A Warehouse Social and Environmental Performance Metrics Framework
Abstract
To improve the supply chain performance in all three aspects of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental), a comprehensive sustainable performance measurement system that captures all the supply chain partners’ efforts and commitments is required. Warehouse, as the second largest logistics source of environmental pollution in the supply chain has been almost completely overlooked and ignored in the past studies. To fill this gap, a warehouse performance metrics framework for environmental and social performance measures was proposed using a novel Fuzzy Delphi and Best-worst methodological approach. The method is less time-consuming than the Analytic Hierarchy Process or Analytic Network Process, it does not address whether criteria are dependent or independent, requires fewer comparisons of criteria, but still produces reliable and credible results. The presented framework consists of 32 equally formulated environmental and social performance indicators, including formulas and measurement units. The 14 most important indicators are ranked according to the requirements of different stakeholders.
References
Beske-Janssen P, Johnson MP, Schaltegger S. 20 years of performance measurement in sustainable supply chain management–what has been achieved? Supply chain management: An International Journal. 2015;20(6): 664-80.
Burritt R, Schaltegger S. Accounting towards sustainability in production and supply chains. The British Accounting Review. 2014;46(4): 327-43.
Tajbakhsh A, Hassini E. A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate sustainability in supply chain networks. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;105: 74-85.
Hahn T, Pinkse J, Preuss L, Figge F. Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015;127(2): 297-316.
Kusi-Sarpong S, Gupta H, Sarkis J. A supply chain sustainability innovation framework and evaluation methodology. International Journal of Production Research. 2019;57(7): 1990-2008.
Maas K, Schaltegger S, Crutzen N. Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;136: 237-48.
Jakhar SK. Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision model for a sustainable supply chain of an apparel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;87: 391-413.
Tseng M-L, Lim MK, Wong W-P, Chen Y-C, Zhan Y. A framework for evaluating the performance of sustainable service supply chain management under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics. 2018;195: 359-72.
Chardine-Baumann E, Botta-Genoulaz V. A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2014;76: 138-47.
Erol I, Sencer S, Sari R. A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecological Economics. 2011;70(6): 1088-100.
Schaltegger S, Burritt R, Varsei M, Soosay C, Fahimnia B, Sarkis J. Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with multidimensional indicators. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 2014;19(3): 242-257.
Baskaran V, Nachiappan S, Rahman S. Indian textile suppliers' sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. International Journal of Production Economics. 2012;135(2): 647-58.
Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012;39(3): 3000-11.
Kannan D, de Sousa Jabbour ABL, Jabbour CJC. Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational Research. 2014;233(2): 432-47.
Kumar A, Jain V, Kumar S. A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega. 2014;42(1): 109-23.
Shaw K, Shankar R, Yadav SS, Thakur LS. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012;39(9): 8182-92.
Zeydan M, Çolpan C, Çobanoğlu C. A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011;38(3): 2741-51.
Benjaafar S, Li Y, Daskin M. Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: Insights from simple models. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. 2012;10(1): 99-116.
Carmona R, Fehr M, Hinz J, Porchet A. Market design for emission trading schemes. Siam Review. 2010;52(3):403-52.
Diabat A, Govindan K. An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2011;55(6): 659-67.
Gong X, Zhou SX. Optimal production planning with emissions trading. Operations Research. 2013;61(4): 908-24.
Lee K-H, Saen RF. Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics. 2012;140(1): 219-26.
Subramanian R, Subramanyam R. Key factors in the market for remanufactured products. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management. 2012;14(2): 315-26.
Bank R, Murphy R. Warehousing Sustainability Standards Development. In: Prabhu V, Taisch M, Kiritsis D. (eds) Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, 9-12 Sep 2013, State College, PA, USA. Springer; 2013. p. 294-301.
Tan K-S, Daud Ahmed M, Sundaram D. Sustainable enterprise modelling and simulation in a warehousing context. Business Process Management Journal. 2010;16(5): 871-86.
Rüdiger D, Schön A, Dobers K. Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Warehousing and Transshipment with Environmental Performance Indicators. Transportation Research Procedia. 2016;14: 886-95.
Żuchowski W. Division of environmentally sustainable solutions in warehouse management and example methods of their evaluation. LogForum. 2015;11(2).
Fichtinger J, Ries JM, Grosse EH, Baker P. Assessing the environmental impact of integrated inventory and warehouse management. International Journal of Production Economics. 2015;170: 717-29.
Amjed TW, Harrison NJ, editors. A Model for sustainable warehousing: From theory to best practices. Proceedings of the International Decision Sciences Institute and Asia Pacific DSI Conference; 2013.
Chen X, Wang X, Kumar V, Kumar N. Low carbon warehouse management under cap-and-trade policy. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;139: 894-904.
Bartolini M, Bottani E, Grosse EH. Green warehousing: Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;226: 242-58.
Banaszewska A, Cruijssen F, Dullaert W, Gerdessen JC. A framework for measuring efficiency levels—The case of express depots. International Journal of Production Economics. 2012;139(2): 484-95.
McKinnon A. Environmental sustainability. Green logistics: Improving the environmental sustainability of logistics. London; 2010.
Ries JM, Grosse EH, Fichtinger J. Environmental impact of warehousing: A scenario analysis for the US. International Journal of Production Research. 2017;55(21): 6485-99.
Staudt F, Di Mascolo M, Alpan G, Rodriguez CMT. Warehouse performance measurement: Classification and mathematical expressions of indicators. ILS 2014 – 5th International Conference Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain, Aug 2014, Breda, Netherlands; 2014.
ISO 14000:2015. Environment Management System - Requirements with guidance to use. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2015.
ISO 14063:2006. Environmental Management – Environmental communication – Guidelines and Examples. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2006.
GRI 301: Materials. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative; 2018. p. 10.
GRI 302: Energy. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2018. p. 15.
GRI 303: Water and effluents. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2018. p. 23.
GRI 305: Emissions. Amsterdam: Stichting Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2018. p. 21.
GRI 404: Training and education. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2016. p. 12.
GRI 403: Occupational health and safety. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2018. p. 31.
Sarkar P, Joung CB, Carrell J, Feng SC. Sustainable manufacturing indicator repository. ASME Proceedings on 31st Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 29-31 Aug 2011, Washington, DC; 2011.
Kibira D, Brundage MP, Feng S, Morris K. Procedure for selecting key performance indicators for sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. 2018;140(1): 011005.
Defra. Environmental Key Performance Indicators: Reporting Guidelines for UK Business. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2005. p. 76.
GRI 306: Effluents and waste. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2016. p. 13.
GRI 304: Biodiversity. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2016. p. 13.
GRI 402: Labor/Management relations. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2016. p. 9.
GRI 406: Non-discrimination. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2016. p. 8.
GRI 413: Local communities. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); 2016. p. 13.
Ishikawa A, Amagasa M, Shiga T, Tomizawa G, Tatsuta R, Mieno H. The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1993;55(3): 241-53.
Wang M-L, Lin Y-H. To construct a monitoring mechanism of production loss by using Fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy regression technique – A case study of IC package testing company. Expert Systems with Applications. 2008;35(3): 1156-65.
Mlinarić TJ, Đorđević B, Krmac E. Evaluation Framework for Key Performance Indicators of Railway ITS. Promet – Traffic&Transportation. 2018;30(4): 491-500.
Habibi A, Jahantigh FF, Sarafrazi A. Fuzzy Delphi technique for forecasting and screening items. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management. 2015;5(2): 130-43.
Saffie NAM, Rasmani KA. Fuzzy delphi method: Issues and challenges. 2016 International Conference on Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences (LISS), 24-27 July 2016, Sidney, Australia. IEEE; 2016.
Abdi K, Talebpour M, Fullerton J, Ranjkesh MJ, Jabbari Nooghabi H. Converting sports diplomacy to diplomatic outcomes: Introducing a sports diplomacy model. International Area Studies Review. 2018;21(4): 365-81.
Hsu Y-L, Lee C-H, Kreng VB. The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications. 2010;37(1): 419-25.
Tuljak-Suban D, Bajec P. The Influence of Defuzzification Methods to Decision Support Systems Based on Fuzzy AHP with Scattered Comparison Matrix: Application to 3PLP Selection as a Case Study. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 2018;26(03): 475-91.
Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 2008;1(1): 83-98.
Herman MW, Koczkodaj WW. A Monte Carlo Study of Parwise Comparison. Inf Process Lett. 1996;57(1): 25-9.
Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega. 2015;53: 49-57.
Beemsterboer DJC, Hendrix EMT, Claassen GDH. On solving the Best-Worst Method in multi-criteria decision-making. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2018;51(11): 1660-5.
Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega. 2016;64: 126-30.
Copyright (c) 2020 Patricija Bajec, Danijela Tuljak-Suban, Ivona Bajor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
