sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Can NZ’s supply chain build enough resilience and sustainability to survive the next global crisis?

Business / opinion
Can NZ’s supply chain build enough resilience and sustainability to survive the next global crisis?
covid
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted New Zealand’s dependency on global supply chains. Zhao Gang/Getty Images.

By Julia Fehrer, Christina Stringer, Sunny Kareem & Timofey Shalpegin*

New Zealand is highly reliant on trade – particularly on maritime routes, which are lifelines for exports and imports. Key sectors such as agriculture, construction, and wholesale and retail trade depend heavily on this global network.

External events can severely disrupt the flow of goods, delay deliveries or damage critical infrastructure.

But a crisis like the COVID pandemic can also disrupt business commitments to sustainability goals such as reducing carbon emissions, minimising waste and improving resource efficiency.

This is important, because several major New Zealand companies have introduced sustainability measures into their operations over the past decade.

Fonterra, for example, adopted low-carbon logistics and distribution practices. Zespri uses blockchain technology to improve the transparency of its sustainable practices and enhance tracking across its supply chain. Air New Zealand partners with local suppliers and adopts initiatives to lower its carbon emissions.

In our recent research, we reviewed 287 studies on supply chains. We identified key tensions between efficiency and sustainability, and how major disruptions to supply chains and operations can swing the balance between the two.

On one hand, businesses are pressured to maintain lean, cost-effective operations. On the other, there is a growing recognition of the need to build resilience and sustainability, particularly in the face of climate change.

Traditional strategies

New Zealand’s supply chains are susceptible to disruptions from natural disasters (such as earthquakes and floods), geopolitical tensions and global health crises.

Businesses have historically responded in a variety of ways: diversifying suppliers, increasing inventory buffers and securing alternative transport routes.

The use of technology, such as radio frequency identification, has played a crucial role in tracking goods across the supply chain. It provides real-time visibility and accurate inventory management.

Blockchain is becoming a key tool for making supply chains more sustainable. This technology uses a digital ledger to keep information safe and easy to trace.

But the ongoing technological innovation risks disadvantaging people and businesses with limited resources and capabilities along the supply chain.

Embracing a circular economy

During the pandemic, businesses experienced shortages of critical supplies, delays in shipments and fluctuating demand. This forced them to temporarily abandon long-term sustainability strategies in favour of short-term survival tactics.

This made sense from a business perspective. But to build more resilient and sustainable supply chains, businesses will need to move beyond traditional strategies.

Our research found integrating circular economy principles into supply chain management can help create a buffer for businesses.

The circular economy model focuses on minimising waste – keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible. There is also a focus on regenerating natural systems to foster economic, social and environmental resilience.

Companies can reduce their reliance on external supply chains by focusing on reusing materials, creating closed-loop systems with regional partners and by boosting the technologies already in place.

By fostering stronger links with local suppliers and focusing on regional sourcing, businesses can reduce their exposure to global risks. This will also help build more self-sufficient supply chain ecosystems.

Building sustainable supply chains requires investing in advanced technologies, such as blockchain and artificial intelligence. But implementing these technologies should be done carefully and in stages to minimise disruption. Going slowly can also allow for the inclusion of all supply chain partners in these technological transitions.

The way forward

New Zealand’s supply chain future hinges on greater collaboration between everyone involved, including businesses, policymakers and communities.

In practice, this means working together to build systems that are not only efficient and cost-effective but also resilient and sustainable.

Equally, resilient supply chains require regional manufacturing ecosystems. To mitigate the risks from global supply chain disruptions, it’s essential to support local manufacturing, even when offshore manufacturing costs are lower.

This will require government support and strategic investment in regional manufacturing innovation.

While New Zealand’s supply chains face significant challenges, there are great opportunities to reshape them for a more resilient and sustainable future.

By integrating circular economy principles, using advanced technologies and fostering regional collaboration, New Zealand can build supply chains that are prepared for future crises and which also contribute to the country’s sustainability goals.The Conversation


*Julia Fehrer, Associate Professor, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Christina Stringer, Associate Professor, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Sunny Kareem, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Timofey Shalpegin, Lecturer, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

7 Comments

This is what you get, when you fail to stipulate physics for your first-year economics intake. 

'Fonterra, for example, adopted low-carbon logistics and distribution practices'. Define low-carbon. Less, maybe, but low? Fonterra is still in the '10 calories of oil into 1 calorie of food' brigade.

 'Air New Zealand partners with local suppliers and adopts initiatives to lower its carbon emissions.'  Maybe this paper was submitted before AirNZ decided to default? 

Circularising of materials/resources is imperative - but that takes energy, which cannot be circularised (physics again; entropy applies). 

Resilient and sustainable are used here as buzz-words - unsurprising given the physics-blindness of economics, as-taught. Sustainable is really: Able to be long-term maintained. That does not include the drawing-down of non-renewable resources, or the faster-than-renewal drawing-down of renewable resource, or the filling faster than absorption-rate capability, of sinks. 

One wonders how this stuff gets through - but I guess, energy-blind peers....

Up
5

I have never seen actionable, useful commentary from you - is it wrong to celebrate that progress is being made? 

Do we always have to be Eeyore and state that things aren't perfect? 

Addressing a point you raise, that energy cannot be circularised - energy isn't lost, it is always conserved and this is basic physics 101. The conversion of energy into the preferred output, be that heat or light, that is the process we need to improve. Matter is also conserved. Not sure what you are trying to say by stating entropy applies here as circularising of materials/resources is very much achievable in a closed circuit environment - it's just a matter of time - and we do harness energy from outside our circuit by way of heat and light from outside of our atmosphere on Earth (the sun). 

By very nature of having this input we are able to refute your core thesis which you repeat.  The presence of an external energy source being the sun allows us to eventually reach a point where we have net-zero.

Please consider using less non-sustainable resources such as electricity to post the same message on every article.

 

 

Up
2

Thank you for the reply - at least it's a thoughtful engagement; I will reply in kind :)

Less is still more: adding less carbon is still ADDING to that already up there. No use unless you can cease/reverse. 

Conserved is not the way to see energy; it is dissipated in the direction of low-grade heat (too low to be usefully collated - the collation takes more energy than extracting work would give back. The heat from a once-hot cup of coffee is still in the room - but you will NEVER get it back into the cup - entropy flows one way). 

Carnot and the 2nd Lw of thermodynamics tell us there are upper limits to every work-extracted-from-energy-transfomation - there is an upper energy-efficiency ratio in all cases. 

Matter is dissipated, it may well still exist, but when there's a molecule... here, and a molecule... there, it takes too much energy to gather stuff up. Modern cell-phones are essentially un-recyclable, and certainly will be ex fossil-energy. 

No, the full circularisation of materials is NOT achievable; never was. Takes too much high-quality energy, and we're drawing that down too. We used to use energy with an EROEI of perhaps 100:1 (took one barrel of oil, to extract 100). We are down in the 'teens, perhaps lower, and 'renewables' don't do it better (hydro looks good once built, but nobody will ever build a dam using a dam's power - or if they did, it wouldn't do anything else like lighting a city...). So we won't ever regurgitate landfills - only the very very poor will find that an option - and maybe not even then. 

Yes, there is solar energy input (and a balancing low-grade-heat output. Well, nearly; we're getting warmer). But the most efficient harnessing of it (photosynthesis, high-end PV) doesn't get to 30%, and starts with 1kw/sqm (so 300 watts capture per sq m, best, in direct sunlight - no cloud, no night). Then you have to transmit, store, retrieve and degrade (extract work, add entropy). I've been pushing energy efficiencies (passive solar, PV) for 20 years now - fairly sure of its limitations. 

Allow us to have net-zero what? (if you're talking carbon, you need to read/learn more (this is a polycrisis, not a uni-one).

Basically, we've been living on millions of years of stored solar energy, burning through it in a 300-year bonanza. We ADDED it to real-time solar (food, wood) and will have to learn to live on the latter alone. Most of what we do now, won't be being done. 

Up
0

Answer = No, because JIT is back with a vengeance.
 

No one wants to pay for warehousing, on-shoring, or stump up for 3 months’ stock. 

Being a country that has outsourced almost everything and is a low priority buyer at the end of long supply chains, we are set up to fail in the next global disruption. 

Up
2

That's interesting. Can you give some examples of just in time being back with a vengeance?

Up
0

Sorry no - anecdotal based on my work place. People aren’t talking resilience any more, it’s all bottom-dollar buying with the inevitable reliance on China and the resultant shipping requirement. 

Up
0

My local New World  stocks noticeably lower amounts on shelves. There are more shelf stackers as goods move. They frequently run out of some common items. In response I may buy more of these when in stock which means our pantry tends to carry more non perishables and I need more storage space. I went to purchase a tv box from the Xaomi NZ store to continue watching netflix on my soon to be 'un-supported' ageing TV - out of stock! Got it from Ali express, delivered in 6 days.  Still out of stock in the NZ store.  I buy quite a lot of household/tech/hobby stuff from Ali. Its now usual to receive a weeks worth of  multiple vendor orders all at the same time in one courier drop. So the delivery system is able act smartly and improve efficiency.

Up
0