowing the re-searchers to follow up developments subsequent to the originalinterviews.

Finally, in addition to interviews and observations, written textslinked to the organisations were analysed, such as codes of con-ducts, internal guidelines, and sustainability reports. Such docu-ments were identified and acquired via the organisations’web sitesas well as via the interviewees or other persons linked to orknowledgeable about the organisations.

4. Responding to knowledge challenges

4.1. Characteristics, commitments and capabilities

Classification of organisations according to the three structuralcharacteristics e ownership, size and “character” e and accordingto their stated commitments and capabilities proved to be rela-tively straightforward (see Table 2). In Table 2, weak commitmentrefers to organisations that recognised problems connected to theuse of chemicals in textile supply chains but not a need to assume


http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition

Table 2Characteristics, and interpreted commitments and capabilities among the studiedprocuring organisations.

Ownership Size “Character” Commitment Capability

Org1 Private SME Core Strong LowOrg2 Private SME Core Strong LowOrg3 Private LE Core Strong LowOrg4 Private SME Core Strong LowOrg5 Private LE Core Weak HighOrg6 Private LE Core Strong HighOrg7 Private SME Peripheral Weak LowOrg8 Public LE Peripheral Weak LowOrg9 Public LE Peripheral Weak LowOrg10 Public LE Peripheral Weak LowOrg11 Public SME Peripheral Strong HighOrg12 Public LE Peripheral Strong LowOrg13 Public LE Peripheral Strong High


responsibility upstream. Strong commitment refers to organisa-tions that recognised both problems and the need to assume re-sponsibility upstream. Low capability denotes organisations thatdid not perceive possibilities for themselves to assume RSCM, whilehigh capability denotes that this perceive avenues and possibilitiesto assume RSCM within the organisation. Among private com-panies with textiles as a core activity, all but one had a strong senseof commitment for RSCM. This strong commitment was alsoobserved for some public organisations even though textiles werenot a core activity for them. The size of the organisations did notseem to be related to their expressed levels of commitment. Norwas size clearly linked to informants’ assessments of their ownorganisational capabilities.

One comment on this classification is needed here. In spite ofstated strong commitments, several informants were still of theopinion that they, and their respective organisations, should not beheld responsible for the entire web of actors and organisationsassociated more-or-less loosely with the supply chain by, forexample, providing temporary services. These informants generallytook the view that their respective procuring organisation wereacting responsibly as forerunners by setting and controlling de-mands on chemical safety, and by building capacity among somesuppliers. What happens further upstream from the supplier wasseen as beyond the reach of the procuring organisation. This pointof view was also widely underlined by participants at stakeholdermeetings and workshops visited and observed as part of this study.

4.2. Experienced knowledge requirements

The first major theme discussed in this section relates to a basiclack of knowledge among participants of chemicals used in textilesupply chains. Interviewees recognised a strong need to gatherbasic information such as descriptive information on chemicals andthe prevalence of such upstream the supply chain, as well as togenerate and obtain more knowledge regarding properties ofchemicals in textiles, and what these properties mean. This wasviewed as a central issue when striving towards responsible supplychain management. However, this knowledge was seen as verydifficult to obtain. In particular, most respondents considered it amajor difficulty to not only acquire but also to understand infor-mation from suppliers and sub-suppliers. The information neededconcerned data on specific chemicals used in various productionsteps, and their possible occurrence within the ready textiles andgarments. A typical comment on this topic as expressed by one ofthe informants working for a firm selling leisure wear: “gettinginformation from suppliers is a hard nut to crack” (I-6). Similar sen-timents were expressed by representatives from both private and


public procuring organisations during the observed stakeholderworkshops and meetings. Furthermore, interviewees claimed itwas difficult to understand the information that was provided bysuppliers e as well as by authorities and other stakeholders. Theseconcerns thus went beyond achieving information on whichchemicals were used by suppliers to include lack of knowledge onwhich chemicals to consider “safe”, how to best manage chemicalsalong the supply chain, as well as knowledge of chemical legisla-tion, such as the EU REACH regulation.

The organisations most concerned with this knowledge chal-lenge were private firms such as clothes retailers for whom textilesare a core commodity. The group of informants least concernedabout the information flow from suppliers were those working forpublic organisations: the municipality, the organisation procuringon behalf of public organisations and the county council. In fact, themunicipality and county council included in this study seldomasked suppliers for information on chemicals and chemical risks,but when they did, they claim to do so through a system of refer-ence groups (e.g. working or expert groups) during the procuringprocess. The situation was explained by an informant working forthe organisation coordinating procurement: “I can’t really say thatwe have done one of those [i.e. accountings from suppliers] concerningtextiles, I don’t feel that there has been a specific question more thanpossibly that with these flame retardants” (I-14).

When it comes to knowledge about policy, the mentionedREACH regulation was seen, particularly by the private organisa-tions, as complicated, difficult to understand and difficult to findanswers about. As one respondent in the private leisure wear sectorput it: “percentages hither and thither and the Swedish ChemicalsAgency cannot answer our questions, period” (I-5). The interviewedresearcher and consultant suggested that procuring organisationsneeded support “to understand chemistry and to hands-on work withit, even if you are not a chemist. As well as to take the correct measuresto, above all be able to administer the substitution principle and for anon-chemist to administer the substitution principle requires veryconcrete tools and a language a chemist does not use” (I-19).

The second major theme concerns participants’ views thatknowledge was also limited among upstream supply chain actors.Interviewees expressed a need to improving knowledge upstreamamong suppliers, and also in-house. Regarding suppliers, the re-spondents generally considered them e as opposed to the procur-ing organisations e to have more extensive and evencomprehensive knowledge on chemicals used in textile and apparelproduction, including knowing which chemicals to add to make agood fabric or garment. As one respondent at a fashion clothesretailer expresses the problem: “We are not very capable withchemicals really. We are rather capable in making garments.” (I-1).However, suppliers are seen to lack knowledge on broaderchemical-related issues, including health and environmental risksand concerning if and how to substitute hazardous substances. Itwas seen as highly difficult though, to pass relevant knowledge onthese matters up the supply chain, especially since legal re-quirements often were missing: “It is a big discussion with thesuppliers, like we don’t use nonyl phenol, but it is not forbidden inAsia, it is not completely forbidden in Europe, it is not forbidden inthe US. Then you need a huge, we take huge pedagogical efforts totry to explain to our suppliers, partly what it is, what they cansubstitute it with, why they shouldn’t use it andwhat will happen ifthey do use it” (I-1).

The private organisations generally took the view that procuringorganisations need to educate their suppliers on matters concern-ing risks and sustainability. By contrast, among public organisationsthe viewwas out that their own customers (for example, municipalenterprises) should be educated so that they, in their own pro-curement, would suborder the more sustainable alternatives.



Examples of such suborders are textiles for care keeping, cleaningand the industry including work clothes, bed linen etc. Public or-ganisations with textiles as a peripheral commodity, though, didnot recognise or admit the same need to educate suppliers. Still,despite these differences, there was a general understanding thatprocuring organisations need to make pedagogic efforts to explainwhich chemicals should not be used to actors both up- anddownstream in the supply chain and why, as well as which sub-stitutes could work. Here, it also is clear that present chemicalmanagement, from the perspective of the studied organisations,focused mainly on what not to use, whereas several intervieweesexpressed a wish to instead know more about which chemicals touse. This clothes retailer interviewee’s response was typical: “itwould be easier if we said like this: yes choose these and you are safe”(I-1).

Regarding the in-house situation, several respondents in bothprivate and public organisations mentioned that different unitswithin their procuring organisations were not always cooperatingand sharing information. For example, a respondent at a large,public company said that knowledge on chemicals in textiles from,for example, suppliers was probably obtained but that “theknowledge is sort of accumulated I guess in our environmentaldepartment” (I-10).

4.3. Strategies for knowledge gathering and use

In general, the studied organisations saw themselves as toosmall to be able to assume full responsibility for their entire supplychains. The following quote was typical: “One difficulty I haveencountered is that we are such a small buyer and making all suppliersunderstand the importance of this information is difficult” (I-5).However, despite the perceived difficulties, interview responsesand reviewed reports linked to the organisations reveal severalmeasures taken for attempting to meet the challenges. Thisperspective was noted throughout the major part of the partici-patory observations.

First, linked to the challenge to acquire basic information andknowledge about chemicals in textiles and knowledge on respon-sible management practices, the most natural source of input wasthe employees. Some informants leant mainly on knowledge andthe networks that they, or their colleagues, had acquiredthroughout their professional lives. However, such knowledge wasacquired and used in an ad hoc and reactive manner rather thanthrough standardised programmes of action. Some respondentstook part in in-house training activities though, and to some extentalso in further external education. Moreover, there often existed aforum for discussion in the procuring organisation, both public andprivate, be it an environmental group, a CSR-group or a monthlychemical information meeting. Internet and newspaper articleswere used as sources of information, as were legal acts, standardsand third party-actors.

Furthermore, most informants were positive to networkingmore with other actors. The informants generally had a positivestand towards external information- and knowledge sources, butthe channels and networking venues were viewed to be few. Theknowledge channels mentioned were merely a discussion group ontextiles organised by the research institute Swerea, stakeholderdialogues set up by for example the Swedish Chemical Agency orNGOs, and a yearly dialogue held by the Swedish Chemical Agencyand the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. In some casesthe procuring organisations, mainly the private, therefore arrangeddialogues themselves, with invited stakeholders such as NGOs andstandardisation organisations. The informants generally saw nomajor internal opposition against networking with NGOs. Instead,these contacts were seen as good sources for gaining information,


knowledge and advice. Even though several respondents in theprivate sector said that NGOs could be too strict, and therefore feltsomewhat unjustly criticised, they saw no obstacles in asking forhelp and advice. Moreover, the interviewees were open for ex-change of CSR-related knowledge within their industry and severalasked for a systematically organised industry dialogue on sustain-ability in general and chemical management in particular. “When itcomes to environment and ethics that is nothing we competearound. But rather then we might as well share the informationinstead” (I-7).

Most organisations studied also consulted and were in dialoguewith experts in the field of chemicals in textiles, either by calling, e-mailing, participating in seminars and workshops, partaking ineducation or through reference groups. However, the “experts”referred to were only a handful of persons. The informants thathardly network at all were those employed by organisations in thetrain and public transport sector. ”Networking, we do that within theorganisation” (I-11).

Another strategy, used by two private organisations with tex-tiles as core commodity, was to certify parts of the collectionsthrough a third-party stakeholder, in order to acquire externalexpertise and as a way towards producing and selling a more sus-tainable commodity. Certification, however, proved to be a chal-lenge for several of the other studied organisations. This was said tobe due to the fast pace of fashion and to communication barriersbetween the involved actors: “Our communication towards forexample the Nordic Ecolabel [Nordic swan] has been rather difficultsince we speak different kinds of language and we don’t reallyunderstand what theymean and they don’t really understand whatwe mean. They are more chemically-oriented than we are” (I-1).

Only one of the procuring organisations, a clothes retailer in theleisure wear sector, said that it had dealt with the lack of knowl-edge, and the lack of resources for knowledge generation andcommunication beyond the first supplier, by outsourcing thesetasks to a third party. In this case a consultancy firm, seen to be bothcommitted and capable, offered a system for chemicals manage-ment and elimination of hazardous chemicals throughout thetextile production process. Still, even after this outsourcing, theprocuring organization did not give up its own efforts for RSCM,and the combination of external support and in-house efforts wasseen as mutually supportive. The respondent argues for the set-upin this way: “it is for me the only today somewhat functioning wayto get to terms with many of these problems that exist when youhave an outsourced production” (I-7).

When it came to acquiring information as well as knowledge onchemicals from suppliers and sub-suppliers, many respondentsstated their prime approach to be to continue to ask suppliers forinformation, and to stress the importance of supporting legal re-quirements, e.g. in the REACH regulation. Others took more activeapproaches to build and maintain far-reaching relationships withtheir suppliers, something that in the long run was argued by therespondents to facilitate not only information, but also knowledgedevelopment and exchange. These organisations with a moreproactive approach to capacity building and awareness-raisingamong suppliers, were predominantly the private organisationswith textile as a core commodity as well as the municipality, thecounty council and the organisation working with procurement forpublic organisations. As explained by the county council respon-dent: “We are very concerned with spreading our work with envi-ronmental campaigns within procurement. Because we think it isimportant, we spend a lot of resources on it within the region” (I-17).

Second, tomeet the stated knowledge needs upstream aswell asin-house, it was observed that methods and tools adopted byprocuring organisations to communicate information and knowl-edge upstream were more or less the same as those used when



acquiring information from suppliers. It ranged from providingwritten documents such as guidelines and codes of conduct linkedto control mechanisms such as random sampling and factory au-dits, to adopting a more cooperative and capacity buildingapproach. “We go there and talk with them, and we talk with them bymail or on the phone and they come here and we talk with them. Weinvite all our suppliers whenwe have a show each year. So then they allcome here, and then we have joint meetings and talk” (I-1). The latterwere mainly private organisations with textiles as core business.

Concerning the communication of chemical risks and widersustainability issues in-house, this was mainly done by creatingworking groups focused on CSR, through general meetings on thetopic and by hiring experts to work solely with these issues. All ofthe organisations in the study had one or several CSR, environ-mental, sustainability groups or employees. One private procuringorganisation with textiles as a core commodity took this one stepfurther by promoting that all hired staff were committed and had asufficient understanding of sustainability issues: “the mostimportant thing I think it is that all employees are committed andaware about it, that’s most important. So that it isn’t one persondoing everything. Then the issues are simply integrated in theorganisation” (I-7).

Turning to the question of observed strategies for knowledgeuse, it is clear that the knowledge gained from the channelsmentioned above was used for supply chain management and hadpractical implications for which measures to take. Due to knowl-edge gaps, however, practices to deal with unwanted chemicalswere often ad hoc and reactive. For example, risk analysis docu-ments were said to predominantly be based on past experiences,and the knowledge these containedwas therefore seldom sufficientfor meeting regulatory demands, for responding to questions frommedia, or for meeting garment design demands. This experience-based reactive approach in risk analysis may lead to a focus ononly a few out of several substances of potential concern. As onerespondent in the retail sector stated:

We don’t look at the chemicals per se, we look at the productand what it might contain. As I said, if large plastic prints are infashion then onemight start to think that softeners is the substanceof the day and do we have this under control? So we haven’t saidthat now we are going to look at for example flame-retardants ornow we are going to look at azo-colours” (I-3).

Moreover, because of the complexity of regulatory standards indifferent parts of the world, the procuring organisation often also,as a strategy to simplify the situation, put different levels of trustinto suppliers from different countries. European suppliers were forexamplewith reference to the REACH regulation often seen asmorereliable than suppliers from Asian countries. As explained by arespondent from a clothes retailer: “We have some European sup-pliers for example, and we don’t put pressure on them in the sameway,as for suppliers outside of Europe, where China is the largest. So youmake a risk analysis and emanate from what is outside of Europeanlaw, as countries within EU are affected by many common laws. But if[the country] lies outside of EU then you do not really know how theregulation looks like.” (I-3). The potential drawback with thispragmatism is obviously that higher trust might be connected withlower control.

However, most organisations in the study went beyond legalrequirements when setting demands towards their suppliers.Recommendations and restricted substance lists provided by theSwedish Chemical Agency, the Swedish Society for Nature Con-servation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the InternationalChemicals Secretariat (with the so-called “Sin-list3”), the Textile

3 See further at http://www.chemsec.org/what-we-do/sin-list.


Importers Association and Bluesign were some of the mentionedvoluntary management control measures. Most organisationsrather stayedwith formulating lists, guidelines, terms of agreementetc. These were, in turn, mainly used in one-way communicationwith suppliers, occasionally combined with monitoring and con-trol. However, since chemical testing is expensive and time-consuming, the informants did not see it as feasible to adopt acomprehensive testing strategy.

The obtained knowledge may also be used proactively in orderto improve the organisation’s sustainability efforts. However, inpractise the knowledge on chemicals was often used reactivelywhen addressing e.g. reports on findings of forbidden chemicals inthe ready garments, in spite of the fact that the organisations in thestudy seemed aware that their suppliers and sub-supplier did notalways follow their demands and restrictions. The knowledge inputwas also central for external communication, to the extent that itwas asked for, whichwas rare. One respondent reasoned as follows:“that is another difficulty within communicating this with envi-ronment and chemicals, to say one word it immediately then be-comes complicated” (I-2).

Yet, some organisations did try to move towards a morecommitted approach, even though the road to fulfilment is long.Examples of such organisations were mainly private companieswith textiles as core activity. This ambition was principally put intopractice by integrating chemical knowledge within the organisa-tion, working towards far-reaching supplier cooperation, internalcapacity building as well as educating suppliers, hiring employeeswith more knowledge on chemicals or outsourcing management tothird-party stakeholders, formulating follow-up strategies as wellas trying to incorporate traceability within the supply chains.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The study shows that organisations that are comparativelycommitted and capable to RSCM tend to be organisations withtextiles in their core activity, so organisational “character” seems tocorrelate positively to RSCM, whereas the lack of similar significantdifferences between public and private, and small and large, or-ganisations shows these factors to be more difficult to interpret.

When it comes to the type of knowledge demanded, though,there are no obvious fundamental differences. All studied textileprocurers are clearly facing a number of serious knowledge chal-lenges related to chemical risks along their supply chains. Irre-spective of ownership type, size and “character”, organisations lacksufficient knowledge on policy and on how to acquire and under-stand properties of chemicals, as well as on supplier’s work andknowledge needs. Basic knowledge on chemical risks in textiles isneeded for organisations to become committed, but organisationsgenerally experience a lack of knowledge to fully meet their owncommitments. These results indicate inadequate processes forknowledge transfer and sharing along the supply chain for pro-curing organisations to be able to meet the role of a responsibleknowledge-driver.

The strategies applied for gathering information and for build-ing knowledge vary quite a lot, depending on commitments andcapabilities. The overall strategies presume different types ofmeasures for acquiring knowledge. For example, a truly committedapproach requires investing enough resources in employeesdealing with CSR-issues in general and chemical issues specifically,having skills and opportunities for not only controlling activities,but also for building relations and dialogue with suppliers. As theorganisations within the study appear to invest too little inknowledge-gathering, this can be seen as an obstacle for the or-ganisations’ capabilities to assume responsibility concerningchemical risk management.


http://www.chemsec.org/what-we-do/sin-list


Even though the strategies vary significantly, most respondentsstill perceive that they are too small and that they lack adequatestrategies for coping with the challenges they experience, nearlyirrespective of their ambitions when it comes to RSCM. This maydepend on that organisations that generally invest more to buildcapability for RSCM regularly also have stronger commitments andtherefore, from a comparative point of view, experience a similarkind of dissatisfaction as organisations with low ambitions andcapability. If organisations are private or public, small or large, orhave textiles in the core or periphery of their activities does notreally change this overall e relational e picture. It seems evidentthough, that those being both committed and capable to RSCMcontrol their chemical risks better in absolute terms e i.e. have alower adverse impact per unit of textile e than those at the otherend of the spectrum. Considering high e and probably increasing e

expectations on textile procurers though, it seems plausible toexpect that strong commitments need to be turned into evenstronger capabilities and more developed strategies.

The results point out a general need for procuring organisationsto engagemore actively in filling in-house knowledge-gaps in orderto attain responsibility upstream. The challenge of developing basicknowledge about chemicals used in the textile production can bemet by increased investments in in-house capacity in combinationwith developing venues for collaboration between procurers,including their suppliers. The existing fragile situation e whereknowledge is limited and based on a few sources e is obviously farfrom sufficient. With improved knowledge about how to under-stand hazardous properties of substances and how to managethese, practical measures and strategies may be developed.

However, since uncertainty can never be completely avoided,procurers will always be confrontedwith complex risks that mostlyare far from easy to control, which in turn leads over to a need todevelop and implement precautionary and new communicativeapproaches. Here, the results speaks for voluntary CSR-measuresnot being sufficient for companies to achieve RSCM downstreamin supply chains; these need to be complemented with legislationand initiatives by for example NGOs and labour organisations.

In addition, the literature on RSCM focuses a lot on capacity-building and awareness-rising of suppliers and sub-suppliers asways to foster RSCM. The results here, however, show an equalimportance of such capacity-building and awareness-raising in-house, at the procuring organisation, indicating a need for morescholarly attention to these processes in procuring organisations.Similarly, practices and studies that analyse the role of chemicalsindustry in the supply chain, as well as precautionary andcommunicative approaches set up by textile procurers aiming forRSCM, are missing. Finally, although many scholars consider thesupply chain as one integrated entity, the empirical findings of thisstudy indicate that this does not apply to textile supply chains,particularly in cases where buyers use amore traditional ’commandand control’ approach to supply chain management. Ultimately, anapproach focussing on commitment-building and improvedknowledge management would promote a pathway towards moreresponsible supply chain management and an enhanced integra-tion of the complex worldwide actor networks and interactions oftextile supply chains.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this article was conducted within theinter-disciplinary project ‘Chemicals in textiles: Managing envi-ronmental and health risks from products with complex productchains’ (CHEMTEX). It was funded by the Foundation for Baltic andEast European Studies. We wish to express our gratitude to all the


interviewees who participated in the study as well as to the editorsand reviewers who gave valuable and constructive comments atearly stages of the manuscript.

References

Andersen, M., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2009. Corporate social responsibility in globalsupply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 14 (2), 75e86.

Assmuth, T., Häkkinen, P., Heiskanen, J., Kautto, P., Lindh, P., Mattila, T., Mehtonen, J.,Saarinen, K., 2011. Risk Management and Governance of Chemicals in Articles eCase Study Textiles, vol. 16. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland.

Boström, M., Börjeson, N., Gilek, M., Jönsson, A.M., Karlsson, M., 2011. TowardsResponsible Procurement in Relation to Chemical Risks in Textiles?. Findingsfrom an interview study. Södertörn’s working report series. 2011:2 SödertörnUniversity, Huddinge, Sweden. Electronically available at. http://bibl.sh.se/publikationer/vara_publikationer/Towards_responsible_procurement_in_relation_to_chemical_risks_in_textiles/diva2_404864.aspx.

Boström, M., Börjeson, N., Gilek, M., Jönsson, A.M., Karlsson, M., 2012a. Responsibleprocurement and complex product chains: the case of chemical risks in textiles.J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 55, 95e111.

Boström, M., Gilek, M., Jönsson, A.M., Karlsson, M., 2012b. OrganizationalCommitment and Capabilities for Responsible Governance of and in SupplyChains. Paper presented at workshop ‘Responsible Supply Chains and Net-works: Challenges for Governance and Sustainability. Stockholm, Sweden, 22e24 November 2012.

Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Investigating corporate social re-sponsibility in supply chains: a SME perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1579e1588.

Crona, B.I., Parker, J.N., 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods,and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptiveresource governance. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 32.

De Bakker, F., Nijhof, A., 2002. Responsible chain management: a capabilityassessment framework. Bus. Strategy Environ. 11, 63e75.

Eriksson, J., Gilek, M., Rudén, C., 2010. Regulating chemical risks: Multidisciplinaryperspectives on european and global challenges. Springer, 350 pp.

Godfrey-Smith, P., 2003. Theory and Reality: an Introduction to the Philosophy ofScience. The University of Chicago Press.

Guercini, S., Runfola, A., 2009. The integration between marketing and purchasingin the traceability process. Ind. Mark. Manag. 38, 883e891.

Hall, J., 2000. Environ. Supply Chain Dyn. 8 (6), 455e471.Handfield, R.B., Nichols, E.L., 1999. Introduction to Supply Chain Management.

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.Karlsson, M., 2005. Managing Complex Environmental Risks for Sustainable

Development: Policies for Hazardous Chemicals and Genetically Modified Or-ganisms. Doctoral Thesis. Karlstad University Studies. Karlstad University,Karlstad, p. 34.

Kogg, B., 2009. Responsibility in the Supply Chain: Inter-organisational Manage-ment of Environmental and Social Aspects in the Supply Chain e Case Studiesfrom the Textile sector. IIIEE, Lund University, Sweden.

Kortenkamp, A., Backhaus, T., Faust, M., 2009. State of the Art Report on MixtureToxicity. The School of Pharmacy, University of London, London.

Lambert, D., Cooper, M., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Ind. Mark.Manag. 29, 65e83.

Locke, R., Amengual, M., Mangla, A., 2009. Virtue out of Necessity? Compliance,commitment, and the improvement of labor conditions in global Supply chains.Polit. Soc. 37, 319.

Marra, M., Ho, W., Edwards, J.S., 2012. Supply chain knowledge management: aliterature review. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 6103e6110.

McInerney, C., 2002. Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowl-edge. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 53 (12), 1009e1018.

Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Soonhoong, M., Nix, N., Smith, C.D.,Zacharia, Z.G., 2001. Defining supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2),1e25.

Müller, M., Gomes dos Santos, V., Seuring, S., 2009. The contribution of environ-mental and social standards towards ensuring legitimacy in supply chaingovernance. J. Bus. Ethics 89, 509e523.

Nonako, I., Toyama, R., 2003. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledgecreation as a synthesizing process. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 1 (1), 2e10.

Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World.Earthscan, London.

Scruggs, C.E., Ortolano, L., 2011. Creating safer consumer products: the informationchallenges companies face. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 605e614.

Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework forsustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1699e1710.

Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., Müller, M., Rao, P., 2008. Sustainability and supply chainmanagement e an introduction to the special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1545e1551.

Siebenhüner, B., Marlen, A., 2007. Organizational learning to manage sustainabledevelopment. Bus. strategy Environ. 16, 339e353.

Snowden, D., 2002. Complex acts of knowing e paradox and descriptive selfawareness. J. Knowl. Manag. 6 (2), 100e111.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(14)00233-9/sref1






http://bibl.sh.se/publikationer/vara_publikationer/Towards_responsible_procurement_in_relation_to_chemical_risks_in_textiles/diva2_404864.aspx




















































































Documents

Knowledge challenges for responsible supply chain management of chemicals in textiles – as experienced by procuring organisations