Advertisement

Risk Management in Lean & Green Supply Chain: A Novel Fuzzy Linguistic Risk Assessment Approach

  • Turan Paksoy
  • Ahmet Çalik
  • Abdullah Yildizbaşi
  • Sandra Huber
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 273)

Abstract

In today’s world, the pressure of competition considerably changed because of the increasing pressure of market competition, changes in customer expectations due to global warming and the globalization of the economy. Growing pressures in supply chain activities urge to companies to adopt new approaches by reducing waste and planning environmental friendly processes, such as recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing. There have been several studies proposed that lean activities can help make the case for environmental impact reduction to companies. Thus, most companies have reorganized their supply chain by the integrate the green activities through the balance of lean and green models simultaneously. According to this idea, they started to transfer some of their business process activities to external companies to be leaner & greener. Outsourcing can lead to cost reductions, meeting customer demand, reducing waste, gaining more flexibility and sharing of risks. Although outsourcing in the lean & green supply chain management brings benefits, companies can confront various risks. From this viewpoint, we propose a new fuzzy linguistic risk assessment approach to assess suppliers’ risks according to several criteria such as experience level of suppliers, criticality level of parts supplied, manufacturing technical requirements and complexity of parts supplied, effect of the deviations on the final product function, flexibility of suppliers, green activity level of suppliers, occupational health and safety risk, environmental risk and cooperation level of suppliers. For this purpose, an integrated solution approach that consists of four stages is applied. At the first stage, the relative weights of the criteria are calculated by asking the decision makers with the help of the pair-wise comparison matrix. At the second stage, suppliers’ scores are evaluated according to the selected criteria using linguistic variables. At the third stage, risk levels of suppliers are calculated. At the fourth stage, suppliers are assigned to risk groups according to their risk level action plans are determined. Finally, a numerical example is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Keywords

Risk management Group decision making Lean & green supply chain management Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy linguistic variables 

References

  1. Aggarwal, R., & Sharma, S. (2013). Prioritization of supply chain risk assessors using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In International conference on machine intelligence and research advancement (pp. 100–104).Google Scholar
  2. Awasthi, A., & Chauhan, S. S. (2012). A hybrid approach integrating affinity diagram, AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(2), 573–584.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.07.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Influence of green and lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 753–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badea, A., Prostean, G., Goncalves, G., & Allaoui, H. (2014). Assessing risk factors in collaborative supply chain with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 124, 114–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazan, E., Jaber, M. Y., & Zanoni, S. (2015). Supply chain models with greenhouse gases emissions, energy usage and different coordination decisions. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(17), 5131–5151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.03.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn, W. R. (2007). The sustainability handbook: The complete management guide to achieving social, economic and environmental responsibility. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  7. Bochao, L. (2010). Supply chain risk assessment based on AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. In International conference on management of e-commerce and e-government (pp. 317–322).Google Scholar
  8. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S. G., & Cruz Machado, V. (2010). Supply chain performance management: Lean and green paradigms. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 2(3/4), 304–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carvalho, H., Duarte, S., & Cruz Machado, V. (2011). Lean, agile, resilient and green: Divergencies and synergies. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(2), 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carvalho, H., Govindan, K., Azevedo, S. G., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2017). Modelling green and lean supply chains: An eco-efficiency perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120, 75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chatterjee, K., & Kar, S. (2016). Multi-criteria analysis of supply chain risk management using interval valued fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of the Operational Research Society of India, 53, 474–499.Google Scholar
  13. Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2014). Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 73, 73–80.Google Scholar
  14. Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 52–62.Google Scholar
  15. Corbett, C. J., & Klassen, R. D. (2006). Extending the horizons: Environmental excellence as key to improving operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 8(1), 5–22.  https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1060.0095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cousins, P. D., Lamming, R. C., & Bowen, F. (2013). The role of risk in environment-related supplier initiatives. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(6), 554–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhingra, R., Kress, R., & Upreti, G. (2014). Does lean mean green? Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dong, Q., & Cooper, O. (2016). An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 144–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EPA. (2007). The lean and environment toolkit (pp. 1–96). Retrieved September 22, 2017, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/leanenvirotoolkit.pdf; http://www.epa.gov/lean
  20. Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., & Blome, C. (2010). Managing supplier sustainability risks in a dynamically changing environment-sustainable supplier management in the chemical industry. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 16(2), 118–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2010.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ganguly, K. K., & Guin, K. K. (2013). A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk assessment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(1), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H., & Talluri, S. (2015). Supply chain risk management: A literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 53(16), 5031–5069.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1030467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofmann, H., Busse, C., Bode, C., & Henke, M. (2014). Sustainability-related supply chain risks: Conceptualization and management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Journal Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar, S., Kumar, P., & Kumar, M. (2015). Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mital, M., Del Guidice, M., & Papa, A. (2017, February). Comparing supply chain risks for multiple product categories with cognitive mapping and analytic hierarchy process. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W. L., & Ueltschy, M. (2010). Green, lean, and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1/2), 14–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nazam, M., et al. (2015). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, 2(1), 548–568.Google Scholar
  29. Nooraie, S. V., & Mellat Parast, M. (2015). A multi-objective approach to supply chain risk management: Integrating visibility with supply and demand risk. International Journal of Production Economics, 161, 192–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1), 46–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radivojević, G., & Gajović, V. (2017). Supply chain risk modeling by AHP and fuzzy AHP methods. Journal of Risk Research, 17(3), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prasanna Venkatesan, S., & Kumanan, S. (2012). Supply chain risk prioritisation using a hybrid AHP and PROMETHEE approach. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 13(1), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1699–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simpson, D. F., & Power, D. J. (2005). Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(1), 60–68.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540510578388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sodhi, M. M. S. (2005). Managing demand risk in tactical supply chain planning for a global consumer electronics company. Production and Operations Management, 14(1), 69–79.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00010.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tang, O., & Nurmaya Musa, S. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tao, L. (2012). Risk assessment in the supply chain management based on fuzzy AHP model. Progress in Applied Mathematics, 4(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
  38. Teuscher, P., Grüninger, B., & Ferdinand, N. (2006). Risk management in sustainable lessons learnt from the case of GMO-free soybeans. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, X., Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. Y., & Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012). A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 135, 595–606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xiaoping, W. (2016). Food supply chain safety risk evaluation based on AHP fuzzy integrated evaluation method. International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 10(3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zsidisin, G. A. (2003). A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5–6), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Turan Paksoy
    • 1
  • Ahmet Çalik
    • 2
  • Abdullah Yildizbaşi
    • 3
  • Sandra Huber
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringKonya Technical UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of International Trade and LogisticsKTO Karatay UniversityKonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringYıldırım Beyazıt UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Logistics ManagementHelmut Schmidt UniversityHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations