Green Purchasing Strategies:

Trends and Implications

BY

Hokey Min and William P. Galle

IN BRIEF
Hokey Min is an Associate Professor of
Logistics and Operations Management at
Auburn University. He earned his Ph.D.
degree in management science from Ohio
State University. His research interests
include logistics, materials and purchasing
management, international operations
management, and service quality.
William Galle is Professor of Management
and Coordinator of Continuous Quality
Improvement at the University of New
Orleans. He earned his Ph.D. degree from
the University of Arkansas. Dr. Galle is
currently researching trends in electronic
purchasing.

Over the last two decades, growing concerns about ecosystem quality
have led to a renewed interest in environmentalism. Purchasing professionals should also be concerned and need to rethink purchasing
strategies which have traditionally neglected environmental impacts.
To help foster environmentally concerned purchasing strategies, this
article presents the findings of an empirical survey of NAPM members in firms with a high level of awareness and frequent applications
of green purchasing. Environmental factors are identified that may
reshape supplier selection decisions. The role of green purchasing
in reducing and eliminating waste is discussed. Also, effects of
green purchasing on packaging decisions are explored. Finally,
some important practical guidelines are suggested which may enhance
the effectiveness of regulatory compliance, pollution prevention, and
resource recovery.
BACKGROUND

apid environmental deterioration over the last few decades has

dramatically increased consumer awareness of environmental
problems. As consumers become increasingly critical of industrys
reactive environmental policies, a growing number of companies are
developing company-wide environmental programs and green (environmentally sound) products. Recognizing the increased importance of
environmental programs to market success, firms in the United States
are expected to invest more than $200 billion during the 1990s to make
their products green. 1 The Marketing Intelligence Service also
reported that the share of green products as a percentage of total new
products introduced in the first half of 1990 rose to 9.2 percent from
0.5 percent in 1985.2 Increased investment in green products alone,
however, does not guarantee a successful environmental program.
The establishment of a company-wide environmental program should
begin with source reduction of solid wastes. Examples of such wastes

Module 4

10

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials

Management Copyright August 1997, by the
National Association of Purchasing Management, Inc.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Richard Boyle of the Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies
for his assistance and support for this research. The authors also wish to thank the NAPM members
who responded to the questionnaires and provided valuable data for this research.

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

include packaging materials, metal scrap, food

waste, yard waste, and organic waste. Among
these, packaging materials account for 30.3 percent
of the municipal waste stream, the largest single
component.3 Considering that packaging materials
represent a major source of solid waste, an effective
green packaging program is vital to the success of
the overall environmental program. Leading U.S.
companies such as Du Pont, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo,
Procter & Gamble, H.J. Heinz, and International
Paper have launched various forms of green packaging programs through the introduction of recyclable and reusable packages.4
Green packaging, in turn, cannot be totally successful without the systematic reduction of
upstream waste sources associated with purchased
materials/parts and their packaging (see Figure 1).
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, et al.,5 observed that waste and
emissions caused by the supply chain have become
the main sources of serious environmental problems including global warming and acid rain. Furthermore, the importance of the supply chain in
improving overall environmental performance has
been recognized in environmental standards such
as BS 7750 on Environmental Management Systems

and the parallel European Union (EU) regulation on

eco-management and auditing.6 Thus, one of the
most effective ways to tackle environmental problems is to focus on waste prevention and control at
the source through green purchasing. This sentiment is echoed by purchasing professionals. In a
1994 survey, purchasing managers picked environmental and regulatory costs as their second most
important economic concerns.7
Formulation of a green purchasing strategy is
not a simple matter. Green purchasing may result
in increased material cost and qualified suppliers
may be limited because of the need for non-traditional materials and parts. In light of these challenges, this research addresses the following
questions about green purchasing strategies:
1. How knowledgeable are purchasing professionals about environmental advances in
products, parts, materials, and packaging?
2. What are the most prevalent green purchasing strategies among source reduction and
waste management programs?
3. Do state and federal environmental regulations significantly influence green purchasing
efforts?

FIGURE 1

CLASSIFICATION OF GREEN PURCHASING STRATEGIES

Green Purchasing
Strategies

Source Reduction

Waste Elimination

Recycling
(On-site and

Source
Reuse

Changes and

Off-site)

Biodegrading

Control

Input Material

Low-Density

Purification and

Packaging

Substitution

Design

Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

Nontoxic

Scrapping or

Incineration

Dumping

11

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

4. What kinds of green packaging materials are

available?
5. How do purchasing professionals work with
suppliers to reduce upstream waste?
6. How do environmental partnerships affect
supplier evaluation and selection?

green purchasing initiatives, the current finding

implies a growing awareness of green purchasing
among purchasing professionals. Somewhat surprisingly, however, less than half of the respondents
(46.2 percent) said their firms had environmental
mission statements. This may be due, in part, to
the unavailability of defined green purchasing
strategies which can lead to more environmentally
conscious choices of supply sources.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To help answer these questions, a survey questionnaire was developed for selected industry groups
which are heavy producers of scrap and waste
materials. These industries include chemicals (26.6
percent of the responding firms), food (12.3 percent), printing (9.8 percent), paper (9.2 percent),
oil/gas extraction (6.7 percent), textiles (3.9 percent),
furniture (3.9 percent), petroleum refineries (2.9 percent), lumber (2.5 percent), apparel (1.9 percent),
and others (20 percent). The survey was sent to a
random sample of 3,000 NAPM members employed
in those industries. From this sample, a total of 527
responses were received, a response rate of 17.6 percent. The Statistical Packages for Social Sciences
(SPSSX) was used to analyze the data.8

INFLUENCE OF GREEN PURCHASING ON

SUPPLIER SELECTION

Recent world-wide polls show that consumers are

increasingly in favor of green products.10 For example, a survey of 400 Midwestern consumers in the
United States indicated that 312 of the respondents
would be very likely or likely to switch to more
environmentally friendly food brands.11 Many firms
have viewed this heightened environmental consciousness among consumers as a great marketing
opportunity. Because purchasing is at the beginning
of the green supply chain, green marketing efforts
cannot be successful without integrating the companys environmental goals with purchasing activities. Accordingly, purchasing professionals need to
address the relationship between environmental
factors and supplier selection.

Most of the sample firms (90 percent) had more

than 100 employees; 52.7 percent had more than
500. Fifty percent employed more than four purchasing professionals. Annual purchasing volume
of most sample firms (97.4 percent) ranged from $1
million to over $1 billion. The majority were in the
$1 million to $300 million range (67.2 percent).
Finally, a majority of respondents (76.8 percent)
indicated that they were familiar with the concept
of green purchasing.

This research examined the influence of environmental factors on supplier selection strategies. As
shown in Table I, the most important influences on
supplier selection are potential liability, followed
by cost associated with the disposal of hazardous
material, and compliance with state and federal
environmental regulations. The importance of the
factors may stem from fear of liability litigation
and fines and subsequent negative publicity. For
example, the Clean Air Amendments have provided broad enforcement authority enabling the

Most of the respondents (84.4 percent) indicated

that they have participated in some form of green
purchasing initiative. In contrast with an earlier
purchasing survey9 indicating that only 40 percent
of the purchasing professionals were involved in
TABLE I

KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECT A BUYING FIRMS CHOICE OF SUPPLIERS

Factors

Average Degree of Importance1

Raw Rank

Adjusted Rank2

Potential liability for disposal of hazardous materials

1.488 (0.966)

Cost for disposal of hazardous materials

1.703 (1.073)

State environmental regulations

1.844 (1.111)

Federal environmental regulations

1.852 (1.104)

Cost of environmentally friendly goods

2.135 (1.046)

Cost of environmentally friendly packages

2.145 (1.047)

Buying firms environmental mission

2.420 (1.288)

Suppliers advances in providing environmentally friendly packages

2.640 (1.115)

Suppliers advances in developing environmentally friendly goods

2.745 (1.102)

Environmental partnership with suppliers

2.829 (1.190)

10

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Scale: 5 = not at all important, 1 = extremely important
Note: The same adjusted rank indicates no statistically significant difference in means at p = 0.05.

12

Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to issue field citations and seek civil and
criminal penalties against polluters.12 Furthermore,
the environmental regulations in the United States
are very strict and complicated, encompassing
95,000 different state and federal environmental
protection laws and regulations. These results are
somewhat congruent with Monczka and Trents
conclusion that one of the most important future
concerns for purchasing management is the impact of
environmental regulation on purchasing activities.13
As purchasing professionals become increasingly attentive to environmental regulations, they
have begun to perform environmental compliance
audits to review applicable environmental regulations, identify new restrictions, and evaluate how
environmental initiatives help their companies
conform to evolving regulatory guidelines. More
than half (57.8 percent) of the respondents to this
survey indicated that their company had an environmental auditing program. On the other hand,
only 31.9 percent of the respondents include a suppliers environmental commitment as part of their
supplier quality assurance criteria.
THE ROLE OF GREEN PURCHASING IN
SOURCE REDUCTION

Effective source reduction strategies should reduce

the amount or change the type of waste generated
at the beginning of the supply chain through recycling, reuse, and source changes and control (see
Figure 1). Purchasing can enhance the effectiveness of a source reduction strategy in a number of
ways such as:
1. reducing the purchased volume of items that
are difficult to dispose of or are harmful to
the ecosystem
2. reducing the use of hazardous virgin materials by purchasing a higher percentage of recycled or reused content
3. requiring that suppliers minimize unnecessary packaging and use more biodegradable
or returnable packaging14
In this study, respondents were asked to indicate
the frequency of use of three strategies which
could be used to reduce the sources of upstream
waste. These results are shown in Table IIA.

in Table III, (see page 14) frequently recycled commodities are paper, cardboard, aluminum, pallets,
plastics, and ferrous metal.
Reuse

The next common strategy for source reduction is

reuse (see Table IIA). While only 37 percent of the
respondents said they either frequently or somewhat frequently utilized reuse, 67.6 percent said
their firms asked their employees to separate
reusables from other waste. One explanation for
the lack of the reuse strategy is that it requires the
use of a product or part in its same form for the
same use, but wear and tear resulting from the
previous use may make many non-durable
products or parts unreusable. As such, reuse seems
to be restricted to more durable commodities, such
as pallets, cardboards, and paper (see Table IV,
page 14). The popularity of pallets for reuse may
be attributed to their sturdier design (e.g., blockstyle) and ease of handling.16
THE ROLE OF GREEN PURCHASING IN
WASTE ELIMINATION

Waste elimination strategies may not necessarily

prevent pollution, but they can simplify waste disposal at landfills and incinerators. These strategies
include scrapping, sorting for nontoxic incineration, and biodegradable packaging. While sorting
for nontoxic incineration and biodegradable packaging are not widely used by the respondents,
nearly half (48.9 percent) either frequently or
somewhat frequently scrap or dump waste that
cannot be reclaimed. The somewhat frequent use
TABLE II A

MAJOR WASTE SOURCE REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Strategies

Average Frequency of Use1

Rank2

Recycling

1.832 (1.075)

Reuse

2.865 (1.282)

Low-density packaging

3.169 (1.278)

TABLE II B

MAJOR WASTE ELIMINATION STRATEGIES

Average Frequency
of Use1

Raw
Rank

Adjusted
Rank3

Scrapping or dumping

2.571 (1.228)

Sorting for nontoxic incineration

3.248 (1.513)

Biodegradable packaging

3.437 (1.349)

Recycling

Survey results indicate that 73.8 percent of the

respondents either frequently or somewhat frequently use recycling for source reduction. This
may be due in part to the more than 400 solid
waste and recycling laws enacted by state governments in the United States.15

Strategies

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Scale: 5 = never used, 1 = frequently used
2
Note: The difference between all of the means is statistically significant at p = 0.05.
3
Note: The same adjusted rank indicates no statistically significant difference in means
at p = 0.05.
1

Furthermore, 93.8 percent of the responding

firms indicated that they asked their employees to
separate recyclables from other waste. As shown
Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

13

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

TABLE III

FREQUENCY OF RECYCLED COMMODITIES

Commodities

Frequency (in percent)*

Rank

Paper

16.3%

Cardboard

13.8%

Aluminum

12.5%

Pallets

11.9%

Plastic

8.1%

Ferrous metal

7.4%

Motor oil

7.1%

Non-ferrous metal

6.2%

Glass

4.7%

Wooden structure

4.0%

10

Air bubble packaging

2.9%

11

Others

2.1%

12

Corrugated foam

1.4%

13

Syringes

0.8%

14

Vinyl

0.6%

15

Graphite

0.2%

16

*Note: Frequency represents the percentage of the responding firms that recycled each commodity.

TABLE IV

FREQUENCY OF REUSED COMMODITIES

Commodities

Frequency (in percent)*

Rank

Pallets

25.8%

Cardboard

14.5%

Paper

14.3%

Air bubble packaging

9.6%

Wooden structure

5.8%

Aluminum

5.2%

Plastic

4.6%

Motor oil

4.1%

Ferrous metal

4.0%

Others

3.5%

10

Non-ferrous metal

2.9%

11

Corrugated foam

2.7%

12

Glass

2.0%

13

Syringes

0.5%

14

Vinyl

0.3%

15

Graphite

0.1%

16

*Note: Frequency represents the percentage of the responding firms that reused each
commodity.

of scrapping may be associated with the availability of investment recovery programs which assist
purchasing professionals in the most profitable
disposal of their scrap. Investment recovery programs are organized or sponsored by both profit
14

and non-profit organizations. These organizations

include the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries,
Industrial Materials Exchange (IMEX), National
Association for the Exchange of Industrial
Resources (NAEIR), Gifts In Kind America, and
the California Integrated Waste Management
Boards California Materials Exchange (CALMAX).
According to Murphree, 17 there were nearly 30
waste exchange agencies throughout the United
States in 1993 which helped purchasing professionals divert scrap otherwise destined for landfills
or incinerators. Nonetheless, waste elimination
strategies are not as frequently used as waste
source reduction strategies.
INFLUENCING FACTORS IN GREEN
PACKAGING

As discussed earlier, packaging represents over 30

percent of municipal solid waste and it is growing
in proportion. In an effort to reduce packaging
waste at landfills, much of the recent environmental
legislation around the world is directed toward
packaging. Germanys Green Dot Program of 1991
requires shippers to take full responsibility for the
disposal of transport packaging. The German law
specifies that shippers should collect, process, and
recycle 95 percent of transport packaging.18 Both the
state of Wisconsin and the city of Toronto ban the
disposal of certain types of packaging waste such as
expanded polystyrene (EPS) and wood pallets.19
Furthermore, the United Nations performanceoriented packaging requirements mandate that
buyers should know the type of hazard posed by
transport packages.20
Purchasing professionals face the challenge of
protecting items from shipping damage while
reducing wasteful, excessive, and non-recyclable
packaging. To determine how this challenge is met,
this research addressed two specific questions:
1. What factors affect the buying firms green
packaging strategy?
2. What effect does green packaging have on the
type of packaging materials selected?
As shown in Table V, the respondents indicated
that compliance with environmental packaging
legislation, package cost, and the nontoxicity and
recyclability of packages are among the most
important factors affecting green packaging. The
significance of environmental regulations to green
packaging is due to various economic incentives
such as deposits, taxes, bans, labeling, recycling,
manifests, and discharge licenses/permits. Since
most of these economic incentives tie the ultimate
cost of packaging disposal to the waste generator,
regulatory concerns are, to some degree, intertwined with cost concerns.
The second principal issue of green packaging is
the cost associated with packaging materials and
Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

TABLE V

KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECT A BUYERS GREEN PACKAGING EFFORTS

Factors

Average Degree of Importance1

Raw Rank

Adjusted Rank2

Conform to regulations on hazardous items

1.346 (0.665)

Package material cost

1.625 (0.736)

Package disposal cost

1.754 (0.867)

Nontoxic elements

1.805 (0.932)

Recyclability

1.847 (0.897)

Reusability

2.263 (1.096)

Biodegradability

2.512 (1.143)

Low-density

2.784 (1.062)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Scale: 5 = not at all important, 1 = extremely important
2
Note: The same adjusted rank indicates no statistically significant difference in means at p = 0.05.

disposal. The importance of packaging material

cost may stem from the fact that environmental
advances in packaging often require new designs
and materials and consequently increase package
material cost. For instance, the use of some innovative packages, such as high density polyethylene
pallets, moisture absorbing desiccant packets,
hydraulic pressured compact film, and regenerated cellulose film can escalate package material
cost, but increase durability, recyclability, reusability, and biodegradability.21 Package disposal cost is
another important concern in that it is constantly
rising due to shrinkages in disposal capacity (i.e.,
landfills) across the United States.
The survey asked the respondents to indicate
which types of packaging are environmentally
friendly. The most frequent responses were corrugated fiberboard cases, paper balers, and wood
crates, boxes, and baskets (see Table VI), all traditional forms of package materials. This finding can
be explained in two ways. First, 64.9 percent of the
respondents believe that green packaging does not
have to be significantly different from traditional
packaging. This implies that purchasing professionals green packaging strategy may not include
the latest technological advances in packaging
design and materials. Second, traditional packing
materials provide good product protection and yet
their material cost is low compared with more
innovative and environmentally sound packaging
such as polyethylene films.22
OBSTACLES TO EFFECTIVE GREEN
PURCHASING

Although green purchasing has become a daily

concern for many purchasing professionals, a
number of obstacles may hinder effective green
purchasing efforts. The respondents were asked to
rate the severity of several obstacles. The responses
are shown in Table VII (see page 16).

Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

The three most serious obstacles are all based on

costs and revenues: high cost of environmental
programs, uneconomical recycling, and uneconomical reuse. This result is contradictory to Cavinatos observation that public policy in the 1990s
is likely to emphasize environmental and social
considerations, rather than economic considerations.23 This result also implies that many purchasing
professionals do not fully recognize the potential
economic benefits of green purchasing. Green purchasing programs can create economic value, such
as reduced disposal and liability costs, while conserving resources and improving the companys
public image. Nevertheless, many purchasing professionals seem to be dissuaded from green purchasing programs due in part to a misconception
that such programs are expensive to initiate
TABLE VI

TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PACKAGING

Percent of Respondents
Indicating Each as
Types

Environmentally Friendly

Rank

Corrugated fiberboard cases

18.3%

Paper balers

13.2%

Wood crates, boxes, and baskets

12.1%

Palletized cardboards or foams

9.3%

4 (tie)

Multiwall paper sacks

9.3%

4 (tie)

Steel, plastic, and fiber drums

9.2%

Barrels

6.9%

Polyethylene films

5.8%

Steel, plastic pails, and wood kegs

5.6%

Plastic film bags

4.9%

Custom-built disposable woods or foams

3.4%

10

Polyvinyl chloride films

1.1%

11

Others

1.1%

12
15

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

TABLE VII

OBSTACLES TO EFFECTIVE GREEN PURCHASING

Variables

Average Seriousness1

Raw Rank

Adjusted Rank2

High cost of environmental programs

1.832 (0.917)

Uneconomical recycling

1.964 (0.977)

Uneconomical reusing

2.028 (0.996)

Lack of management commitment

2.355 (1.201)

Lack of buyer awareness

2.453 (1.012)

Lack of supplier awareness

2.541 (0.977)

Lack of company-wide environmental standards or auditing programs

2.583 (1.190)

Loose state environmental regulation

2.987 (1.156)

Loose federal environmental regulation

3.005 (1.154)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Scale: 5 = no problem at all, 1 = very serious
Note: The same adjusted rank indicates no statistically significant difference in means at p = 0.05.

and implement. Dassapa and Maggioni24 argued

that recycled material is usually less expensive to
purchase than comparable virgin materials and
sometimes can lower capital and operating costs
for manufacturing facilities. Furthermore, firms
that participate in recycling programs often receive
tax credits and exemptions from some state governments.25 Apparently a hidden obstacle to green
purchasing is the lack of systematic methods to aid
purchasing professionals in accurately measuring
benefits and costs.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS

This section summarizes some of the major issues

with green purchasing and develops practical guidelines for green-minded purchasing professionals.
First, current green purchasing strategies seem
to be reactive in that they try to avoid violations
of environmental statues, rather than embedding
environmental goals within the long-term corporate policy. The linkage between green purchasing
and supplier quality assurance is still weak.
Nonetheless, the respondents concern over environmental compliances is understandable given
the added environmental responsibilities imposed
on waste generators at the beginning of the supply
chain. The environmental compliance process is
complicated and environmental liabilities are
based on both willful and negligent violations.
Thus, neither ignorance nor simple carelessness
can free violators from serious convictions and
fines. To make matters more complex, environmental statues are often enforced by several different federal agencies and state governments under
somewhat different compliance rules.
Perhaps the best response to this situation is to
develop more aggressive, proactive environmental
audit programs. As a guideline, the following
audit process is suggested:
16

1. Identify applicable environmental statutes.

2. Develop standard checklists for environmental
compliances.
3. Organize an audit team comprised of both
internal management and outside third-party
inspectors (e.g., private contracting consultants).
4. Maintain records related to handling, storage,
use, and disposal of waste.
5. Assess the nature and degree of potential violations and liabilities.
6. Develop a corrective action plan and monitor
its progress.
Second, purchasing professionals cited recycling
as the most popular waste source reduction strategy. For this strategy to be effective, buying firms
need to specify their recycling policy involving
collection, separation, storage, transportation,
reprocessing, and remanufacturing. For example,
purchasing professionals need to determine which
items are recycled, who collects recyclables, how
recyclables are sorted, and where recyclables are
sold back or remanufactured. Such a policy should
also accompany comprehensive education and
training programs for all participants.
Third, despite world-wide legislative efforts
which enforce the progressive reduction of packaging waste, most purchasing professionals still do
not feel the urgency of pursuing innovative package
materials and design. The survey results showed
that innovative methods such as low-density and
biodegradable packaging are seldom used by purchasing professionals as an important part of green
purchasing strategy. Innovative packaging, however, is certain to increase its role in green purchasing
because a growing number of consumers are willing to buy biodegradable packages, and the United
States Congress has contemplated legislation
which mandates the use of biodegradable packages.26 In response to such changes, purchasing
professionals should consider making systematic
Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management , Summer 1997

comparisons between traditional and innovative

packaging in terms of their effects on ecosystem
quality, economic consequences, and resource
recovery. Those comparisons will require careful
cost/benefit analysis and detailed environmental
performance guidelines.

23. J. Cavinato, Reading the Regulatory Tea Leaves, Dis tribution, (January 1991), pp. 68-70.
24. V. Dassapa and C. Maggioni, Reuse and Recycling Reverse Logistics Opportunities, (Oak Brook, IL: Council of
Logistics Management, 1993).
25. Stilwell, Canty, Kopf, and Montrone, op. cit., 1991.
26. S. Selke, op. cit., 1990.

REFERENCES
1. A.O. Garvin, The 12 Commandments of Environmental
Compliance, Industrial Engineering, vol. 25, no. 9 (1993),
pp. 18-22.
2. V.N. Bhat, Green Ma rketing Begins with Green
Design, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, vol.
8, no. 4 (1993), pp. 26-31.
3. Packaging in the 90s - The Environmental Impact,
Modern Materials Handling, (June 1990), p. 54.
4. E.J. Stilwell, R.C. Canty, P.W. Kopf, and A.M. Montrone,
Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress,
(New York: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1991).
5. J.M. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, P. van Beck, L. Hordijk, L.N.
Van Wassenhove, Interactions between Operational
Research and Environmental Management, European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 85 (1995), pp. 229-243.
6. L. Webb, Green Purchasing: Forging a New Link in the
Supply Chain, PPI: Pulp and Paper International, vol. 36,
no. 6 (1994), pp. 52-56.
7. J. Carbone, CFC Phase-Out Spurs Green Purchasing,
Electronic Business Buyer, (July 1994), p. 91.
8. SPSSX Users Guide (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).
9. Its Not Easy Buying Green, Purchasing, (December 16,
1993), pp. 31-32.
10. P. Winsemius and U. Guntram, Responding to the
Environmental Challenge, Business Horizon, (MarchApril 1992), pp. 12-20; L.M. Litvan, Going Green in
the 90s, Nations Business, (February 1995), pp. 30-32.
11. T. Eisenhart, Theres Gold in that Garbage!, Business
Marketing, (November 1990), pp. 20-24.
12. M.P. Last, Legally Bound to Mother Earth, N A P M
Insights, (March 1991), p. 8.
13. R.M. Monczka and R.J. Trent, Purchasing and Sourcing
Strategy: Trends and Implications (Tempe, AZ: Center for
Advanced Purchasing Studies, 1995).
14. J.R. Stock, Reverse Logistics (Oak Brook, IL.: Council of
Logistics Management, 1992).
15. State Recycling Laws Update, Year-end Edition (Riverdale,
MD: Raymond Communications, 1992).
16. J.A. Cooke, Block vs. Stringer: Which Pallet is Best,
Traffic Management, (February 1993), pp. 36-38.
17. J. Murphree, One Purchasers Trash is Anothers Treasure, NAPM Insights, (August 1993), pp. 24-26.
18. C. Boerner and K. Chilton, The Folly of Demand-side
Recycling, Environment, vol. 36, no. 1 (1994), pp. 7-32
19. T. Andel, New Ways to Take Out the Trash, Trans portation and Distribution, (May 1993), pp. 24-30.
20. T.G. Gorny, Performance-Oriented Packaging Requirements: Dont Be Unprepared, NAPM Insights, (November 1990), p. 4.
21. See for example T. Andel, The Environments Right for
a Packaging Plan, Transportation and Distribution,
(November 1993), pp. 66-74; S. Selke, Biodegradation and
Packaging, (Wiltshire, Great Britain: Pira Information
Services, 1990).
22. See for example J.J. Coyle, E.J. Bardi, and C.J. Langley,
Jr., The Management of Business Logistics, (St. Paul, MN:
West Publishing Co., 1992).

Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications

17