Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots

Background, aim, and scopeThis paper compares the life cycle assessment (LCA) of two packaging alternatives used for baby food produced by Nestlé: plastic pot and glass jar. The study considers the environmental impacts associated with packaging systems used to provide one baby food meal in France, Spain, and Germany in 2007. In addition, alternate logistical scenarios are considered which are independent of the two packaging options. The 200-g packaging size is selected as the basis for this study. Two other packaging sizes are assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Because results are intended to be disclosed to the public, this study underwent a critical review by an external panel of LCA experts.Materials and methodsThe LCA is performed in accordance to the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The packaging systems include the packaging production, the product assembly, the preservation process, the distribution, and the packaging end-of-life. The production of the content (before preservation process), as well as the use phase are not taken into account as they are considered not to change when changing packaging. The inventory is based on data obtained from the baby food producer and the suppliers, data from the scientific literature, and data from the ecoinvent database. Special care is taken to implement a system expansion approach for end-of-life open and closed loop recycling and energy production (ISO 14044). A comprehensive impact assessment is performed using two life cycle impact assessment methodologies: IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. An extensive uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo as well as an extensive sensitivity study are performed on the inventory and the reference flows, respectively.ResultsWhen looking at the impacts due to preservation process and packaging (considering identical distribution distances), we observe a small but significant environmental benefit of the plastic pot system over the glass jar system. Depending on the country, the impact is reduced by 14% to 27% for primary energy, 28% to 31% for global warming, 31% to 34% for respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification. The environmental benefit associated with the change in packaging mainly results from (a) production of plastic pot (including its end-of-life; 43% to 51% of total benefit), (b) lighter weight of packaging positively impacting transportation (20% to 35% of total benefit), and (c) new preservation process permitted by the plastic system (23% to 34% of total benefit). The jar or pot (including cap or lid, cluster, stretch film, and label) represents approximately half of the life cycle impacts, the logistics approximately one fourth, and the rest (especially on-site energy, tray, and hood) one fourth.DiscussionThe sensitivity analysis shows that assumptions made in the basic scenarios are rather conservative for plastic pots and that the conclusions for the 200-g packaging size also apply to other packaging sizes. The uncertainty analysis performed on the inventory for the German market situation shows that the plastic pot system has less impact than the glass jar system while considering similar distribution distances with a confidence level above 97% for most impact categories. There is opportunity for further improvement independent of the type of packaging used, such as by reducing distribution distances while still optimizing lot size. The validity of the main conclusions presented in this study is confirmed by results of both impact assessment methodologies IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001.ConclusionsFor identical transportation distances, the plastic pot system shows a small but significant reduction in environmental burden compared to the glass jar system.Recommendations and perspectivesAs food distribution plays an important role in the overall life cycle burdens and may vary between scenarios, it is important to avoid additional transportation of the packaged food in order to maintain or even improve the advantage of the plastic pot system. The present study focuses on the comparison of packaging systems and directly related consequences. It is recommended that further environmental optimization of the product also includes food manufacturing (before preservation process) and the supply chain of raw materials.

Abstract
Background, aim, and scope This paper compares the life cycle assessment (LCA) of two packaging alternatives used for baby food produced by Nestlé: plastic pot and glass jar. The study considers the environmental impacts associated with packaging systems used to provide one baby food meal in France, Spain, and Germany in 2007. In addition, alternate logistical scenarios are considered which are independent of the two packaging options. The 200-g packaging size is selected as the basis for this study. Two other packaging sizes are assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Because results are intended to be disclosed to the public, this study underwent a critical review by an external panel of LCA experts. Materials and methods The LCA is performed in accordance to the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The packaging systems include the packaging production, the product assembly, the preservation process, the distribution, and the packaging end-of-life. The production of the content (before preservation process), as well as the use phase are not taken into account as they are considered not to change when changing packaging. The inventory is based on data obtained from the baby food producer and the suppliers, data from the scientific literature, and data from the ecoinvent database. Special care is taken to implement a system expansion approach for end-of-life open and closed loop recycling and energy production (ISO 14044). A comprehensive impact assessment is performed using two life cycle impact assessment methodologies: IMPACT 2002+ andCML 2001. An extensive uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo as well as an extensive sensitivity study are performed on the inventory and the reference flows, respectively. Results When looking at the impacts due to preservation process and packaging (considering identical distribution distances), we observe a small but significant environmental benefit of the plastic pot system over the glass jar system. Depending on the country, the impact is reduced by 14% to 27% for primary energy, 28% to 31% for global warming, 31% to 34% for respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification. The environmental benefit associated with the change in packaging mainly results from (a) production of plastic pot (including its end-of-life; 43% to 51% of total benefit), (b) lighter weight of packaging positively impacting transportation (20% to 35% of total benefit), and (c) new preservation process permitted by the plastic system (23% to 34% of total benefit). The jar or pot (including cap or lid, cluster, stretch film, and label) represents approximately half of the life cycle impacts, the logistics approximately one fourth, and the rest (especially on-site energy, tray, and hood) one fourth. Discussion The sensitivity analysis shows that assumptions made in the basic scenarios are rather conservative for plastic pots and that the conclusions for the 200-g packaging size also apply to other packaging sizes. The uncertainty analysis performed on the inventory for the German market situation shows that the plastic pot system has less impact than the glass jar system while considering similar distribution distances with a confidence level above 97% for most impact categories. There is opportunity for further improvement independent of the type of packaging used, such as by reducing distribution distances while still optimizing lot size. The validity of the main conclusions presented in this study is confirmed by results of both impact assessment methodologies IMPACT 2002+ andCML 2001. Conclusions For identical transportation distances, the plastic pot system shows a small but significant reduction in environmental burden compared to the glass jar system. Recommendations and perspectives As food distribution plays an important role in the overall life cycle burdens and may vary between scenarios, it is important to avoid additional transportation of the packaged food in order to maintain or even improve the advantage of the plastic pot system. The present study focuses on the comparison of packaging systems and directly related consequences. It is recommended that further environmental optimization of the product also includes food manufacturing (before preservation process) and the supply chain of raw materials.
Keywords Baby food . Distribution . Glass . Jar . Life cycle assessment (LCA) . Packaging . Plastic . Polypropylene (PP) . Pot . System expansion . Uncertainty 1 Background, aim, and scope The aim of this study is to assess the life cycle environmental impacts associated with two baby food packaging systems to be sold by Nestlé in France, Spain, and Germany: the glass jar and the plastic pot.
The study is intended to be of sufficient detail and quality to inform the public of the comparative impacts of these two choices. The latest methods on life cycle assessment (LCA) established in international standards (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044) are applied. The main results of this study (Rossi et al. 2007) are presented in this paper. The study was critically reviewed by a panel of four external LCA experts; the critical review report can be obtained by contacting the authors of the study.

Current issues with LCA of packaging
Packaging is one of the areas most intensively studied within the field of LCA and plays an especially important role in the case of food consumption (e.g., Hischier et al. 2005;Cordella et al. 2008;Mourad et al. 2008). However, most of the studies to date focus on inventory with few performing full impact assessment analysis or extensive uncertainty analysis. Furthermore, a system expansion to capture the impacts of end-of-life (Eriksson et al. 2005) is rarely systematically applied at all levels of the case study. Finally, rarely have studies been through a full critical review. In addition to practical results for a specific case study, the present study aims at addressing these common shortcomings.

Goal and scope
The study considers the environmental impacts associated with packaging systems used to provide one baby food meal. The functional unit used as a basis for comparison between the two systems is to "provide a proper vehicle for a child's baby food meal in France, Spain, and Germany in 2007". The 200-g packaging size is selected as the basis for this study. Figures 1 and 2 present the glass jar and the plastic pot with the main reference flows, respectively.
Beyond the material and preservation process aspects, the study considers the entire packaging systems required to move the baby food from the point of production to the point of consumption. In particular, alternate logistical scenarios are considered to evaluate the influence of transportation distance on the study outcomes. An additional low-density polyethylene (LDPE) stretch film of approximately 0.25 g per jar or pot is used to wrap the whole pallet load during the distribution. Pallets are stacked in lorries according to capacity and national factors. The average number of 200-g glass jars and plastic pots per lorry are 57,024 and 88,320 for France, 66,528 and 84,480 for Germany, and 71,280 and 91,200 for Spain, respectively.
The packaging systems include the package production, product assembly, distribution, and packaging fate at the end of its useful life (Fig. 3). Each of these life cycle phases includes a comprehensive assessment of the "cradle-tograve" requirements and burdens, including all quantifiable upstream processes.
Both systems are compared based on an equivalent functional unit. The systems' boundaries cover the same portion of their respective product life cycle and they share the same general architecture. The cut-off criteria are also identical.
The baby food, in its 2007 system with glass jars, is produced in Germany for the German and French markets and in Spain for the Spanish market. In the new system, Fig. 1 Glass jar packaging and secondary components with plastic pots, it is expected to initially have one production site (in France).

Life cycle inventory analysis
Primary data and information are obtained from Nestlé and their suppliers. Secondary data are obtained from the scientific literature and the ecoinvent database (Frischknecht 2005;Frischknecht et al. 2005). Energy use, resource consumption, and pollutant emissions are quantified for each packaging system's life cycle.
Cut-off rules Cut-off criteria are used to decide whether processes shall be included in the product system and data gathered in the cases of (1) processes that are similar in both systems but slight differences exist and (2) processes and reference flows that are specific to one of the systems. In both cases, mass, primary energy, and environmental significance are used to make the decision. A cut-off level of 1% is applied (the process is neglected if it reaches less than 1% of the total known mass, primary energy, and impact, respectively), focusing on uncertain processes during use phase. All processes where data are available are taken into account, even if their contribution is less that 1%. Therefore, the cut-off rule is used to avoid gathering unknown data, but not to neglect known data.
Food container production and all related processes are included. However, the baby food raw ingredient production is excluded, as it is present in the same quantities in all systems for a given packaging size. Processes needed for container assembly before, during, and after filling and sealing are considered when they present differences between the glass jar and the plastic pot systems. These processes include preservation (respectively, retort or ultrahigh temperature [UHT]), filling, sealing, labeling, handling, and packaging. Ancillary materials such as ink, glue, and colorants that fall below the cut-off criteria are only taken into account when included in a process used in the generic database. Processes excluded based on the 1% cut-off rule are: glue applied to paper labels on the glass jars, steel cap bending in order to give its shape, capital equipment, food preparation and cooking (prior to UHT process, in the case where UHT preservation is used), palletization, marketing, and administration (has a limited significance in materialbased applications; Rebitzer 2005). The distribution from production site to retailer (including transported food) is included. Infrastructure for distribution (warehouses) is excluded. Transport from retailer to private consumer is excluded-though representing more than 15% of the overall environmental impact of a packaging scenario (Rossi et al. 2007)-because no change in the consumer's shopping habits is expected with a change in the type of packaging. Usage by consumer is excluded. No refrigeration is needed during the distribution and the use phase. Heating of the food is excluded.
Energy The consumed natural gas is assumed to be of European mix, whereas national grid mixes are considered for the electricity. Table 1 presents the primary data collected at the baby food production sites.
Transport The transport for packaging supplies and product distribution is not managed by the baby food producer (Table 2). Therefore, generic data per ton kilometer provided by ecoinvent are adopted (lorry 40 t, average load of 9.68 t).  Distribution distance is calculated for most important distribution centers (weighted according to sales volume), covering the large majority of sales. When the repartition between jar and pot sizes is not known, the same average distance is used for all sizes. The average distance between distribution centers and retailers is assumed to be 250 km in all countries. In the current system (glass jars), average transportation distances to deliver the food in the respective markets (factory to retailer) are the following: 680 km in Germany, 1,010 km in Spain, and 1,880 km in France. For the plastic pots, the following distances are initially foreseen (factory to retailer): 1,250 km in Germany, 2,080 km in Spain, and 1,260 km in France. An intermediary scenario is also created in order to evaluate the sole influence of change in the preservation process and packaging, i.e., from glass jars to plastic pots, with no change in production location. The main reference flows related to the packaging of the glass jars and plastic pots are presented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
End-of-life The end-of-life is analyzed using the system expansion principle, including all avoided burden as a function of recycling rates and end-of-life options (Figs. 4 and 5). System expansion is a method used to avoid coproduct allocation by expanding the boundary of the system investigated to include the alternative production of exported functions (e.g., Ekvall and Finnveden 2001;Cederberg and Stadig 2003;Moon et al. 2006). The material's end-of-life is analyzed according to national practices (Table 3).
Packaging waste generated at retailers (tray, hood, stretch film) is considered to be totally sent to recycling (tray and hood) or heat recovery channels (stretch film with 41 MJ/kg). A recycling yield of 94% is used for tray and hood in order to account for material recycling losses. Six percent of the recycled share is, therefore, lost and joins the traditional waste treatment path indicated in Table 3 (landfilling and municipal waste incineration). Gross electric and thermal efficiency (LHV) for municipal waste incineration are 10% and 19% for Germany (Dehoust et al. 2002), 10% and 20% for Spain (estimate based on Doka 2003), and 5% and 30% for France (Eco-Emballage, personal communication from Valérie Munoz 2007).

Life cycle impact assessment
The life cycle impact assessment is performed using the IMPACT 2002+ methodology (Jolliet et al. 2003). A sensitivity study is done using the CML 2001 methodology (Guinée et al. 2002).

Sensitivity analysis, significant differences, and uncertainty analysis
The important assumptions made in the study are tested in a sensitivity study to examine their influence on the overall outcomes. The sensitivity study tests the following issues: (1) the impact assessment methodology chosen, (2) the steam consumption at the production site, (3) the used packaging collection rate, (4) the efficiency of incinerators, (5) the polypropylene (PP) data consistency, (6) the production process for the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) layer, (7) the recyclability of the PP-EVOH-PP multilayer plastic cup, (8) the type of fuel substituted by polypropylene in steel or cement industry, and (9) the sensitivity of the findings to the 200-g package size is tested for two other package sizes.   For an initial discussion, any difference lower than 10% is not considered significant for the energy and global warming scores. The difference needs to be higher than 30% to be significant for respiratory inorganics or acidification and eutrophication. For the toxicity categories, an order of magnitude (factor 10) difference is typically required for a difference to be significant, especially if the dominant emissions are different between scenarios or are dominated by long-term emissions from landfill that can be highly uncertain. These criteria are commonly accepted in LCA. A more detailed analysis of parameter uncertainty propagation is carried out in Section 3.3 to check the robustness of these practices.

Life cycle inventory
Water The total consumption of water varies between 4 and 5.5 L per jar or pot. However, uncertainties in water inventory of present databases do not allow determination of any significant difference between scenarios. Details and explanations on the intermediary flows and life cycle inventory results can be found in Rossi et al. (2007).

Life cycle impact assessment
Change in packaging (including preservation process) Figure 6 presents the impacts of the three scenarios in Germany for the 15 midpoint indicators of IMPACT 2002+. It shows that, for identical transport distances, the plastic pot system consistently has slightly but significantly lower impacts than the glass jar system (30% in average in Germany, between 5% and 90%) with the exception of the ionizing radiation score. The ionizing radiation score is dominated by long-term radon-222 air emission. This emission is related to electricity consumption and plays a major role in every scenario where production of plastic pots occurs in France because of the nuclear-dominated electricity mix in this country. Since large uncertainties apply on long-term emissions, such as those found in Fig. 6 Comparison of the 200-g glass jar system with the 200-g plastic pot system (without and with a change in the production location, respectively) for the German market for the 15 midpoint indicators of IMPACT 2002+ ionizing radiation, a difference of 50% on this indicator cannot be considered significant. The advantage of plastic remains for all countries (Fig. 7) when looking at the four impact categories having the higher importance to each of the four areas of protection (nonrenewable primary energy for resources, global warming for climate change, respiratory inorganics for human health, and terrestrial acidification/ nutrification for ecosystem quality): The decrease in impact ranges from 14% to 27% for primary energy, 28% to 31% for global warming, 31% to 34% for respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification. This advantage of plastic pots is due to the sum of three effects, as shown in Fig. 8 and Table 4 that detail the contributions to global warming score: (a) production of plastic pot (including its end-of-life; 43% to 51% of total benefit), (b) reduction of mass to be distributed due to lighter packaging (20% to 35% of total benefit), and (c) new preservation process permitted by the plastic system with the UHT process leading to a limited on-site energy consumption (23% to 34% of total benefit). Figure 8 and Table 4 also show that the cap represents a significant fraction of the greenhouse gases emissions in the plastic pot systems (∼14% of total impact). The cardboard tray/ hood packaging has two to three times more impact in the plastic pot system than in the glass jar system due to a higher mass.
Change in production location If a change in the production location happens, transport distances may increase for the plastic pot system. In Germany, as indicated in Fig. 6, the environmental impact of the plastic pot system increases by 5% to 50%. It still remains lower than the glass jars impacts in all categories with the exceptions of ionizing radiation and photochemical oxidation (which is dominated by traffic emissions). For Spain, Fig. 7 shows that a transportation increase partially offsets the advantage of plastic pots. In France, it is presently the glass jar distribution that leads to longer transport distances, resulting in a substantial difference between glass jar and plastic pot systems impacts.

Uncertainty analysis
An uncertainty analysis of the inventory for the representative case of Germany is performed using Monte Carlo statistical techniques. Currently, the uncertainty analysis can only be performed on the inventory since impact assessments methodologies implemented in SimaPro (PRé 2007) do not have uncertainty factors. Figure 9 presents the graphical results of the uncertainty analysis for the comparison between the glass jar system and the plastic pot system (without change in production location) in Germany for the 15 midpoint indicators of IMPACT 2002+. Figure 9 shows that, for similar transport distances, the impacts of the plastic pot system are significantly lower than those of the glass jar system for all midpoint categories, except ionizing radiation. The level of statistical  Fig. 7 Midpoint results for the four representative indicators, presented separately for each country significance is higher than 97% for most categories and amounts to 94% for respiratory organics. However, when the location of production is changed, the level of significance is lower (between 80% and 100%) due to the higher transport distances (see Rossi et al. 2007).

Sensitivity analysis
The following sensitivity studies are carried out on the 200-g packaging: 1. Impact assessment methodology chosen. Robustness of results is tested using CML 2001 (Guinée et al. 2002) and IMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al. 2003). CML 2001 leads to similar results for Germany, showing 20% to 95% reduction in impact for the plastic pot system compared to the glass jar system with similar distribution distances. For Spain and France, most results are also similar to IMPACT 2002+. Main differences are related to aquatic ecotoxicity and eutrophication from long-term emissions from landfills of vanadium and COD, respectively, which are not considered significant. 2. Steam consumption at the production site. On-site steam consumption is varied by ±30%. Because the importance of steam consumption is higher for the glass jar system than for the plastic pot system, the former is more sensitive to the steam consumption (impacts up to 5%) than the latter (up to 3%). Though these variations do not inverse ranking in the scenarios, they need to be kept within the defined range for the plastic pot system to remain advantageous.
3. Used packaging collection rate. The results are tested using a separate collection rate reduced to half of the national average (see Table 3), applied to all packaging material recovered from households, but not to material recovered from retailers or other processing steps. Results show that, in France and Spain, the collection rate has less influence on the overall impacts than in Germany where recycling rates are higher and where the use of plastic as fuel substitute is dominant. Overall, lower households recycling rates increase impacts of the glass jar system in a larger proportion than for the plastic pot system. 4. Gross thermal and electric efficiency of incinerators.
The gross thermal and electric efficiency of the municipal waste incinerators is reduced by half. The glass jar system is nearly unaffected since glass does not provide energy when incinerated. Only the plastic pot system in France and Germany is affected, showing an increase in potential environmental impact limited to about 3%, which outweighs approximately 10% of the benefits obtained from the change in packaging. Because the municipal waste incineration rate is low in Spain, scenarios for this country are nearly unaffected. 5. Polypropylene data consistency. Life cycle inventory data from Plastic Europe (formerly APME) 1995 dataset (on which ecoinvent is partly based) is compared with the updated dataset of 2005. The total primary energy decreases by only 2%, while global warming emissions decrease by 4%. Impacts on human health and ecosystems quality decrease substantiallydecreases of 70% for respiratory inorganics and 65% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification impacts. Overall, the impact of the plastic pot system would be reduced between 2% and 45%, depending on the category analyzed, compared to the results given under Section 3.2, thus increasing the environmental advantage of the plastic pot system over the glass jar system. 6. Importance of the production process for the EVOH layer. Ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) data is used as a proxy for EVOH. EVOH is modeled using an upper bound-the plastic available in ecoinvent with the highest impacts-with emissions, heat waste, and unspecified hydrocarbons emissions to river and energy consumption three times higher than EVA. Results show that the changes are minor-well below cut-off criteria-indicating that using EVA as a proxy for EVOH is acceptable. 7. Recyclability of the PP-EVOH-PP multilayer cup of the plastic pots. The influence of the recyclability of the PP-EVOH-PP multilayer cup for the production of recycled PP material is tested using a recycling rate of 40% in Germany and 11% in Spain instead of 0% as assumed in the default results. There is no light packaging PP recycling in France; therefore, recyclability is not tested for this country. Results show that this amount of PP recycling brings a small environmental benefit. Recycling is only a little better than fuel substitution. 8. Type of fuel substituted by PP in steel or cement industry. When used in steel or cement industry, plastic is assumed to substitute the same amount of light fuel oil. When considering coal as the substituted fuel, the bonus for the plastic pot system increases and the total impact decreases by up to 40% in most categories. Thus, the assumption that light fuel oil is the substituted fuel is rather conservative for the plastic pot system since substituting coal leads to greater reduction in impact. 9. Other packaging sizes. When comparing the impacts for two other packaging sizes (one below 200 g and one above 200 g, values undisclosed to the public) for the 15 midpoints indicators of IMPACT 2002+, one observes similar patterns between these two packaging sizes and the basic 200-g packaging size on which the study is conducted. Conclusions derived from the 200-g scenarios can, therefore, be extended to all packaging sizes.

Limitations
The scope of the study and data availability also implies several limitations. The study focuses on the choice of packaging materials and its consequences, but does not cover food production, use phase, or improvement in food quality brought by plastic packaging. The impact assessment phase does not include noise and casualties. Water use results are provided, but are not evaluated with sufficient accuracy to enable any differentiation between scenarios over their whole life cycle.

Conclusions and recommendations
The present study covers the packaging systems as a whole, involving not only material and preservation process aspects, but also logistical aspects. This study is characterized by (a) the application of the system expansion principle, including all avoided burden as a function of recycling rates and end-of-life options, (b) the systematic quantification of life cycle impacts for each scenario for 15 impact categories, (c) an advanced uncertainty analysis applying Monte Carlo statistical techniques to the three German scenarios, and (d) a detailed sensitivity study to test results robustness in case of variations of the most uncertain data inputs.

Conclusions
When looking at the impacts due to preservation process and packaging (considering identical distribution distances), the plastic pot system in the scenario with the same Fig. 9 Graphical results of the uncertainty analysis for the comparison between the glass system and the plastic system for similar distribution distances in the German market for the 15 midpoint indicators of IMPACT 2002+ (for each indicator, the white part of the bar represents the probability that the plastic pot is worse than the glass jar and the gray part of the bar represents the probability that the plastic pot is better than the glass jar) transportation has a small but significant advantage over the glass jar system in all countries. The plastic pot system has 14% to 27% less primary energy, 28% to 31% less global warming, 31% to 34% less respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% less terrestrial acidification/nutrification than the glass jar system, depending on the country. Considering the impacts of production location change in addition to the impacts of preservation process and packaging change, the overall results show comparable set of environmental impacts for Spain (+6% to −12%, depending on the category), slight improvement for Germany (−7% to −18%), and net improvement for France (−26% to −45%). The major factors responsible for the environmental benefit associated with the change in packaging are the following: (a) production and end-of-life of packaging: plastic pot has lower impacts than glass jar; (b) mass of the packaging: the lighter plastic packaging leads to an important reduction in packaging transportation; and (c) on-site preservation: the steam consumption is lower with the UHT process used in the plastic pot system than the retort process used in the glass jar system.
The sensitivity analysis clearly shows the importance of logistics. Indeed, there is opportunity for additional improvement through optimized distribution. The impact categories of respiratory inorganics and terrestrial acidification/nutrification are more sensitive to transportation distances than primary energy and global warming, as the substances that cause these impacts are emitted in higher proportions from transportation-related sources than from other sources. The sensitivity analysis shows that assumptions made for the basic scenario are in general rather conservative for the plastic pot system. For instance, considering a substitution of coal instead of light fuel oil, increasing the fraction of recycled plastic or considering the latest 2005 plastic data would provide additional advantages for the plastic pot system compared to the glass jar system. The sensitivity analysis shows that the conclusions for the 200-g packaging size also apply to other packaging sizes. Finally, the validity of the main conclusions is confirmed by results of both impact assessment methodologies IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001.

Recommendations
It is recommended that further improvement steps on the new plastic pot system be performed. For example, alternate engineering of the plastic caps could be an opportunity in the performance of the plastic pot system. Considering the fact that the glass jar system had the opportunity to be improved over several decades, improvements on the new plastic pot may further increase its environmental benefits compared to the glass jar. Further efforts on heat saving or recovery on the production site could also lead to environmental and economic benefits. Finally, it is important to regularly evaluate the possibilities in improving the food distribution, which has a substantial effect on the environmental performance. The present study focuses on the comparison of packaging systems. Environmental optimization of the food production itself and supply chain is recommended to enable further improvements. The present results conform to the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards and are suitable for public disclosure. The peer review report is available as an appendix of the detailed report (Rossi et al. 2007).


Evaluation of customer relationship system efficiency: Applying of total cost of ownership approach

Calculating total cost of ownership (TCO) and benefits, building a business case and applying financial measurement methodologies help a company make right customer relationship system for investments solution and build compelling justification for its customer relationship system project. In addition, ongoing measurement of customer relationship system (CRS ) benefits ensures that an enterprise receives expected advantages and achieves strategic objectives. In this paper peculiarities of TCO economic efficiency are analysed. Evaluation method application when developing, using and expanding CRS is being considered, strengths and weaknesses of cost‐oriented approach are discussed. Authors present and interpret their empirical research results.

Introduction
As a result of globalisation, companies face ever increasing global competition. Consumers may choose from an increasing variety of suppliers of goods and services: where to purchase food or spend their holidays, which suppliers of telecommunication services to use, where to borrow money or keep it, etc. The privatisation of former state monopolies and elimination of various limitations increase competition to an even greater extent and force companies to reduce their expenses. As accumulation means for fi xed investment, which generally drives companies' growth (Tvaronavičius, Tvaronavičienė 2008), becomes more complicated, companies are forced to put emphasis on managerial tools enhancing client's satisfaction.
Over the past few decades, one may observe the emergence of the concept of the customer relationship management. With the current level of IT systems, we may just make a step back into the past and personalise mass marketing, sales, and customer service. If earlier the owner of a shop kept information about his 100 customers in his mind, the database of the contemporary customer relationship system (CRS) can store information about 100,000 customers and on the basis of historical information, the company can offer each customer what he needs. It is essential for the companies planning to develop a CRS to use adequate evaluation methods to identify the effi ciency of the CRS under consideration and form the basis for objective decisions. In the case of a CRS that has already been implemented and is in use, it is also essential to apply relevant evaluation methods to carry out regular effi ciency evaluation that must help disclose the actual advantages and disadvantages of the CRS in use and demonstrate the levels at which objectives have been implemented.
In order to implement customer-centric strategies, many organizations have turned to CRS software packages from various vendors such as Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, PeopleSoft, Frontrange, etc. (Conner 2001). Successful CRS implementation initiative is deemed to integrate companies' customer-facing processes, improve the effi ciencies of their sales forces and call centres, and more accurately target their campaigns with the help of sophisticated customer data analytics. Therefore this initiative is deemed to place the company in a better fi nancial position for the future.
Companies are investing in CRS worldwide; however, the rate of successful such system implementations are below 30% (Amerongen 2004;Bordoloi 2000;Chase 2001;Kim, H. and Kim, Y. 2007;Ramdas 2001;Silvon Software 2005;Korsakienė et al. 2008). Many organizations pursue expensive CRS initiatives without fi rst understanding the challenges and costs involved. This approach often results in CRS projects that fail to meet measurable benefi t objectives (Korsakienė 2009;Sūdžius 2007). The problem of CRS effi ciency evaluation in the world and in Lithuania has been solved by using traditional economic effi ciency evaluation methods such as Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Return of Investment (ROI), Payback Period (PP), Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), Profi tability Index (PI) or Economic Value Added (EVA).
The purpose of this study is to analyse TCO as fi nancial CRS effi ciency evaluation tool when developing, using, and expanding a CRS, and determine strengths and weaknesses of this cost-oriented approach.
To achieve the purpose of this study, research methods were used: scientifi c and practical literature analysis and generalization, and empirical research of Lithuanian companies.

CRS investment justifi cation issues
Justifying the cost of CRS implementation project is not like doing a fi nancial analysis on capital goods. A milling machine, for example, has readily identifiable acquisition and operating costs, and performance specifi cations can be used to accurately forecast productivity gains.
CRS has uncertain cost categories, no standards for valuing funds fl ows, a changing product, and a varying life. As Cooper (2005) states, this creates several unique cost justifi cation issues: 1) High penalty costs. CRS is a high risk endeavour because companies are betting their revenue stream on the project. Service is both a satisfi er and a dissatisfi er. It takes consistently great service to generate customer loyalty, but only one bad interaction to create dissatisfaction and customer loss.
Enterprise resource planning systems are mostly inward-facing, where marginal effi ciencies in traditional processes can be generated, and where systems can be run side-by-side throughout the conversion stage. Customer relationship systems are customer-facing and have a direct effect on customer satisfaction. Marketing, sales and customer service systems can not be run concurrently during a cut-over. Management of customer relationships is either living or it is not. That what is delivered by implementation of CRS is what customers and prospects experience.
The penalty for mishandling the customer relationship management interaction is more than just the cost of a botched transaction. It is the potential lost revenue from a now impaired relationship with customers. That is why customer relationship management decisions are actually justifi cations based upon customer satisfaction expectations. For many organizations, good service is the requirement to stay in business, and integrated CRS is necessary to deliver the level of service customers are demanding. The ultimate cost of refusing to implement CRS is a reduction in organizational competitiveness, viability and longevity.
2) Slow results. There is some disagreement among analysts about how quickly CRS benefi ts accrue. The differences between internal and external benefi ts are at issue. Internal operational benefi ts begin at implementation. Improving call center effi ciency, increasing fi eld service utilization, or moving sales inquiries to the Web can generate immediate savings. But these marginal improvements in operations are often not enough to fully evaluate integrated CRS projects. Customer revenue benefi ts occur some time later in the CRS project's life cycle. Analysts estimate that true payback justifi cation can take 12 months or more (Silvon Software 2005). Customer loyalty is generated from a series of pleasing marketing and sales contacts and service interactions. It requires time for a new CRS to positively infl uence customer behaviour, depending upon the applicable buying cycle.

3) Benefi t time frame exceeds CRS as project life cycle.
Although CRS results can be slow in arriving, they can also continue for a very long time. Inherent in the above discussion of penalty costs is the concept of "lifetime customer value." What this suggests is that the benefi ts or penalties of a CRS can accrue far beyond its life cycle. For instance, a specifi c Customer Interaction Center sales and support system may have a three-year life, but it is attracting (or repelling) customers who might have an average seven-year long relationship.
A good example is when a major toy retailer was unable to ship its e-commerce orders in time for Christmas. Parents were quoted as saying they would never again buy from the site or the company's stores. And this bad experience is likely to trickle down for decades as the children who were disappointed on this Christmas day remember this when deciding where to buy their children's toys in the coming years.
The results of CRS projects closely linked to customers and revenues, may long outlive the useful lives of specifi c products and systems. A CRS justifi cation study must take into account total funds fl ows, both positive and negative, that result during and beyond the system's expected life. 4) Continuous product improvement. Another factor that makes CRS different than other capital justifi cation studies is that the system's benefi ts are not static. Organizations do not buy CRS software, install it, then let it sit as it is for three years. With the help of CRS it must be adapted as customer expectations, effective service processes, product offerings, organizational structures, and strategies evolve. A good example is an organization's forever changing Website. Consequently, CRS product functionality in Year 1 is not the same as in Year 3 -even with the same product. It is not unusual for a CRS to have hundreds of change requests pending when it fi rst goes live, and to have thousands of changes posted throughout its useful life.
As such, projected benefi ts of CRS should refl ect the continuously improving functionality of the system. Software that is harder to customize and integrate will deliver much less value than an open architecture that is easier to enhance.

5) Costing human behaviour.
A fi nal qualifi er in estimating benefi ts of CRS is that analysts are attempting to put a value on human behaviour. This applies to both inside and outside the organization. Most CRS failures are not due to technical issues, but they are caused by refusal of employees or customers to use the system. Organizational change management issues trip-up many organizations. For example, end-user's foot dragging has driven up costs by 300 to 400 percent in some projects (Cooper 2005).

Applying TCO approach when evaluating CRS effi ciency
The total cost of ownership (TCO) can be defi ned as the systematic quantifi cation of all costs generated over the lifetime of a CRS project. The goal of TCO is to determine a fi gure that refl ects the total cost of the investment, including one-time purchases and recurring costs, not just the initial start-up costs. The onetime and recurring costs are determined by looking at each stage of a project, starting with planning, analysis, design, confi guration, programming and installation, and moving through migration, integration, training, and ongoing application support and maintenance where OTC -one-time costs -initial acquisition costs that are usually incurred at the beginning of the CRS implementation project in the form of software licences and hardware, or at the end of the project in the form of decommissioning costs to retire systems or applications; RC (t) -recurring costs -ongoing CRS costs that are incurred on a periodic basis and originate from the maintenance, upgrades, and annual licensing fees, as well as support of CRS; PD -project duration -the expected lifespan of CRM investment.
We recommend calculating TCO over a three -fi ve year period to get a full understanding of the ongoing costs associated with CRS.
However, some companies do not include the project duration in the calculation, and thus the TCO is a summation of costs that are updated continually over the project's lifetime.
TCO has a number of strengths as a metric unit and it is important to calculate when evaluating technology, but it also has a number of weaknesses that need to be understood if company wants to use TCO results properly.
The strength of TCO is in providing an understanding of future costs that may not be apparent when an item is initially purchased.
Another benefi t of the TCO methodology is its use as a benchmarking tool to compare CRS software vendors. Functionality of CRS software can be similar; however, the costs of it may vary drastically from vendor to vendor if including license fees, maintenance contracts, support, etc. Companies can then determine the TCO for each independent CRS software vendor and select the company that offers the least cost over the lifetime of the CRS software. The yearly TCO fi gure is an excellent indicator of the ongoing costs and is best used as a projection for budgeting purposes.
TCO has an important disadvantage because it completely ignores the benefi ts. For most companies the objective is not to choose the cheapest CRS software but to choose the software that provides the greatest benefi t or return for the company. Many companies along with the press have focused on TCO as an important metric primarily because it is a tangible number. It is easy to point to a complete accounting of cost and make a decision based on a strategy of reducing expenditures. But CRS software, because it is used in key business processes, can have a dramatic impact on the bottom line and TCO only ensures a company to purchase the cheapest CRS, not the best.
Also, product with low acquisition costs and high maintenance is likely to be less attractive than one with higher acquisition and lower ongoing costs, but it may have a similar TCO over the period analysed.
In comparison with return on investment (ROI) and payback period of fi nancial measurement methodologies, TCO is the best indicator of future CRS expenses. However, it is a weak indicator of risk associated with CRS and balance of cost versus return.

Empirical research results
Based on our empirical research results, only 25% of Lithuanian companies calculate TCO of CRS. Whereas half of Lithuanian companies are evaluating summation of all CRS costs (Fig. 1).
The majority of Lithuanian companies calculate CRS initial acquisition costs (Fig. 2). However, ongoing costs are calculated by less than a half companies.
Based on our research results (Fig. 3), costs of initial CRS implementation works (analysis, design, installation, confi guration, programming, integration, and migration) and CRS software licences represent almost half of the total cost of a CRS implementation project (47%). Hardware (servers, computers) costs make 21% of all total CRS implementation project costs. Employee training, internal staff work and external consulting service costs represent relatively a small part of total costs (8%, 8% and 7% respectively). CRS maintenance and support costs represent the smallest portion of total costs (4%).

Conclusions
Calculating TCO and benefi ts, building a business case and applying fi nancial measurement methodologies can help a company make right CRS investments solution and enable it to enjoy the results -instead of complaining that CRS fails to meet expectations. Therefore, an enterprise needs to assess the costs and benefi ts associated with CRS, then express that evaluation in fi nancial metrics.
In addition, ongoing measurement of CRS benefi ts helps ensure that an enterprise receives expected advantages and achieves strategic objectives. The following guidelines should be used to manage TCO successfully (Gartner 2004): 1) build companies' TCO model to include consistent cost categories across all CRS projects for three-fi ve years; 2) build bestand worst-case scenarios to determine TCO tolerances; 3) staff the CRS project with employees who have experience in building and measuring TCO; 4) include fi nancial analysts on the project to assist with the approval process, and to provide insight for senior management during the life cycle of the initiative; 5) expect vendor proposals and internal staffi ng decisions to come before a fi nal TCO calculation; 6) monitor and measure costs and spending throughout the project.
Application of a single TCO method is not suffi cient for comprehensive (complex) evaluation of CRS efficiency because TCO completely ignores CRS investment benefi ts. A range of effi ciency evaluation methods and models must be applied, like ROI, PP, NPV, IRR, EVA, etc.


THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS WORLD AND IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

This article describes the presence of women in the top corporate positions in the developed countries of Europe, U.S.A. and the Czech republic. The article compares the women representation with the cultural dimensions of Geert Hofstede. The author also describes the situation in the Czech republic, naming companies with the most favorable programs of equal opportunities.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS WORLD AND IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Zuzana Křečková Kroupová*

. I n t r o d u c t i o n
Global competition is forcing companies to realize that their success is widely depending on talented people of any nationality, age, race, and gender. In this article I will focus on the role of women in the corporate world, because women represent half of the population and nearly half of the active workforce. Their role in the international business world, however, is still insignifi cant. Although we can see some improvement over the past 20-30 years, top corporate positions are still dominated by men.
Method: I use an analysis based on secondary research data from both internationally and nationally respected researchers and institutions.

. Wo m e n a t t h e To p
The world is becoming more favorable to women in leading positions -both state and corporate ones. "Of the 47 women who have served in their country's highest political leadership position -as either president or prime minister -more than two-thirds have come into offi ce in just the last decade, and all but seven are the fi rst woman their country has ever selected." (Adler, 2002) When considering women's infl uence on the international business world, we have to look where women are present in strong and infl uential positions. The role of women is becoming stronger. "Women in the 90's hold less than 3 per cent of the most senior management positions in major corporations in the US and less than 2 per cent of all senior management positions in Europe." (Adler, 2002) Recent research shows that 8% of Board seats on average are held by women across Europe (European Professionals Women's Network, 2004). There are signifi cant differences across countries. The strongest presence of women on Boards is in Scandinavia, with 22% of women on Boards in Norway, 20% in Sweden, and 14% in Finland. The United Kingdom and Germany follow with 10% of women.
Another global survey shows similar results even for Directors' positions. Again Scandinavia leads, with 22% of female Directors in Norway and 17% in Sweden. Anglo-Saxon countries follow closely, with 13% of female Directors in the USA, 9% in Australia and 7% in the UK (Ethical Investment Research Service, 2004). G e r m a n y F r a n c e S i n g a p o r e H o n g K o n g S p a i n I t a l y J a p a n

Countries Female directors as % of total
In 1995, women had 45.7% of America's jobs and more than half of master's degrees being awarded. Yet 95% of senior managers were men, and female managers' earnings were on average a mere 68% of those of their male counterparts. In 2005 women accounted for 46.5% of America's workforce and for less than 8% of its top managers. Female managers' earnings now average 72% of those of their male colleagues (Economist, 2005).
In the UK, the number of female executive directors in the FTSE100 companies rose from 11 in 2000 to 17 in 2004, according to Cranfi eld, a business school -17 women against almost 400 men (Economist, 2005).
In Japan until 20-30 years ago, it was generally unacceptable for women to stay in the offi ce after 5pm. One ambitious employee of a foreign multinational dared to hide in the ladies' room until the men had left before returning to her desk to fi nish her work. There has been some progress since. This year two women have been appointed to head big Japanese companies (Economist, 2005).
When trying to answer the question what causes these huge differences, I focused on an analysis of national cultures and their infl uences on the numbers of women in powerful corporate positions.

. C u l t u r e D e f i n i t i o n s
There are many defi nitions of culture out of which we can cite the following. Culture is "art, literature, music and other intellectual expressions of a particular society or time" or "the customs, arts, social institutions, etc. of a particular group or nation" (Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 1995), or "the way people organize themselves in history, in order to solve the problems in their lives" or "the way people communicate with each other, and develop their knowledge".

. H o f s t e d e a n d H i s F i v e D i m e n s i o n s
Prof. Geert Hofstede conducted perhaps the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are infl uenced by culture. He introduces fi ve cultural dimensions -Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), and Long-term Orientation (LTO) (Hofstede, 2007), Power Distance Index (PDI) focuses on the degree of equality, or inequality, between people in a country's society. A High Power Distance ranking indicates that inequalities in power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the society. These societies are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow signifi cant upward mobility of its citizens. A Low Power Distance ranking indicates the society de-emphasizes the differences between the citizen's power and wealth. Equality and opportunity for everyone are stressed in these societies.
Individualism (IDV) focuses on the degree to which a society reinforces individual or collective achievement and interpersonal relationships. A High Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. Individuals in these societies may tend to form a larger number of looser relationships. A Low Individualism ranking typifi es societies of a more collectivist nature with close ties between individuals. These cultures reinforce extended families and collectives where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group.
Masculinity (MAS) focuses on the degree to which a society reinforces, or does not reinforce, the traditional masculine work role model of male achievement, control, and power. A High Masculinity ranking indicates that the country experiences a high degree of gender differentiation. In these cultures, males dominate a signifi cant portion of the society and power structure, with females being controlled by male domination. A Low Masculinity ranking indicates that the country has a low level of differentiation and discrimination between genders. In these cultures, females are treated equally to males in all aspects of the society.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) focuses on the level of tolerance towards uncertainty and ambiguity within a society -i.e., unstructured situations. A High Uncertainty Avoidance ranking indicates that the country has a low tolerance towards uncertainty and ambiguity. This creates a rule-oriented society that institutes laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty. A Low Uncertainty Avoidance ranking indicates that the country has less concern about ambiguity and uncertainty and has more tolerance for a variety of opinions. This is refl ected in a society that is less ruleoriented, more readily accepts change, and takes more and greater risks.
Long-term Orientation (LTO) focuses on the degree to which the society embraces, or does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional, forward thinking values. High Long-term Orientation ranking indicates that the country subscribes to the values of long-term commitments and respect for tradition. This is thought to support a strong work ethic where long-term rewards are expected as a result of today's hard work. However, business may take longer to develop in this society, particularly for an "outsider". A Low Long-term Orientation ranking indicates that the country does not reinforce the concept of long-term, traditional orientation. In this culture, change can occur more rapidly as long-term traditions and commitments do not become impediments to change.
World averages for Hofstede's dimensions are: PDI 55 -IDV 43 -MAS 50 -UAI 64 -LTO 45 (Hofstede, 2007). Values for Hofstede's dimensions for three Scandinavian countries, where the representation of women in top positions was the highest worldwide, are similar. Compared to the world average, PDI is lower, IDV is very high, MAS is extremely low, and UAI is lower in Scandinavia.

World Average United States United Kingdom Australia
Anglo-Saxon countries follow Scandinavia in women's representation on Boards and Directors' positions. When comparing Hofstede's dimensions for the world average with the Anglo-Saxon countries, they have a lower PDI (as well as Scandinavia), very high IDV (as well as Scandinavia), higher MAS, lower UAI (as well as Scandinavia), and lower LTO.
Regarding the countries of Continental and Mediterranean Europe, I have found highly differing values for the respective dimensions.
The conclusion of the research shows that cultures with low PDI, high IDV and low MAS are the most favorable to women at the top, followed by those with low PDI and high IDV.

. S i t u a t i o n i n t h e C z e c h R e p u b l i c
The gender situation in top corporate positions is highly unbalanced in the Czech Republic. There are nearly three quarters of men in all managerial positions, though the numbers of women are increasing. Nearly half of the university graduates are women.
Based on the research, the key causes of the low presence of women in managerial positions are: current conditions on the labor market more favorable to men, mental model assuming little or no interest of women in managerial positions, and perception of impossibility to manage both career and motherhood.
Contrary to the development in many developed European countries, the employment of women has been historically high in the Czech Republic. We can see a slight decline in women's employment -women represented 43.9% of workforce in 1993, while it was only 43.3% in 2004. There have been few women in managerial positions historically, so we can see a steady increase in women in management. Women accounted for 28.1% of managerial positions in 2004, but they usually represented lower and middle management (Krause, 2005).
The average women's wage represents only 74% of men's (Fischlová, 2006); however, women in managerial positions receive only half the remuneration of their male colleagues. The widest gap opens in the highest positions of CEOs and Presidents of large corporations. The average salary for men is CZK 109,464, while women receive on average only CZK 41,367 when leading a large corporation (Fischlová, 2007).

. Fu t u r e R o l e o f Wo m e n
What will be the role of women in the international business world in the future? That is diffi cult to answer. It is unclear globally, but we have a couple of concrete examples from Norway, the UK, the USA, and the Czech Republic (Economist, 2005).
In Norway, legislation has been passed decreeing that by the end of 2006 (with a transition period until the end of 2008), all companies (big private and state-owned ones) must have at least two women on their boards. Norway already leads the world in the number of women on its company boards. The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry organizes development programs for women so that it is possible to fulfi ll the quota.
In the UK a group of businesswomen has set up an organization called WDOB, or Women Directors on Boards, whose aim is "to change the face of UK plc". Jacey Graham, its director, hopes to see the almost static percentage of female executive directors in Britain more than double (to 10%) by 2010.
And last but not least, diversity pays. It has long been known that mixed groups are better at problem solving than like-minded ones. However, the benefi ts of diversity are greater than that. A survey by Catalyst, an American organization that aims to expand "opportunities for women and business", found a strong correlation between the numbers of women in top executive positions and the fi nancial performance among the Fortune 500 companies between 1996and 2000(Catalyst, 2003. Results of new research, again into Fortune 500, published in October 2007, show the same conclusion. Companies with three and more women on boards gave much better fi nancial results than others, with fewer or no women on boards. Three criteria were monitored -return on equity, return on sales, and return on invested capital. Companies with the highest percentage of women on boards outperformed those with the fewest women by 53 percent in return on equity, by 42 percent in return on sales, and by 66 percent in return on invested capital (Catalyst, 2007).
And what will be the role of women in the Czech Republic? The situation seems to be promising for women in respected companies caring about their Public Relations. The existence of organizations focusing on gender studies also brings results. Which are the best companies to work for? The Competition for the Best Company with Equal Opportunities in the Czech Republic has shown the following winners: IBM Czech Republic, Mediatel, Microsoft, and Allianz Pojišťovna in 2007. In 2006, the winning companies were: AIR PRODUCTS spol. s r.o., IBM Česká republika spol. s r.o., Microsoft s.r.o., and Citibank a.s. In 2005, the winners were Hewlett-Packard, s.r.o., IBM, s.r.o., Oskar Mobil, a.s., and PricewaterhouseCoopers. There are other companies to be watched too, for example O2 (former CZECH TELECOM and Eurotel), which has launched a program called WOW -Winning Opportunities for Women, aiming at reaching a higher proportion of women in management, including in the highest positions (Sokačová, 2006).
What will be the role of women in the international business world in the future? It is clear that there are tendencies to strengthen the women's positions in countries where they are already strong. "Given the dramatic changes taking place in society, the economy, and technology, 21 st century organizations need to engage in new, more spontaneous, and more innovative ways of managing." (Adler, 2006) We can see examples of companies that have realized the necessity to change their course from the "old-boys-club" to diverse management composition and really care for all talented people within the organization. Let us cross our fi ngers for these initiatives to succeed.  Learning and Education. 2006, vol. 5, no. 4, s. 486-499. ADLER, N. J. 2002. Global Managers: No Longer Men Alone. International Journal of Human Resources Management. 2002