Suchergebnisse

PurposeInterest in product‐level carbon auditing and labelling has been growing in both business and government circles. The purpose of this paper is to examine the practical problems and costs associated with highly disaggregated analyses of greenhouse gas emissions from supply chains. It then weighs these problems and costs against the potential benefits of the carbon labelling of products.Design/methodology/approachThe views expressed in this paper are based on a review of relevant literature, informal discussions with senior managers and personal experience with the practices being investigated.FindingsStock‐keeping unit‐level carbon auditing of supply chains and the related carbon labelling of products will be fraught with difficulty and very costly. While simplification of the auditing process, the use of data inventories and software support may assist these processes, the practicality of applying them to all consumer products seems very doubtful. The resulting benefits to companies and consumers are also highly questionable. The main conclusion, therefore, is that product‐level carbon auditing and labelling is a "wasteful distraction" and that it would be better to devote management time and resources to other decarbonisation initiatives.Research limitations/implicationsTo date relatively few firms have carbon audited their supply chains at a product level and so industrial experience is limited. Market research on the likely behavioural response to carbon labelling is also at an early stage. There is sufficient evidence available, however, to conduct an initial critique of product level carbon auditing and labelling.Practical implicationsSome companies and government agencies should reconsider their plans for the carbon labelling of products.Originality/valueThis is the first paper in the logistics/supply chain literature to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new form of carbon footprinting and labelling. It is intended to stimulate debate among logistics academics and practitioners.

Based on Article 1024 of the Maritime Code of the Republic of Croatia (1994), and in accordance with Article 55 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), the Croatian Parliament has adopted the Decision on the Extension of the Jurisdiction of the Republic of Croatia in the Adriatic Sea at its session of October 3, 2003. By that Decision, and in accordance with Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), the specific regime of the so-called Ecological and Fisheries Protection Zone (EFPZ) of the Republic of Croatia was proclaimed. The Decision has caused big controversies in Croatia as well as between interested neighbouring countries and beyond. Due to political reasons and pressures, the Croatian authorities have abandoned the declaration of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which would have been completely in accordance with International Law of the Sea norms. When the Maritime Code was passed (1994), the regime of the EEZ was foreseen in Chapter IV, but its declaration was delayed until the decision of the Croatian Parliament. The content of the EFPZ refers only to the sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living natural resources of the waters beyond and adjacent to the Territorial Sea and jurisdiction with regard to marine scientific research, and protection and preservation of the marine environment. One of the key reasons for the declaration of the EFPZ is a great concern because of the endangerment of the living resources in the Adriatic Sea and the fear of the recent increasing non-Adriatic and non-Mediterranean fishermen's pressure, including the use of so-called ships-factories. The problem of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is especially serious. The whole variety of the living resources is excessively being exploited in the Adriatic Sea, and there is no adequate application of planning, limiting and surveillance of fishing in the part under the regime of the high seas. This tendency endangers the optimal utilization of the living resources, which affects not only the interests of the Republic of Croatia but also other Adriatic states. In case of damage on any ship carrying dangerous or harmful substances, coastal states have the right to intervene only after the accident. After proclaiming the EEZ, the coastal states have the right to stop ships to prevent a catastrophe if ships are considered to carry a potentially dangerous freight. Therefore, it is necessary for all the coastal states in the Adriatic Sea to proclaim their own EEZ. Finally, the Adriatic Sea is a closed and semi-closed sea according to the definition in Article 122 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), and due to its small dimensions, the consequences of maritime environment pollution could be great and serious. ; Peer reviewed

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "During World War I, the U.S. Army operated a large research facility to develop and test chemical weapons and explosives in the area that became the Spring Valley neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Buried ordnance, discovered there in 1993, led to the designation by the Department of Defense (DOD) of 61 acres as a formerly used defense site. Through fiscal year 2001, DOD had spent over $50 million to identify and remove hazards at the site. The government entities involved have identified and removed a large number of hazards, but the number remaining is unknown. The health risks influencing cleanup activities at Spring Valley are the possibility of injury or death from exploding or leaking ordnance and containers of chemical warfare agents and potential long-term health problems from exposure to arsenic-contaminated soil. As of April 2002, the U.S. Army estimated that the remaining cleanup activities would cost $7.1 million and take 5 years. But these estimates are unreliable. GAO summarized this report in congressional testimony (See GAO-02-836T)."