Remember me
▼ Content

Are made-to-order, sourced-to-order, and ordered-to-order, more sustainable commerce models?


Are made-to-order, sourced-to-order, and ordered-to-order, more sustainable commerce models?25-05-2024 20:36
markjfernandes
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
To have products and services ready to supply without delay, at the point of order by customers/consumers, imposes generally a carbon and environmental penalty. However, if product and service providers instead allow for there to be some delay, carbon emissions and environmental damage can be reduced.

For example, on Amazon you can have 20,000 products advertised with none of them being in stock, where when they are ordered, they are at that time sourced, or at that time made, or at that time ordered from suppliers. I use a particular Amazon supplier for spice mixes. If they have 20,000 Amazon product pages, that could mean having twenty-thousand spice-mix jars for each of the products, in stock (and in fact, maybe even more). Alternatively, if they make the spice mix/blend at the point of order, that could potentially reduce a great deal of waste, with much fewer raw materials in stock. If the supplier specifies a delivery window of a few weeks, it might even give them sufficient time to source the raw materials from other suppliers (if not in stock): that could again reduce wastage.

I have used an example that applies to online shopping (through Amazon). But these ideas could also be applied to customer-facing bricks-and-mortar shops. A customer might enter such a shop, and order some product not in stock, but advertised in the shop. When they order such product, the product then takes a couple of weeks to arrive due to being sourced from another supplier. In such a scenario, the carbon emissions associated with having fully-stocked customer-facing shopping, where some of that stock will likely have to be returned back to the original suppliers because of not being bought, should be able to be reduced (I would have thought).

These ideas are perhaps already being applied in the case of 3D printing, where instead of having a whole factory dedicated to making some part, for say a car, you simply 3D print the part when needed, at the point of order by the customer/consumer.
26-05-2024 00:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
markjfernandes wrote:
To have products and services ready to supply without delay, at the point of order by customers/consumers, imposes generally a carbon and environmental penalty.

There is no penalty for carbon or environment. Buzzword fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
However, if product and service providers instead allow for there to be some delay, carbon emissions and environmental damage can be reduced.

Carbon is not environmental damage.
markjfernandes wrote:
These ideas are perhaps already being applied in the case of 3D printing, where instead of having a whole factory dedicated to making some part, for say a car, you simply 3D print the part when needed, at the point of order by the customer/consumer.

3D printing won't work for many car parts, since you cannot print using the required materials. Many parts must withstand temperatures, pressures, vibrational, or collisions far more than any materials available for 3D printing.

Other fabrication methods are far superior for these parts.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 26-05-2024 00:23
26-05-2024 02:45
James_
★★★★★
(2273)
Into the Night wrote:
markjfernandes wrote:
To have products and services ready to supply without delay, at the point of order by customers/consumers, imposes generally a carbon and environmental penalty.

There is no penalty for carbon or environment. Buzzword fallacy.
markjfernandes wrote:
However, if product and service providers instead allow for there to be some delay, carbon emissions and environmental damage can be reduced.

Carbon is not environmental damage.
markjfernandes wrote:
These ideas are perhaps already being applied in the case of 3D printing, where instead of having a whole factory dedicated to making some part, for say a car, you simply 3D print the part when needed, at the point of order by the customer/consumer.

3D printing won't work for many car parts, since you cannot print using the required materials. Many parts must withstand temperatures, pressures, vibrational, or collisions far more than any materials available for 3D printing.

Other fabrication methods are far superior for these parts.



>> Buzzword fallacy. <<

Is that like a Gillette Ultra-Pro 4 bladed razor?

>> Carbon is not environmental damage. <<

No Duh!! Sherlock!~! Everyone knows it's the heavy metals liek mercury which is 100% toxic. CO2 is what they tell the little kiddies.




Join the debate Are made-to-order, sourced-to-order, and ordered-to-order, more sustainable commerce models?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Sustainable diet of oats, lysine, & raw local veg, for ppl in UK2105-05-2024 00:30
Is using food concentrates and food powders a sustainable practice?105-05-2024 00:02
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming4927-04-2024 04:05
Sustainable drink alternatives to coffee and tea524-04-2024 15:34
One World Order722-02-2024 01:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact