Evaluating the Social Sustainability Criteria of Supply Chain Management in Manufacturing Industries: A Role of BWM in MCDM

• Autorzy: Khokhar Maryam , Hou Yumei , Rafique Muhammad Asim , Iqbal Wasim

Warianty tytułu

PL

Ocena kryteriów zrównoważoności społecznej w zarządzaniu łańcuchem dostaw w przemyśle wytwórczym: rola BWM w MCDM

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Supply chain management firms are gradually pressurized to incorporate social sustainability practices to address social issues. Though, the researchers emphasized on different dimensions of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), i.e., social, environmental and economic but fewer considered the social aspect of sustainability. The purpose of this research is to take into account the social dimension of sustainability into manufacturing industries. The social dimension of sustainability as compared to other sustainable, has severe adverse impact across supply chains. In order to demonstrate the applicability and efficiency of social sustainability in supply chain management, a sample of 53 practitioners of Pakistani manufacturing companies has been selected to prioritize and evaluate the SCSS criteria by applying a decision-making multi-criteria method called the best worst method (BWM). The criteria of the study are ranked according to their average weight achieved through BWM. The criterion employment practices has been chosen as the most significant criterion while cultural values criterion is considered as least important. The results of this study are helpful for industry managers, practitioners and decision-makers to take the decisions for the implementation of social criteria to enhance the social sustainability that lead to sustainable development.

PL

Firmy zarządzające łańcuchem dostaw są poddawane presji, aby wprowadzić praktyki zrównoważonego rozwoju społecznego w celu rozwiązania problemów społecznych. Chociaż naukowcy zwracają uwagę na różne wymiary zrównoważonego zarządzania łańcuchem dostaw (SSCM), tj. społeczny, środowiskowy i ekonomiczny, jednak należy zauważyć, że w najmniejszym stopniu dyskutowane są aspekty społeczne. Celem tych badań jest uwzględnienie społecznego wymiaru zrównoważonego rozwoju w przemyśle wytwórczym. Społeczny wymiar zrównoważoności, w porównaniu z innymi, ma poważny negatywny wpływ na łańcuchy dostaw. W celu wykazania możliwości zastosowania i efektywności zrównoważoności społecznej w zarządzaniu łańcuchem dostaw, wybrano próbę 53 praktyków z pakistańskich firm produkcyjnych w celu ustalenia priorytetów i oceny kryteriów SCSS poprzez zastosowanie wielokryterialnej metody decyzyjnej zwanej najlepszą/najgorszą metodą (BWM). Kryteria badania są uszeregowane według ich średniej wagi osiągniętej w BWM. Kryterium dotyczące zatrudnienia zostało wybrane jako najistotniejsze, natomiast kryterium wartości kulturowych jest uważane za najmniej ważne. Wyniki tego badania są pomocne dla menedżerów branży, praktyków i decydentów w podejmowaniu decyzji dotyczących wdrażania kryteriów społecznych w celu zwiększenia zrównoważości społecznej, która prowadzi do zrównoważonego rozwoju.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Supply Chain Social sustainability (SCSS); Best Worst Method (BWM); Multi-Criteria Decision-making Method (MCDM); Manufacturing Industries

PL

łańcuch dostaw społecznej zrównoważoności (SCSS); najlepsza/najgorsza metoda (BWM); metoda podejmowania decyzji na podstawie wielu kryteriów; przemysł wytwórczy

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 15, nr 2
• Strony: 185--194
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 53 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Khokhar Maryam

• School of Economics and Management Yanshan University, China

autor

Hou Yumei

• School of Economics and Management Yanshan University, China

autor

Rafique Muhammad Asim

• School of Economics and Management Yanshan University, China

autor

Iqbal Wasim

• School of Economics and Management Yanshan University, China

Bibliografia

• 1. ABOUTORAB H., SABERI M., ASADABADI MR., HUSSAIN O.,CHANG E., 2018, ZBWM: The Z-number extension of Best Worst Method and its application for supplier development, in: Expert Systems with Applications,107, p. 115-125.
• 2. AHI P., SEARCY C., JABER MY., 2018, A Quantitative Approach for Assessing Sustainability Performance of Corporations, in: Ecological Economics, 152, p. 336-346.
• 3. AHMAD, S., WONG, K. Y., & RAJOO, S., 2019, Sustainability indicators for manufacturing sectors: Aliterature survey and maturity analysis from the triple-bottom line perspective, in: Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(2), p. 312-334.
• 4. ARCESE G., LUCCHETTI MC., MASSA I., 2017, Modeling Social Life Cycle Assessment framework for the Italian wine sector, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, p. 1027-1036.
• 5. AZEVEDO SG., CARVALHO H., DUARTE S., CRUZMACHADO V., 2012, Influence of Green and Lean Upstream Supply Chain Management Practices on Business Sustainability, in: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), p. 753-765.
• 6. BADRI AHMADI H., KUSI-SARPONG S., REZAEI J., 2017, Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method, in: Resources Conservsation and Recycling, 126, p. 99-106.
• 7. BRANDENBURG M., SEURING S., 2014, Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions, in: European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), p. 299-312.
• 8. CERRI J., THØGERSEN J., TESTA F., 2019, Social desirability and sustainable food research: A systematic literature review, in: Food Quality and Preference,71, p. 136-140.
• 9. CILIBERTI F., PONTRANDOLFO P., SCOZZI B., 2008, Investigating corporate social responsibility in supply chains: a SME perspective, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), p. 1579-1588.
• 10. CLOSS DJ., SPEIER C., MEACHAM N., 2011, Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: the role of supply chain management, in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), p. 101-116.
• 11. DAS D., 2017, Development and validation of a scale for measuring Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices and performance, in: Journal of Cleaner Production,164, p. 1344-1362.
• 12. DIAS LS., IERAPETRITOU MG, 2017, From process control to supply chain management: An overview of integrated decision making strategies, in: Compueters and Chemical Engineering, 106, p. 826-835.
• 13. EPSTEIN, M. J., 2018, Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts, Routledge.
• 14. FONT X., TAPPER R., SCHWARTZ K., KORNILAKI M., 2008, Sustainable supply chain management in tourism, in: Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(4), p. 260-271.
• 15. GALAL NM., MONEIM AFA., 2016, Developing Sustainable Supply Chains in Developing Countries, in: Procedia CIRP, 48, p. 419-424.
• 16. GOVINDAN K., 2018, Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework, in: International Journal of Production Economics, 195, p. 419-431.
• 17. HALE J., LEGUN K., CAMPBELL H., CAROLAN M., 2019, Social sustainability indicators as performance, in: Geoforum, 103, p. 47-55.
• 18. HUO B., GU M., WANG Z., 2019, Green or lean? A supply chain approach to sustainable performance, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, p. 152-166.
• 19. HUSSAIN M., AJMAL MM., GUNASEKARAN A., KHAN M., 2018, Exploration of social sustainability in healthcare supply chain, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, p. 977-989.
• 20. INTERLENGHI SF.,DE ALMEIDA BRUNO P., ARAUJO O DE QF,DE MEDEIROS JL, 2017, Social and environmental impacts of replacing transesterification agent in soybean biodiesel production: Multicriteria and principal component analyses, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, p. 149-162.
• 21. JIA F., GONG Y., BROWN S, 2018, Multi-tier sustainable supply chain management: The role of supply chain leadership, in: International Journal of Production Economics, p. 5-58.
• 22. KAPITAN, V., S., & IKRAM, S., 2019, The Influence of Profitability and Leverage on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure, in: Journal of Accounting Auditing and Business, 2(2), p. 14-25.
• 23. KORNUTA, J. A., NEPIYUSHCHIKH, Z., GASHEVA, O. Y., MUKHERJEE, A., ZAWIEJA, D. C., & DIXON, J. B., 2015, Effects of dynamic shear and transmural pressure on wall shear stress sensitivity in collecting lymphatic vessels, in: American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 309(9), p. 1122-1134.
• 24. KLEINDORFER PR., SINGHAL K., WASSENHOVE LN., 2009, Sustainable Operations Management, in: Production and Operations Management, 14(4), p. 482-492.
• 25. KUMAR, A., & ANBANANDAM, R., 2019, Development of social sustainability index for freight transportation system, in: Journal of cleaner production, 210, p. 77-92.
• 26. MANZINI, R., ACCORSI, R., AYYAD, Z., BENDINI, A., BORTOLINI, M., GAMBERI, M., & GALLINA TOSCHI, T., 2014, Sustainability and quality in the food supply chain. A case study of shipment of edible oils, in: British Food Journal, 116(12), p. 2069-2090.
• 27. MAXWELL D., VAN DER VORST R., 2003, Developing sustainable products and services, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(8), p. 883-895.
• 28. MARTÍNEZ-JURADO PJ., MOYANO-FUENTES J., 2014, Lean Management, Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: A Literature Review, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, p. 134-150.
• 29. MANAVALAN E., JAYAKRISHNA K., 2019, A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements, in: Computer and Industrial Engineering, 127, p. 925-953.
• 30. MI X., TANG M., LIAO H, SHEN W., LEV B, 2019, The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what’s next?, in: Omega.
• 31. MOROKE T., SCHOEMAN C., SCHOEMAN I., 2019, Developing a neighbourhood sustainability assessment model: An approach to sustainable urban development, in: Sustainable Cities and Society, p. 101433.
• 32. NAWAZ W., LINKE P., KOҪ M., 2019, Safety and sustainability nexus: A review and appraisal, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, p. 74-87.
• 33. NISHAT FAISAL M., 2010, Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers, in: Business Process Management Journal, 16(3), p. 508-529.
• 34. OGASAWARA, K., & YUMITORI, M., 2019, Early-life exposure to weather shocks and child height: Evidence from industrializing Japan, in: SSMpopulation health, 7, 100317.
• 35. ORUEZABALA G., RICO J-C., 2012, The impact of sustainable public procurement on suppliermanagement — The case of French public hospitals, in:Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), p. 573- 580.
• 36. O’ROURKE D., 2014, The science of sustainable supply chains., in: Science, 344(6188), p. 1124-1127.
• 37. RACHIH H., MHADA FZ., CHIHEB R., 2019, Metaheuristics for reverse logistics: A literature review and perspectives, in: Computer and Industrial Engineering, 127, p. 45-62.
• 38. RAJAK S.,VINODH S., 2015, Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability performance evaluation: a case study of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organization, in: Journal of Cleaner Production,108, p. 1184-1192.
• 39. RAMEZANKHANI MJ., TORABI SA., VAHIDI F., 2018, Supply chain performance measurement and evaluation: A mixed sustainability and resilience approach, in: Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, p. 531-548.
• 40. REZAEI J., HEMMES A., TAVASSZY L., 2017, Multicriteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight, in: Journal of Air Transport Management, 61, p. 95- 105.
• 41. REZAEI J., NISPELING T., SARKIS J., TAVASSZY L., 2016, A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, p. 577-588.
• 42. SCHÄTTER F., HANSEN O., WIENS M., SCHULTMANN F., 2019, A decision support methodology for a disaster-caused business continuity management, in: Decision Support Systems, 118, p. 10-20.
• 43. SHIBIN K.T.,GUNASEKARAN A., DUBEY R, 2017, Explaining sustainable supply chain performance using a total interpretive structural modeling approach, in: Sustainable Production and Consumption, 12, p. 104-118.
• 44. SOUNDARARAJAN V., BRAMMER S., 2018, Developing country sub-supplier responses to social sustainability requirements of intermediaries: Exploring the influence of framing on fairness perceptions and reciprocity, in: Journal of Operations Management, 58, p. 42-58.
• 45. SUTHERLAND JW., RICHTER JS., HUTCHINS MJ., ET AL., 2016, The role of manufacturing in affecting the social dimension of sustainability, in: CIRP Annals, 65(2), p. 689-712.
• 46. SPENCE LJ., RINALDI L., 2014, Governmentality in accounting and accountability: A case study of embedding sustainability in a supply chain, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), p. 433-452.
• 47. SIERRA LA.,YEPES V., PELLICER E., 2018, A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures, in:Journal of Cleaner Production,187, p. 496-513.
• 48. SIGALA M., 2008, A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators on sustainable tourism: the case of TUI, in: Journal Cleaner Production, 16(15), p. 1589-1599.
• 49. TOST M., HITCH M., CHANDURKAR V., MOSER P., FEIEL S., 2018, The state of environmental sustainability considerations in mining, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, p. 969-977.
• 50. WOLF J., 2014, The Relationship Between Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Sustainability Performance, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), p. 317-328.
• 51. WANG Y., SINGGIH M.,WANG J.,RIT M., 2019, Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains?, in: International Journal of Production Economics, 211, p. 221-236.
• 52. WAN AHMAD WNK, REZAEI J., DE BRITO MP., TAVASSZY LA., 2016, The influence of external factors on supply chain sustainability goals of the oil and gas industry, in: Resource Policy, 49, p. 302-314.
• 53. YAWAR, S. A., & SEURING, S., 2017, Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature review exploring social issues, actions and performance outcomes, in: Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), p. 621-643.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).