Harvest game

For the one reviewing me on the harvest game: I have missed the harvest game, so I will not upload any matter related to that lecture

Sabatier and external control

The government has the power to initiate policies that promote or stimulate the use of LCA's. I will name four that have been named by Frank Boons in his lecture on 6 nov 2014;

Altering market conditions.
The government can stimulate the use of LCA's by altering market conditions in such a way that it creates incentives when using LCA's. For example, the government could subsidize companies that are willing to use LCA's but can't because the process is long and the software is expensive. This may be an incentive for companies to use an LCA, since an analysis like this is time consuming and thus expensive.

Altering available information.
LCA's can be promoted as well through altering information. If certain activities require an assessment of environmental performance, then offering information on LCA's on for example online searching tools can have a positive impact on the use of LCA's. This puts LCA in the spotlights while other environmental assessment tools may also be of use but less known because they are not displayed.

Self governance systrems may be used by the government as well to promote the use LCA. Certain organisations or groups of organisations have core beliefs and secondary beliefs (Sabatier, 1998). These secondary aspects are based on various causal factors that may be altered by external control from the government. The government can subsidise an organisation that offers LCA's, allowing them to sell their services cheaper, or promote their services more active through media. This way, the government uses private self governance systems to promote the use of LCA's.

Another way for the government to increase the use of LCA's is to invest in research done to improve LCA methods. This in turn makes LCA a more trustworthy method and therfore it could gain popularity.

Effectiveness of measures
To assess whether the sorts of emasures presented above are effective in comparison to other measures, one can find it usefull to use Sabatiers framework (1980) that describes different stages of the implementation process of a policy. five main steps are described:

1. Policy outputs of implementing agency
2. compliance with policy output by target groups
3. actual impacts of policy outputs
4. perceived impacts of policy outputs
5. major revision in statute

In my opinion, step 3 and 4 are most important in assessing the results of an implemented policy. At first sight, it may seem most important to review the actual impacts of a policy. However, it usually takes a couple of years for results of policies to actually become clear, therefore assumptions may change over time and may differ strongly amongst different organisations/coalitions. Therefore it is in my opinion at least as important to review the perceived impacts of policy outputs, since these may be viewed as truth as well. 

Sodexo and TU Delft in a tight network

Lunch at the TU Delft

Since 2009 I study at the TU Delft. A regular day means being on campus from 8:45 to around 17:30. To be able to survive a 9 hour working day, it is probably most important to have good lunch and foods in between. Usually, I pack my own lunch: 6-8 sandwiches and a banana/apple. However, being a student and therefore having a very diverse schedule (each weak is different), it is not always possible to have done the groceries I need every day to pack the lunch I described. This results in the one and only lunch possibility: Sodexo. This company equips the TU Delft campus with everything needed to serve food: machinery, storage facilities, kitchens, cooks and other employees. This makes Sodexo a production facility. Their scale of operation is mainly in the Randstad, which makes them a regional production facility.

Sodexo network

Sodexo has multiple clients in the network and per client the network is quite the same. The network is pictured below. 

For the description of this network, I will use the TU Delft as an example, since I am personally experienced with this organisation. Sodexo is hired by the TU Delft and they maintain a continuous organisational interaction. Sodexo takes care of the supplier, who in principle has little contact with the client. Most of the contact will go via Sodexo. The consumers have both contact with Sodexo and the TU Delft, since they are buying their food from Sodexo, which is situated in the TU Delft faculties. Sodexo has certain contact with the government, since the government sets the norms concerning food production.


Resource Dependency 

Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) present resource dependancy as a mechanism that explains strategic behaviour of firms. It is preferable for an organisation to be little dependent from other firms in the network as possible. In this network, we see that the TU dependancy is larger since it has outsourced its catering and supply of catering to Sodexo. However, Sodexo is still dependent on the contracts it has with the TU Delft. If the TU Delft does not continue cooperation with Sodexo, they loose a big client.

A strategy applied by Sodexo and the TU Delft is by gaining control. A long term contract has given Sodexo the right to fullfill nearly all catering functions on the TU Delft campus, not serving lunch but everything food related. This gives TU Delft a long term control over their expenses concerning food, while it gives Sodexo a long term monopoly on the TU Delft campus.


Resource networks

The existing network created by the TU Delft and Sodexo has rules that are defensive when speaking of the limits of the playing field. By limits I mean the geopraphical limits of the TU Delt campus, in which the playing field consists of the cafeteria's and public space of the campus. By creating the contract described above, Sodexo has won the right to serve food on the TU Delft campus. Other catering services can only sell food on permission of the TU Delft. This defensive form of networking creates barriers to entry of the network.


Sodexo & TU Delft: easy loop closing?

Concerning the defensive network that the TU Delft created with Sodexo, it will be rather difficult to work towards a closed material loop if the innovation has to come from outside the network. As described before, the network is hard to break through due to the contract made between Sodexo and TU Delft. So any influences on the catering system of the TU Delft from outside have no effect since Sodexo is (almost) the only catering service allowed to serve on the Campus. However, when the innovation comes from inside the network, it may be easier for the TU Delft and Sodexo to work towards a closed loop material cycle. This is because there is a clear power relation: TU Delft can steer their client towards a new way of working. At the same time the TU Delft has a lot of resources to make an innovation happen: many students can cooperate and there may be a large capital reserved by the TU Delft for this. However, as far is I know the above is hypothetical. I have not heard about any plans for working towards a closed loop cycle.