Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Lean and Green Supply Chain Management

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, W. R. (2007). The sustainability handbook: The complete management guide to achieving social, economic and environmental responsibility. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2014). Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 73, 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, S., & Sodhi, M. M. S. (2004). Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganguly, K. K., & Guin, K. K. (2013). A fuzzy AHP approach for inbound supply risk assessment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 20(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radivojević, G., & Gajović, V. (2017). Supply chain risk modeling by AHP and fuzzy AHP methods. Journal of Risk Research, 17(3), 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zsidisin, G. A. (2003). A grounded definition of supply risk. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5–6), 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paksoy, T., Çalik, A., Yildizbaşi, A., Huber, S. (2019). Risk Management in Lean & Green Supply Chain: A Novel Fuzzy Linguistic Risk Assessment Approach. In: Paksoy, T., Weber, GW., Huber, S. (eds) Lean and Green Supply Chain Management. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 273. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97511-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics