SSPM theory practice examples

This course features class exercises to each meeting to let students experience the theoretical material from lectures and literature. Develop one class exercise to replace one you felt was not entirely suitable. 

I personally do not think that any of the exercises done in classes where not suitable, so I would not be able to think of a replaceable game to something. However, when attending the SSPM classes, I do find some theories very difficult to put into perspective. Maybe this is more difficult for me since I don't have any experience with a policy related course yet, but I am not the only one in Industrial Ecology with no policy background.

For me, some SSPM theory was really difficult to understand. And when I try to understand, I try to find references to this theory from my own experience, for example with jobs that I had or internships in companies where i experienced phenomena that may have something to do with the SSPM theory. Then I ask others that if my understanding of the theory is correct, using an example that I know of from my own experience. Not only can this confirm or dismiss my assumptions, it is also very interesting to see how others interpret the theory.

I noticed that during the classes I often asked the teacher to give an example after the theory he explained. I think that this is not so easy to do on the spot, and so it may be good for students to come up with real life examples that are related to the theory so that we can have a collective understanding of the theory, and make sure that the understanding is correct since the teacher is present to dismiss false assumptions. The examples do not have to be from personal experience but may also be collected from internet for example.

After explaining some difficult theory, it may be possible to form groups of 5 persons, give them 15 minutes to discuss some examples and then discuss these in class. It can be a good way to achieve a correct and common understanding of a certain theory.

Next to the games, I think this is a good way to experience some of the SSPM theories. The games are very good to understand the dynamics of certain theories and because in some way the class recreates the theory. On the other hand each student may interpret the game results differently and therefore using more real life examples may be good to get all the students on the right understanding of the theory.

How does growing austerity influence IE organizations

One pressing research question for the coming years is: how does ongoing austerity affect the possibilites for initiating and upscaling industrial ecology intitiatives?

My proposed research plan will focus on the micro-meso level. This means that the analysis will cover individual actors choices within an organisation and how this affect an interorganisational field at meso level. The question raised above adresses the issue of austerity and how this affects the progress/success of industrial ecology intiatives. The aim is to develop a framework on how to answer a research question like this. To start with I will specify the scope of the research question a bit more:

How does ongoing austerity affect the possibilites within an organizational field of industrial ecology initiatives?

The research plan will be divided into two parts. First we need to understand how austerity influences behaviour of individuals and therefore the organizations they are part of. We will have to analyse the organizational field (meso level), and the individuals that make up the organizations (micro level), since their choices in the end form the coordination mechanism of a company (Jones, 2003). This is a parallel process happening in multiple organizations, forming an interorganizational field.

Jones presents a framework for analysing the choices of individuals, and of companies. he proposes the following for individuals:

For organizations, Jones proposes the following;

Knowing that the aspects above are import to both individuals and organisations choices and in the end form coordination mechanisms, it seems like a good idea to analyse individuals and organisations within an organizational field by the points made by Jones. This can be done by interviews. Interviews are a suitable method because one can sit with employees/managers to gain insight in their work and the choices they make within their company. The researcher has the chance to ask follow-up questions. Disadvantage of interviews is that they are cost and resource intensive. Another disadvantage could be that the interviewer him/her self may be influenced/biased, endangering the credibility of the research (Wisker, 2007)

To answer the question if austerity affects the possibilities for IE initiatives, the frameworks by Jones can very well be used to interview individuals within organizations. An interview could be organized in such a way that it becomes clear how choices by individuals where made before the austerity in question, and after. For example, since long-term memory plays a role in individual decision making, questioning people about whether budget constraints have affected them in their decisions concerning their major activities within a company on the long run. Another question example (concerning pt. 3 of Jones individual choice framework) could be whether people where emotionally affected by imposed budget constraints.

After this has been done with multiple individuals working at different departments occupying different hierarchical functions, the same can be done but from the organisation as a whole's perspective. So the questions asked to individuals will focus on how the company in it's whole functions/progresses. It may be influential on the organizational outputs if ongoing austerity has changed rules and routines within an organization. The same goes for the ratio of serial or parallel processing a company may be doing.

After this information has gathered, it could help us in understanding why certain organizations make certain decisions that in the end could affect IE initiatives/organizations.

The second part of this research plan consists of an analysis of the resource network that the IE organization is part of. This may clarify, support or be evidence for a lot of the information gathered in the interviews. Since we are talking about a cut in subsidies, which is a resource for many IE activities (governments usually fund organizations who's activities aim to improve/not harm the environment). It may be very helpful in the research to see if their are also other sources of fundings for IE organizations. If so, then maybe austerity is not even a significant factor of disturbance for IE organizations.

To summarize, the research plan is as following:

- Individuals will be interviewed about their personal behavior and the companies behavior using the framework proposed by Jones (2003).
- This information will be put next to the perceived progress that a certain IE initiative makes and thus helps us understand if austerity was a cause for a change in certain progress of IE organizations.
- The resource network analysis of an IE organization will also help us understand how resources are distributed among IE companies.

The main research questions will be:

- how does individual behavior affect organizational actions/decision making with austerity as influential factor?
- how does interorganizational behavior change the inter organizational field with austerity as influential factor?
- how are resources distributed among relevant networks as a result from growing austerity?

Answering these questions by using the theory that has been taught to us during the SSPM course, should give us insight in whether growing austerity influences IE organizations and startups.

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. 

Feedback collected

On Branco Schippers, Business of business

You mention the concept of a business not being human, but created by humans. I think this is a very interesting concept, posing the question "are we really in control of our businesses?". We would think that ofcourse the director/ceo/founder may be responsible for the business' actions. But also this is not always true, some forces from deeper inside a business that go around the director may be the reason for certain processes. I also agree that a loss of jobs or wages is not desired, allthough this has to be put in perspective. Maybe the company has irresponsibly hired too many persons? Maybe the wages where too high already?


On Branco Schippers, Kuznets explained

Thanks for sharing this interesting view upon the urge to reduce environmental pollutions outputs. I have not yet seen it as a pyramid where certain priorities are dynamic, bound to prosperity. In that sense, when we wished for mobility we could develop a (reasonably) functional system for private car transport. Than why can we not (yet) come up with a system that attacks CO2 as a pollutant? Maybe this takes time.


On Michelle Steenmeijer, the busines of business is to increase profit

I think overall what you say is correct and I can relate to your thoughts. I’m not sure if I understand “efficiency of a product” correctly in the blog. I would think of performance of the product, being able to do more, with less. Personally I am not sure if R&D and robots and such really increas the efficiency of a product. I think a lot of R&D and applying automated techniques is done to increase production rates; more & more, not better products per sé. However I do not know the facts of this. This touches upon another interesting topic; standardising life time of products. Do companies make products that on purpose last less long?

On Michelle Steenmeijer, Materialism and lonliness

I think you picked a very accurate topic (materialism) that relates to our every day lives and the choices we make on a daily basis. It reminds me of a documentary by Alain de Botton, called “Status Anxiety”. Here, he confirms what you are saying: In a civilization where everyone should have the same chances, then why do I drive a Fiat Panda and my neighbour can drive an Audi A8? It is exactly this discrepancy in material goods that we use to read someone’s status: rich or poor.

I find the idea of materials separating people interesting, it is true that some things like the community bbq seem to fade away. Just like kids playing online games instead of playing hide and seek outside. On the other hand, also consider the social connections that can be made thanks to these technological interventions (WhatsApp, Facebook chat, online gaming). I myself am in perfect touch on a day to day basis with my friends from high school who live in different cities thanks to whatsapp, before we didn’t really know what’s going on in eachothers lives. It’s not optimal, but it’s something :)

And just to add a sprinkle of “hope” towards a better consumer market; have you heard of Peerby.nl? It’s a platform for everybody to share everything with everybody! Maybe these things will become more common the next decade.

On Josefine Rook, Friedman Proposition

Hi Josefine,
I agree that consumers can change supply. Actually, I always believe in the idea that whatever products or services there are being sold is a mirror of society. No matter how weird, polluting or green a product is, it is only produced because there is groups of people that want the products. 

So far I can only agree with what you are saying, since what you describe is a personal devolopment that you have made since the beginning of this course.It seems you learned more about your personal opinion along the way which is good!

On Josefine Rook, Rational Decision making

Hi Josefine
I think you clearly described the steps of the RAM, using Obama's decision as an example. I think it is very well applied. 

I do miss the part where you where supposed to "Write an alternative, equally plausible account, showing how these actions might result from a boundedly rational organization (à la Jones 2003)".


On Ilonka Marselis: SES

You present the subsystems clear. Just wondering, how do the the systems together protect us from earthquakes? I personally feel that one part of the system tries to limit the amount of earthquakes, but they do not protect us from them.

I see how you propose to invest in order to have a safe extraction of gas. This itself leads to a sustainable gas extraction, in that sense that the extraction of gas can sustain itself. I must say that I interpret sustainability in this context as a process that does not contribute to the greenhousegasses. Burning fossil gas I think adds to greenhousegasses.


On Tim de Vrijer: SES

I think you touched upon some promising topics that will grow of importance the coming years. What I find interesting is that symbiosis's like recycling and waste stream  collection comes with dependency on other companies/organisations. There has to be a high level of trust in order for these kind of symbiosis to work: if one company shuts down, important streams may shut down as well,  leaving other companies with problems. 


On Paulina Criollo, Nokia

Hi Paulina,

Very good and extensive blog on the Nokia video. I agree with what you are saying. I have double feelings on this way of Nokia by showing their goodwill to improve the situation. It is good that they want to improve their supplying line, however, why did they build/hire this factory in the first place?

I think the coordination system you suggest is a good one, proposing companies to develop stronger norms. I am wondering though, if this can be developed the same way in China as in Western organisations. From what I know of China, the power is very ' top-down'. The government sets the rules and the economy has to follow. Maybe it is up to the government to sharpen the norms? Or better control?

On Rebecca Joubert, Nokia

Hi rebecca,

I think your analysis on the video is accurate. I am wondering if the correct incentives may still motivate the supplier to improve the situation. Maybe in that way Nokia can still keep the same supplier. 

I miss quite a large part from the assignment: 

Is the approach taken by Nokia an effective way of diffusing sustainability criteria?

How could another coordination mechanism improve on this?

I would like to see you view upon this as well.

Kind regards,

Daniël

On Romee de Blois, Resource networks

Dear Romée,

I think you picked an interesting case that is actually regional. I found that quite hard to find actually. The warmterotonde is a good example of a regional case. You analysis is done quite well and the list of stakeholders gives a good overview and also a notion on how large this project actually is.

Concerning the network, I think you are right when saying that it consists of cliques connected through some big/powerfull actors. On your remark:"Because the government is tightly involved the level of transparency is high, creating a lot trust in this stable assembly" I would like to ask you from what perspective it is transparant? For me, complete transparancy is achieved when the organisation or coalition can show a full overview on their activities and spendings. However, I do not see for example how the much the industrial companies are being payed for their heat, or what they have to invest in the pipes in relation to the municipalities? Ofcourse this is the beginning of this project, but I am doubtfull on how transparent this project will be in the end.

I understand that you say that the roundabout is dependent on one resource, heat. Ofcourse withot heat, the purpose of this construction would be absent. However, in this context I think transferring heat is the goal, and by reaching that goal you need many different resources. For one, you need to be able to finance the pipelines. Therefore capital is an important resource. You name investments from outside correctly (like banks). 
Another important 'resource' in this case is the network allignment. In order for a project like this to become a succes, the actors involved need to achieve a high level of trust, since they become dependent from eachother. (if one company quits/goes bankrupt, the network is greatly affected).

About closing the loop, I see that this project definently is an addition to the heating efficiency of companies. However I don't think that this really is closing the loop. In my opinion, closing a loop means reaching a circular system where materials that are discarded after use are used again in the beginnning of the cycle. I think the issue here is that this is not a network of material production, but a network of heat production. And unlike materials, one cannot store heat. In this network, heat is cascaded efficiently over multiple users, after which the heat is lost in the air. 

Also I think it would have been interesting to see how the network that you described reached this cascading energy system. Why could this network specifically reach their goal?


On Hsiu-chuan lin, Resource networks.

No tekst yet.


On Jorine Vernooij, Sabatiers' Framework

Hi Jorinde,Very extensive analysis on the proposed measures. Your structure is clear and this makes the text comfortable to read. I do not have any comments for the rest.Kinds,Daniël

On Vigil Yu, Sabatiers' Framework

No tekst yet.

Coercing by NOKIA; dark marketing.

This blog post is based on the documentary "A decent business", shown in the SSPM course lecture on thursday 9th of october, 2014. The documentary is available online as well. To be able to understand the this blog post, I advice you to watch the documentary. 

I was quite amazed by the English speaking fellow who guided the ethical assessors of Nokia through the factory and was so open and even laid-back about the situation the factory was in. People being payed under minimum, fining them for being too late and not even having set up contracts with every single employee. He was telling all this, looking as if he doesn't care at all. This observation gave me the idea that this guy would get fired immediately after this documentary aired.

So why would the bloke be so indifferent about the situation? The first thing that comes to my mind, is the helpless situation the factory manager is in. He knows that whatever he says, true or false, it is somewhere on paper and can be checked. So better be honest, at least the guy knew what he was doing, as his body language suggests when exposing the factory's (illegal) activities. He does not take on the role of the victim, I give him that.

Then why is the situation so helpless? Well, NOKIA, probably your biggest client, is on your doormat with a camera crew and they insist that you open up your doors to an ethical assessment. Appearantly NOKIA strives for legitimacy. The documentary aids NOKIA in this in three different ways from my point of view:

1. Obviously NOKIA aims to spread the message "we care" to the rest of the world.
2. Appearently, they are not too scared on showing their inside practices. They even show their naked managers in the very first seconds. Literally a companies being transparent, living up to a word that in my opinion is used a lot but the definition takes many forms.
3. They even criticise themselves. In order for NOKIA to be "fair", start with yourself. This is quite the statement, practically saying nobody's perfect, but we are working on it.

The factory management also strives to be perceived as legitimate. Even the simple things as the big boss saying "all these workers are my friends" with a big smile. A few moments later the guy picks out some workers from the floor for an interview, not even bothering in asking their names. Their numbers suffice. Another way of striving for legitimacy is trying to keep the factories operations within the legal boundaries. "We can't offer our workers legal working conditions? Then we make sure that technically speaking, they all don't work here" (by not giving them contracts ofcourse).

Seems like some harcore marketing by NOKIA, right? Nokia becomes the advocate of sustainability criteria within supply chains (for mobile phones). On the other hand, why did NOKIA choose this factory in the first place? Is it not a bit shady that this ethical check is being done now? Why didn't they check the factory before they started doing business with them? Or why didn't they aid in developing the factory in such a way that all of these circumstances would have been different? This does not become clear from the documentary, so I cannot judge. However, I think the sustainability criteria are "end of the line" criteria. I think there should be clear criteria on what line you set in motion. What factory are you going to do business with and why. These are the sustainability criteria that I would like to see.

Nevertheless, Nokia strives for legitimacy and does this by applying coercive pressure on their supplier by knocking on the door with an assessor. It seems from the documentary that Nokia is the factories only buyer, since they seem to have a lot of power when walking around the factory (demanding information, interviews and meetings).

Other ways of reaching legitimacy for Nokia's supplier are mimicry and normative pressure (DiMaggio & Powell). Mimicry is a way of characteristics transmission among suppliers when a growing number of suppliers in China adopt the operations criteria that comply with Nokia (and probably more companies), resulting in other suppliers to follow this trend, mostly fueled by growing uncertanty. Normative pressure can cause characteristics between organizations or organizational fields to change from within the organisation or field. Education of more sustainable ways of operating production facilities brought along by new employees can start changes for example. A possibility would be that Nokia becomes active in the hiring process of managers of the suppliers factory in order to stimulate normative pressure by hiring persons that bring along the desired norms.