A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains

[EN] Sustainability practice within supply chains remains in an early development phase. Enterprises still need tools that support the integration of sustainability strategy into their activity, and to align their sustainability strategy with the supplier selection process. This paper proposes a methodology using a multi-criteria technique to support supplier selection decisions by taking two groups of inputs that integrate sustainability performance: supply chain performance and supplier assessment criteria. With the proposed methodology, organisations will have a tool to select suppliers based on their development towards sustainability and on their alignment with the supply chain strategy towards sustainability. The methodology is applied to an agri-food supply chain to assess sustainability in the supplier selection process.The authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of Project GV/2017/065 'Development of a decision support tool for the management and improvement of sustainability in supply chains', funded by the Regional Valencian Government. Also, the authors acknowledge Project 691249, RUC-APS: Enhancing and implementing knowledge-based ICT solutions within high risk and uncertain conditions for agriculture production systems (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union according to funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alarcón Valero, F.; Pérez Perales, D.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, R. (2021). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 29:1231-1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3S1231125129Agarwal G, Vijayvargy L (2012) Green supplier assessment in environmentally responsive supply chains through analytical network process. In: Proceedings international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, Hong KongAgeron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A (2012) Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):168–182Akarte MM, Surendra NV, Ravi B, Rangaraj N (2001) Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc 52:511–522Alfaro Saiz JJ, Rodríguez R, Ortiz Bas A, Verdecho MJ (2010) An information architecture for a performance management framework by collaborating SMEs. Comput Ind 61:676–685Alfaro JJ, Ortiz A, Rodríguez R (2007) Performance measurement system for enterprise networks. Int J Prod Perform Manag 56(4):305–334Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195:106–117Azadnia AH, Ghadimi P, Zameri M, Saman M, Wong KY, Heavey C (2013) An integrated approach for sustainable supplier selection using fuzzy logic and fuzzy AHP. Appl Mech Mater 315:206–221Azimifard A, Moosavirad SH, Ariafar S (2018) Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resour Pol 57:30–44Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124:252–264Bhagwat R, Sharma MK (2007) Performance measurement of supply chain management: a balanced scorecard approach. Comput Ind Eng 53(1):43–62Bititci US, Mendibil K, Martinez V, Albores P (2005) Measuring and managing performance in extended enterprises. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25(4):333–353Brewer PC, Speh TW (2000) Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance. J Bus Logist 21(1):75–93Bullinger HJ, Kühner M, Hoof AV (2002) Analysing supply chain performance using a balanced measurement method. Int J Prod Res 40(15):3533–3543Chan FTS (2003) Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int J Prod Res 41(15):3549–3579De Boer L, Labro E, Morlacchi P (2001) A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 7(2):75–89Degraeve Z, Labro E, Roodhooft F (2000) An evaluation of supplier selection methods from a total cost of ownership perspective. Eur J Oper Res 125(1):34–58Dobos I, Vörösmarty G (2014) Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. Int J of Prod Econ 157(11):273–278Dou Y, Sarkis J (2010) A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis for a strategic offshoring decision. Int J Prod Res 48(2):567–592Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11:130–141Falatoonitoosi E, Leman Z, Sorooshian S (2013) Modeling for green supply chain evaluation. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–9Farzad T, Rasid OM, Aidy A, Rosnah MY, Alireza E (2008) AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company. JIEM 1(2):54–76Ferreira LMDF, Silva C, Garrido Azevedo S (2016) An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmark Int J 23(6):1398–1422Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strat Env 11:269–284Folan P, Browne J (2005) Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system. Prod Plan Control 16(6):531–544Freeman J, Chen T (2015) Green supplier selection using an AHP-entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manag 20:327–340Genovese A, Koh L, Bruno G, Esposito E (2013) Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int J Prod Res 51(10):2868–2886Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212Glock CH, Grosse EH, Ries JM (2017) Decision support models for supplier development: systematic literature review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 194:246–260Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(1/2):71–87Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202:16–24Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264Hsu CW, Kuo TC, Chen SH, Hu AH (2013) Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 56:164–172Huan SH, Sheoran SK, Wang G (2004) A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manag Int J 9(9):23–29Hutchins M, Sutherland JH (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16(15):1688–1698Igarashi M, Boer L, Magerholm Fet A (2013) What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Supply Manag 19(4):247–263Jimenez-Jimenez D, Martínez-Costa M, Sanchez Rodriguez C (2019) The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. J Knowl Manag 23(3):548–567Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Kumar Mangla S, Prakash Garg C (2017) An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140:1686–1698Maestrini V, Luzzini D, Maccarrone P, Caniato F (2017) Supply chain performance measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 183A:299–315Masella C, Rangone A (2000) A contingent approach to the design of vendor selection systems for different types of co-operative customer/supplier relationships. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(1):70–84Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97Mohammed A, Harris I, Govindan K (2019) A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Int J Prod Econ 217:171–184Motevali-Haghighi S, Torabi SA, Ghasemi R (2016) An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study). J Clean Prod 137:579–597Nawaz W, Koç M (2018) Development of a systematic framework for sustainability management of organizations. J Clean Prod 171:1255–1274Nie X (2013) Green suppliers selecting based on analytic hierarchy process for biotechnology industry. In: Zhong Z (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on information engineering and applications. Springer, London, pp 253–260Nielsen IE, Banaeian N, Golińska P, Mobli H, Omid M (2014) Green supplier selection criteria: from a literature review to a flexible framework for determination of suitable criteria. In: Golinska P (ed) Logistics operations, supply chain management and sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp 79–99Noci G (1997) Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 3(2):103–114Petersen KJ, Handfield RB, Ragatz GL (2005) Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J Oper Manag 23:371–388Pishchulov G, Trautrims A, Chesney T, Gold S, Schwab L (2019) The voting analytic hierarchy process revisited: a revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection. Int J Prod Econ 211:166–179Popovic T, Kraslawski A, Barbosa-Póvoa A, Carvalho A (2017) Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains. J Int Stud 10(4):9–36Qorri A, Mujki Z, Kraslawski A (2018) A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. J Clean Prod 189:570–584Reefke H, Trocchi M (2013) Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: design and development guidelines. Int J Prod Perform Manag 62(8):805–826Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkSaaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38(3–4):233–244Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710Shaik M, Abdul-Kader W (2011) Green supplier selection generic framework: a multi-attribute utility theory approach. Int J Sustain Eng 4(1):37–56Shi P, Yan B, Shi S, Ke C (2015) A decision support system to select suppliers for a sustainable supply chain based on a systematic DEA approach. Inf Technol Manag 16(1):39–49Superdecisions (2018) Tutorial on hierarchical decision models. Creative Decisions Foundation. https://www.superdecisions.com/sd_resources/v28_man03.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018Thakkar J, Kanda A, Deshmukh S (2009) Supply chain performance measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises. Benchmark Int J 16(5):702–723Theißen S, Spinler S (2014) Strategic analysis of manufacturer–supplier partnerships: an ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):383–397Tseng ML, Lim M, Wong WP (2015) Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 115(3):436–461Uysal F (2012) An integrated model for sustainable performance measurement in supply chain. Proc Soc Behav Sci 62:689–694Valenzuela L, Maturana S (2016) Designing a three-dimensional performance measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: a Chilean example. Agric Syst 142:112–121Verdecho MJ, Alfaro-Saiz JJ, Rodriguez-Rodriguez R, Ortiz-Bas A (2012) A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega 40:249–263Virender P, Jayant A (2014) A green supplier selection model for an agriculture-machinery industry. Int J Appl Eng Res 9(5):597–605Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50(1):2–18Xu L, Kumar DT, Madan Shankar K, Kannan D, Chen G (2013) Analyzing criteria and sub-criteria for the corporate social responsibility-based supplier selection process using AHP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):907–916Xu Z, Qin J, Liu J, Martínez L (2019) Sustainable supplier selection based on AHP Sort II in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 483:273–293Zaklad A, McKnight R, Kosansky A, Piermarini J (2004) The social side of the supply chain. Ind Eng 36(2):40–44Zhe S, Wong NT, Lee LH (2013) Using data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation with environmental considerations. In: International systems conference, OrlandoZimmer K, Fröhling M, Schultmann F (2016) Sustainable supplier management: a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int J Prod Res 54(5):1412–144

Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies

[EN] Supplier evaluation is a relevant task of supply chain management where multicriteria methods make great contributions to manufacturing industries. This is not the case in food distribution companies, which have a key role in providing safe and affordable food to society. The purpose of this research is to measure the sustainability of products and suppliers in food distribution companies through a multiple criteria approach. Firstly, the system proposed provides indicators to qualify products and assess the food quality, using the compensatory Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) model. Secondly, these indicators are included in supplier evaluation, which takes economic, environmental, and social criteria into account. MAUT and Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), a non-compensatory method, are used for supplier evaluation. This approach has been validated for fresh food in a supermarket chain, mainly using historical data. Partial indicators, such as food safety scores, together with global indicators of suppliers, inform the most appropriate decisions and the most appropriate relations between companies and providers. Poor performance in food safety can lead to the disqualification of some suppliers. MAUT is good for qualifying products and is easy to apply at the operational level in logistic platforms, while PROMETHEE is more suitable for supplier segmentation, as it helps to identify supplier strengths and weaknesses.This research was funded by the Regional Ministry of Education, Research, Culture and Sport of the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Region, Spain, grant number AICO/2017/066.Segura Maroto, M.; Maroto Álvarez, MC.; Segura García Del Río, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability. 11(21):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215875S1181121Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.039Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903Chai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. (2017). A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2524-2543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299-314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026Demir, L., Akpınar, M. E., Araz, C., & Ilgın, M. A. (2018). A green supplier evaluation system based on a new multi-criteria sorting method: VIKORSORT. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 479-487. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.071Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030Chang, L., Ouzrout, Y., Nongaillard, A., Bouras, A., & Jiliu, Z. (2014). Multi-criteria decision making based on trust and reputation in supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 362-372. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.014Ekici, A. (2013). An improved model for supplier selection under capacity constraint and multiple criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 574-581. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.013Lin, R.-H. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.024Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max–min model for fuzzy multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651-1670. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.026Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741-2751. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064Şen, C. G., Baraçlı, H., Şen, S., & Başlıgil, H. (2009). An integrated decision support system dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5272-5283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.070Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2008). An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 763-781. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.03.012Govindan, K., Kadziński, M., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129-145. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009Rezaei, J., & Ortt, R. (2013). Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 225(1), 75-84. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.09.037Segura, M., & Maroto, C. (2017). A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 69, 87-100. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.031Bloemhof, J. M., & Soysal, M. (2016). Sustainable Food Supply Chain Design. Springer Series in Supply Chain Management, 395-412. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29791-0_18Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Critical factors for sub-supplier management: A sustainable food supply chains perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 159-173. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.011Lau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015Beske, P., Land, A., & Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 131-143. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.026Schmitt, E., Galli, F., Menozzi, D., Maye, D., Touzard, J.-M., Marescotti, A., … Brunori, G. (2017). Comparing the sustainability of local and global food products in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 346-359. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.039Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198-215. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021The PROMETHEE Bibliographical Databasehttp://www.promethee-gaia.net/bibliographical-database.htmlChen, Y.-H., Wang, T.-C., & Wu, C.-Y. (2011). Strategic decisions using the fuzzy PROMETHEE for IS outsourcing. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 13216-13222. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.137Araz, C., & Ozkarahan, I. (2007). Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 585-606. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2003). Supplier selection using a multi-criteria decision aid method. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(4), 177-187. doi:10.1016/s1478-4092(03)00032-3Seuring, S. (2013). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decision Support Systems, 54(4), 1513-1520. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.053Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 299-312. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032Xu, Z. (2000). On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 683-687. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00082-xKonys. (2019). Green Supplier Selection Criteria: From a Literature Review to a Comprehensive Knowledge Base. Sustainability, 11(15), 4208. doi:10.3390/su11154208D-Sight CDMhttp://www.d-sight.com/solutions/d-sight-cd

Assessing and Selecting Sustainable and Resilient Suppliers in Agri-Food Supply Chains Using Artificial Intelligence: A Short Review

[EN] The supplier evaluation and selection process is critical to increase the sustainability and resilience of the agri-food supply chain. Therefore, in this sector, it is necessary to consider sustainability and resilience criteria in the supplier evaluation and selection process. The use of arti¿cial intelligence techniques allows managing of a lot of information and the reduction of uncertainty for decision making. The objective of this article is to analyze articles that address the selection of suppliers in agrifood supply chains that pursue to increase their sustainability and resilience by using arti¿cial intelligence techniques to analyze the techniques and criteria used and draw conclusions.Authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of the Project 691249, RUC-APS "Enhancing and implementing Knowledge based ICT solutions within high Risk and Uncertain Conditions for Agriculture Production Systems" (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union under their funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Zavala-Alcívar, A.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ. (2020). Assessing and Selecting Sustainable and Resilient Suppliers in Agri-Food Supply Chains Using Artificial Intelligence: A Short Review. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 598:501-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_41S501510598Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S.: Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233, 299–312 (2014)Ocampo, L.A., Abad, G.K.M., Cabusas, K.G.L., Padon, M.L.A., Sevilla, N.C.: Recent approaches to supplier selection: a review of literature within 2006–2016. Int. J. Integr. Supply Manage. 12, 22–68 (2018)Valipour, S., Safaei, A.: A resilience approach for supplier selection: using Fuzzy analytic network process and grey VIKOR techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 431–451 (2017)Amindoust, A.: A resilient-sustainable based supplier selection model using a hybrid intelligent method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 126, 122–135 (2018)Zavala-Alcívar, A., Verdecho, M.-J., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J.: A conceptual framework to manage resilience and increase sustainability in the supply chain. Sustainability 12(16), 6300 (2020)Villalobos, J.R., Soto-Silva, W.E., González-Araya, M.C., González-Ramirez, R.G.: Research directions in technology development to support real-time decisions of fresh produce logistics: A review and research agenda. Comput. Electron. Agric. 167, 105092 (2019)Ristono, A., Santoso, P.B., Tama, I.P.: A literature review of design of criteria for supplier selection. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 11, 680–696 (2018)Torres-Ruiz, A., Ravindran, A.R.: Multiple criteria framework for the sustainability risk assessment of a supplier portfolio. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4478–4493 (2018)Setak, M., Sharifi, S., Alimohammadian, A.: Supplier selection and order allocation models in supply chain management: a review. World Appl. Sci. J. 18, 55–72 (2012)Ravindran, A.R., Warsing, D.P.: Supplier selection models and methods. In: Supply Chain Engineering: Models and Applications. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida (2013)De Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P.: A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 7, 75–89 (2011)De Felice, F., Deldoost, M.H., Faizollahi, M., Petrillo, A.: Performance measurement model for the supplier selection based on AHP. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 7, 1–13 (2015)Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., Schultmann, F.: Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54, 1412–1442 (2016)Christopher, M., Peck, H.: Building the resilient supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 15, 1–14 (2014)Ali, A., Mahfouz, A., Arisha, A.: Analysing supply chain resilience: integrating the constructs in a concept mapping framework via a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manage. 22, 16–39 (2017)Verdecho, M., Alarcón-Valero, F., Pérez-Perales, D., et al.: A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3Rabelo, L., Bhide, S., Gutierrez, E.: Artificial Intelligence: Advances in Research and Applications. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States (2017)Denyer, D., Tranfield, D.: Producing a systematic review. In: The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 671–689 (2019)Chen, Y.-J.: Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Inf. Sci. (Ny) 181, 1651–1670 (2011)Hamdi, F., Ghorbel, A., Masmoudi, F., Dupont, L.: Optimization of a supply portfolio in the context of supply chain risk management: literature review. J. Intell. Manuf. 29(4), 763–788 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1128-3Kumar, V., Srinivasan, S., Das, S.: Optimal solution for supplier selection based on SMART fuzzy case base approach. In: 2014 Joint 7th International Conference on Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems. SCIS 2014 and 15th International Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems. ISIS 2014, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Department of Computer Science, IISJ Yokohama, Tokai Chiba, Japan, pp. 386–391 (2014)Jahani, A., Murad, M.A.A., bin Sulaiman, M.N., Selamat, M.H.: An agent-based supplier selection framework: Fuzzy case-based reasoning perspective. Strateg. Outsourcing 8, 180–205 (2015)Wang, Q.: Hybrid knowledge-based flexible supplier selection. In: 8th International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government. ICMeCG 2014. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Department of Information Management, Shanghai Finance University, Shanghai, China, pp. 235–239 (2014)Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1200–1210 (2010)Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124, 252–264 (2010)Guo, F., Lu, Q.: Partner selection optimization model of agricultural enterprises in supply chain. Adv. J. Food Sci. Technol. 5, 1285–1291 (2013)Azadnia, A.H., Saman, M.Z.M., Wong, K.Y.: Sustainable supplier selection and order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective decision-making process. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, 383–408 (2015)Miranda-Ackerman, M.A., Azzaro-Pantel, C., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A.: A green supply chain network design framework for the processed food industry: application to the orange juice agrofood cluster. Comput. Ind. Eng. 109, 369–389 (2017)Hajikhani, A., Khalilzadeh, M., Sadjadi, S.J.: A fuzzy multi-objective multi-product supplier selection and order-allocation problem in supply chain under coverage and price considerations: an urban agricultural case study. Sci. Iran. 25, 431–449 (2018)Zhang, H., Cui, Y.: A model combining a Bayesian network with a modified genetic algorithm for green supplier selection. Simulation 95, 1165–1183 (2019)Yadav, S., Garg, D., Luthra, S.: Selection of third-party logistics services for internet of things-based agriculture supply chain management. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manage. 35, 204–230 (2020)Yazdani, M., Wang, Z.X., Chan, F.T.S.: A decision support model based on the combined structure of DEMATEL, QFD and fuzzy values. Soft. Comput. 24(16), 12449–12468 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04685-2Zhang, H., Feng, H., Cui, Y., Wang, Y.: A fuzzy Bayesian network model for quality control in O2O e-commerce. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 15(1), (2020). article number 1003. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2020.1.3783Amiri, S.A.H.S., Zahedi, A., Kazemi, M., Soroor, J., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.: Determination of the optimal sales level of perishable goods in a two-echelon supply chain network. Comput. Ind. Eng. 139, 106156 (2020)Roy, S., et al.: A framework for sustainable supplier selection with transportation criteria. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 13(2), 77–92 (2020)Parkouhi, S.V., Ghadikolaei, A.S., Lajimi, H.F.: Resilient supplier selection and segmentation in grey environment. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1123–1137 (2019)Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., Galeano, N., Molina, A.: Collaborative networked organizations – concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 46–60 (2009)Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., Kacprzyk, J., Hernandez, J., Díaz, M.A.: Agri-food 4.0: a survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture. Comput. Ind. 117, 103187 (2020)Alikhani, R., Torabi, S., Altay, N.: Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 208, 69–82 (2019

Improving Food Supply Chain Management by a Sustainable Approach to Supplier Evaluation

[EN] Increasing food supply chain sustainability means having to deal with many conflicting aspects and involves producers, several departments in distribution companies, and consumers. The objectives of this research are to develop models to solve real-world supplier evaluation problems and validate them with real data on fresh fruits in a supermarket chain. Literature review and results from a survey with managers from purchasing, logistics, and quality departments of a food distribution company are used to establish criteria, to first model the assessment of products and, second, to model supplier evaluation. A multicriteria hybrid approach is proposed, using multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) to assess the quality of products and Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) to complete their evaluation with strategic criteria to be included in the second phase. The results allow companies to rank suppliers by product and classify them according to the main criteria categories, such as product strategy, food safety, economic, logistic, commercial, green image and corporate social responsibility. A sorting approach is also applied to obtain ordered groups of suppliers. Finally, the models proposed can form the core of a decision support system in order to create and monitor the supplier base in food distribution companies, as well as to inform sustainable decision making.This research was funded by the Regional Ministry of Education, Research, Culture and Sport of the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Region, Spain, grant number AICO/2017/066.Segura Maroto, M.; Maroto Álvarez, MC.; Segura García Del Río, B.; Casas-Rosal, JC. (2020). Improving Food Supply Chain Management by a Sustainable Approach to Supplier Evaluation. Mathematics. 8(11):1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8111952S123811Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Aouadni, S., Aouadni, I., & Rebaï, A. (2019). A systematic review on supplier selection and order allocation problems. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 15(S1), 267-289. doi:10.1007/s40092-019-00334-yChai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903Wetzstein, A., Hartmann, E., Benton jr., W. C., & Hohenstein, N.-O. (2016). A systematic assessment of supplier selection literature – State-of-the-art and future scope. International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 304-323. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.022Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. (2017). A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2524-2543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023Schramm, V. B., Cabral, L. P. B., & Schramm, F. (2020). Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection - A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123089. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123089Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299-314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026Demir, L., Akpınar, M. E., Araz, C., & Ilgın, M. A. (2018). A green supplier evaluation system based on a new multi-criteria sorting method: VIKORSORT. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 479-487. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.071Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.039Konys. (2019). Green Supplier Selection Criteria: From a Literature Review to a Comprehensive Knowledge Base. Sustainability, 11(15), 4208. doi:10.3390/su11154208Segura, M., Maroto, C., & Segura, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability, 11(21), 5875. doi:10.3390/su11215875Memari, A., Dargi, A., Akbari Jokar, M. R., Ahmad, R., & Abdul Rahim, A. R. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9-24. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030Chang, L., Ouzrout, Y., Nongaillard, A., Bouras, A., & Jiliu, Z. (2014). Multi-criteria decision making based on trust and reputation in supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 362-372. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.014Ekici, A. (2013). An improved model for supplier selection under capacity constraint and multiple criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 574-581. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.013Lin, R.-H. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.024Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max–min model for fuzzy multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651-1670. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.026Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741-2751. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064Şen, C. G., Baraçlı, H., Şen, S., & Başlıgil, H. (2009). An integrated decision support system dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5272-5283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.070Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2008). An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 763-781. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.03.012Segura, M., & Maroto, C. (2017). A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 69, 87-100. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.031Trapp, A. C., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Identifying Robust portfolios of suppliers: a sustainability selection and development perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2088-2100. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.062Araz, C., & Ozkarahan, I. (2007). Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 585-606. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363-11368. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00243-0Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5Nemery, P., & Lamboray, C. (2007). ℱlow $\mathcal{S}$ ort: a flow-based sorting method with limiting or central profiles. TOP, 16(1), 90-113. doi:10.1007/s11750-007-0036-xLau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015D-Sight CDM http://www.d-sight.com/solutions/d-sight-cdmNemery, P., Lidouh, K., & Mareschal, B. (2011). On the usefulness of taking the weights into account in the GAIA visualisations. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 3(3), 228. doi:10.1504/ijids.2011.041585Nemery, P., Ishizaka, A., Camargo, M., & Morel, L. (2012). Enriching descriptive information in ranking and sorting problems with visualizations techniques. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(2), 130-147. doi:10.1108/17465661211242778Xu, Z. (2000). On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 683-687. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00082-xOrtiz‐Barrios, M., Miranda‐De la Hoz, C., López‐Meza, P., Petrillo, A., & De Felice, F. (2019). A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 27(1-2), 104-128. doi:10.1002/mcda.169

Optimization of the supplier selection process in prefabrication using BIM

Prefabrication offers substantial benefits including reduction in construction waste, material waste, energy use, labor demands, and delivery time, and an improvement in project constructability and cost certainty. As the material cost accounts for nearly 70% of the total cost of the prefabrication project, to select a suitable material supplier plays an important role in such a project. The purpose of this study is to present a method for supporting supplier selection of a prefabrication project. The proposed method consists of three parts. First, a list of assessment criteria was established to evaluate the suitability of supplier alternatives. Second, Building Information Modelling (BIM) was adopted to provide sufficient information about the project requirements and suppliers’ profiles, which facilitates the storage and sharing of information. Finally, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to rank the importance of the assessment criteria and obtain the score of supplier alternatives. The suppliers were ranked based on the total scores. To illustrate how to use the proposed method, it was applied to a real prefabrication project. The proposed method facilitates the supplier selection process by providing sufficient information in an effective way and by improving the understanding of the project requirements

Towards a business model for sustainable supply chain management

Designers make decisions that ultimately impact on both the economic, environmental and social performance of the products and process, and many of these costs and impacts occur across the supply chain. This paper aims to show initials elements of a research which aims to develop an integrated business model for sustainable supply chain management in order to facilitate the business management process in terms of assessment of suppliers and collaboration addressed to the sustainable improvements across supply chain. It is noteworthy that it is an imperative in the current competitive market that companies must be able to manage their entire production chain taking into account sustainable issues as an important factor in their decision processes. Therefore, it is believed that this model can integrate and strengthen a company’s functions and assist its decision processes as well as implement improvements within its supply chain

How supplier selection criteria affects business performance? A study of UK automotive sector

According to KPMG international (2015), global sales of automobiles are forecasted to reach 73.9 million vehicles and expected to hit 100 million units in the next two years. This shows that automotive sector has a tremendous growth potential and UK automotive sector is no different. However, in recent years the growing environmental awareness has become a major concern for automotive sector as they are faced with pressure of reducing carbon emissions as well as the costs. Suppliers play a significant role in achieving environmental goals set by organisations. Under these circumstances it is worth exploring the criteria that are used in assessing suppliers including the green aspects and how that affects the business performance. Design/methodology/approach: This research adopts a mixed method research approach. In order to collect the quantitative data a survey questionnaire was constructed and sent to automotive businesses listed in the FAME database. In order to triangulate the findings of this study, survey was complemented with in-depth interviews. Around 100 automotive manufacturers were invited for the survey however only 38 usable responses were received. In total seven semi-structured interviews were also conducted with people from different backgrounds and work experiences in the automotive sector. Findings: Literature identified delivery, cost, quality and technology as the supplier assessment criteria commonly used in assessing suppliers in automotive industries. Yet the issue of culture and green supply chain practices (GSP) were also widely concerned in several studies. The data analysis showed that delivery, quality, cost, technology, culture are correlated with exception of green supply chain practices. GSP was only found to be correlated with technology and cultural criteria. Semi-structured interviews suggest delivery and quality as the most important criteria when assessing supplier because of their greater impact toward business performance and reputation. Findings from all respondents also showed that most automotive manufacturers have already adopted environmental competency in their criteria. However, interviewees mentioned that this criterion does not take a major role in assessment compared with other criteria. The results also indicate that all factors studied do affect the business performance of automotive organisations. Value: This study contributes to the limited literature focused on assessing supplier selection criteria and business performance linkage in the UK automotive organisations. In addition, most studies on supplier selection and business performance ignore the green practices as important criteria which this study aims to address. Research limitations/implications: The study is based on the findings from a limited survey responses and semi-structured interviews. Having larger sample population would certainly improve the validity of the findings. The perspective of SMEs and large businesses with regard to each supplier selection criterion may be different hence the future research in this domain would also provide some valuable contributions. Practical implications: The survey responses indicate green supply practices as one of the important criteria in supplier selection. This suggests that automotive manufacturers should realize the importance of green practices while selecting their suppliers. This will help them to meet their own green goals while simultaneously meeting the government environmental.Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan ▪ Economic Development Bureau, Kaohsiung, Taiwan ▪ National Kaohsiung First University of Science & Tech, Taiwan ▪ National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan ▪ Taiwan International Ports Corp. Ltd. ▪ Jade Yachts Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. ▪ International Academy for Marine Economy and Technology, The University of Nottingham Ningbo Campus, China ▪ The Institute for Advanced Manufacturing, The University of Nottingham, U

Value-driven partner search for <i>Energy from Waste</i> projects

Energy from Waste (EfW) projects require complex value chains to operate effectively. To identify business partners, plant operators need to network with organisations whose strategic objectives are aligned with their own. Supplier organisations need to work out where they fit in the value chain. Our aim is to support people in identifying potential business partners, based on their organisation’s interpretation of value. Value for an organisation should reflect its strategy and may be interpreted using key priorities and KPIs (key performance indicators). KPIs may comprise any or all of knowledge, operational, economic, social and convenience indicators. This paper presents an ontology for modelling and prioritising connections within the business environment, and in the process provides means for defining value and mapping these to corresponding KPIs. The ontology is used to guide the design of a visual representation of the environment to aid partner search

Sustainable supply chain management needs sustainable logistics services. The strategic role played by logistics service providers

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the concept of sustainable service co-creation in triadic business relationships in logistics and supply chain management. More companies seek to develop sustainable solutions that would not be sustainable exclusively for themselves but for the supply chain they belong to. In doing that – especially when dealing with services – they may need the external support from logistics service providers (LSPs). This paper aims to explore the innovative initiatives undertaken by LSPs in triadic relationship management with their customers and suppliers while co-creating sustainable services along the supply chain. Design/methodology/approach – To investigate the research question, a systematic literature review and empirical exploratory investigation through case study will be conducted adopting the qualitative methodology, to explore trends and evolving paradigms. Findings – A literature review conducted in this paper enriches existing literature through an integration of sustainability in a viable system approach and logistics service provision, in particular, it investigates the ways in which sustainability is achieved. It is assumed that the triadic relationship among an LSP and its customers and suppliers requires significant modifications in collaboration and an innovative approach in operating procedures. Research limitations/implications – This paper is an exploratory study and limited in its scope to an example of a relationship that focuses mainly on three actors: the supplier, the LSP and the customer. However, it could be extended in terms of numbers of case studies investigated. Practical implications – The implications arising from the literature and the empirical research offer a range of current sustainable practices in the services sector. This could be a starting point for other research and company activities. Originality/value – There is little research that addresses the issue of sustainability and logistics service providers simultaneously, hence the present paper is meant to fill the gap by providing a foundation which actors of different supply chains could use as a benchmark. This study gives evidence of how logistics services may contribute to sustainable development. Key words – sustainable supply chain management, logistics service providers, viable system approach, co-creation, business relationship managemen

An application of hybrid life cycle assessment as a decision support framework for green supply chains

In an effort to achieve sustainable operations, green supply chain management has become an important area for firms to concentrate on due to its inherent involvement with all the processes that provide foundations to successful business. Modelling methodologies of product supply chain environmental assessment are usually guided by the principles of life cycle assessment (LCA). However, a review of the extant literature suggests that LCA techniques suffer from a wide range of limitations that prevent a wider application in real-world contexts; hence, they need to be incorporated within decision support frameworks to aid environmental sustainability strategies. Thus, this paper contributes in understanding and overcoming the dichotomy between LCA model development and the emerging practical implementation to inform carbon emissions mitigation strategies within supply chains. Therefore, the paper provides both theoretical insights and a practical application to inform the process of adopting a decision support framework based on a LCA methodology in a real-world scenario. The supply chain of a product from the steel industry is considered to evaluate its environmental impact and carbon ‘hotspots’. The study helps understanding how operational strategies geared towards environmental sustainability can be informed using knowledge and information generated from supply chain environmental assessments, and for highlighting inherent challenges in this process