Applied Mathematical Modelling: Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy

Applied Mathematical Modelling 39 (2015) 2882–2896
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Mathematical Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apm
Assessing sustainability in the supply chain: A triple bottom line

approach
Payman Ahi ⇑, Cory Searcy
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The application of sustainability principles into supply chains is an evolving research area
Received 10 August 2013 currently suffering from a scarcity of established theories, models, and frameworks. There
Received in revised form 6 July 2014 are at least two key reasons why it is difficult to build sustainability into the supply chain.
Accepted 16 October 2014
First, there are numerous context dependent factors that either enable or hinder progress
Available online 25 November 2014
towards sustainability in a supply chain. There is a need to better understand how these
factors affect the sustainability performance of supply chains. Second, implementing sus-
Keywords:
tainability requires a triple bottom line approach, where improvements are pursued in
Sustainability
Supply chain
the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of performance. These two challenges
Triple bottom line mean that implementing sustainability in a supply chain is a complex process that involves
Probabilistic model a large number of interacting factors. This paper contributes to efforts to overcome these
Multidimensional challenges by proposing a mathematical model for assessing sustainability in the supply
Performance assessment chain. The model is based on the notion that a probabilistic representation of sustainability
can realistically account for its challenges. The development of the proposed model was
guided by the need for ease of use, simplicity, and the ability to quickly provide feedback
on the sustainability status of supply chains over time.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Organizations around the world are increasingly incorporating the requirements of sustainability into their day to day
operations. The life cycle implications of organizational decisions, including issues associated with the management of
supply chains, are therefore receiving increased importance [1]. This paper focuses on the integration of sustainability into
supply chains, with an emphasis on assessing performance.
The sustainability concept has created many debates over the last decade [2]. Since its conception in the late 1980s, sus-
tainability and sustainable development have become popular catchwords used in a number of contexts [3]. However, the
notion of simultaneously addressing the concepts of sustain and develop has created a number of dilemmas, not the least of
which is what sustainability means in practice. As a result, ‘‘there is not a collective consensus of what sustainability means
and of what constitutes sustainable development’’ [4, p. 300]. Generally, it is argued that sustainable development is
concerned with processes, while sustainability is a state. Nevertheless, the terms ‘‘sustainability’’ and ‘‘sustainable develop-
ment’’ are frequently used interchangeably in the literature [5]. The same approach will also be used in this paper.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto M5B 2K3, Canada. Tel.: +1 647 867 5013;
fax: +1 416 979 5265.
E-mail address: payman.ahi@ryerson.ca (P. Ahi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.10.055
0307-904X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
P. Ahi, C. Searcy / Applied Mathematical Modelling 39 (2015) 2882–2896 2883
Notations
G challenge imposed on the supply chain

g random variable representing challenge to the supply chain
S strength of the supply chain
s random variable representing strength of the supply chain
Sus sustainability of the supply chain
gt random variable representing challenge to the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’
st random variable representing strength of the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’
Sust sustainability of the supply chain in the period ‘‘t’’
t index of designated periods: t = 1, 2, 3, . . ., n
C gt economic type of challenge factors imposed on the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’
cgt random variable representing C gt
wc g t prominence weight for cgt
wcgd t
cgt maximum value for wcgt cgt
cgjt respective sustainability indicator representing cgt in period ‘‘t’’
^cgj numerical value for cgjt
t
C st economic factors affecting the strength of the supply chain during period ‘‘t’’
c st random variable representing C st
wcst prominence weight for cst
wcsd t
cst maximum value for wcst cst
csjt respective sustainability indicator representing cst in period ‘‘t’’
^csj numerical value for csjt
t
Ogt social type of challenge factors imposed on the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’
og t random variable representing Ogt
wogt prominence weight for ogt
wogd t
og t maximum value for wogt ogt
ogjt respective sustainability indicator representing ogt in period ‘‘t’’
^g t
o numerical value for ogjt
Ost social factors affecting the strength of the supply chain during period ‘‘t’’
Ost random variable representing Ost
wost prominence weight for ost
wosd t
ost maximum value for wost ost
osjt respective sustainability indicator representing ost in period ‘‘t’’
^ sj
o numerical value for osjt
t
V gt environmental type of challenge factors imposed on the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’
vg t
random variable representing V g t
wv g t prominence weight for v g t
wv gdt
v gt maximum value for wv gt v gt
v gj t
respective sustainability indicator representing v gt in period ‘‘t’’
v^ g jt
numerical value for v gjt
V st environmental factors affecting the strength of the supply chain during period ‘‘t’’
vs t
random variable representing V st
wv st prominence weight for v st
wv sd
t
v st maximum value for wv st v st
v sj t
respective sustainability indicator representing v st in period ‘‘t’’
v^ s jt
numerical value for v sjt
j index of representative sustainability indicators j = 1, 2, 3, . . ., m
m total number of representative sustainability indicators in each period
Mgt vector of means for wv gt v g t , wcgt cgt and wogt ogt
M Tgt transpose of matrix M gt
M st vector of means for wv st v st , wcst cst and wost ost
M Tst transpose of matrix M st
n total number of designated periods (e.g., year)
Rg t variance covariance matrix for wv gt v gt , wcgt cgt and wogt ogt
Rst variance covariance matrix for wv st v st , wcst cst and wost ost
R1
gt matrix inverse of Rgt
R1
st matrix inverse of Rst
lgt mean value of the variable g t
lst mean value of the variable st
rgt standard deviation of the variable g t
2884 P. Ahi, C. Searcy / Applied Mathematical Modelling 39 (2015) 2882–2896
rst standard deviation of the variable st

f ðgÞ probability density function for g
f ðsÞ probability density function for s
Fðg t Þ cumulative distribution function for g t
Fðst Þ cumulative distribution function for st
f ðwcgt cg t Þ probability density function for wcgt cgt
f ðwogt og t Þ probability density function for wogt ogt
f ðwv gt v gt Þ probability density function for wv gt v gt
f ðwcst cst Þ probability density function for wcst cst
f ðwost ost Þ probability density function for wost ost
f ðwv st v st Þ probability density function for wv st v st
f ðwv gt v gt ; wcgt cgt ; wogt ogt Þ joint probability density function for wv gt v gt , wcgt cg t and wogt ogt
f ðwv st v st ; wcst cst ; wost ost Þ joint probability density function for wv st v st , wcst cst and wost ost
In light of the above, sustainability is commonly defined as using resources to meet the needs of the present without com-
promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [6]. Sustainability is a complex and multidimensional
issue, which merges efficiency and inter- and intra-generational equity on an environmental, economic, and social basis.
Given the need for tackling issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, decreasing material availability, and meeting
energy consumption requirements, sustainability is becoming an increasingly important concept for governance and policy
dialogue. Accordingly, sustainability has also become widely-recognized as a critical issue for business survival in an increas-
ingly competitive world [7]. In this light, myriad discussions have focused on the implications of sustainability and the types
of philosophies and standards that may be required to achieve sustainability (e.g. [8–10]). One central concept that has
emerged to help to operationalize sustainability is the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, where performance is assessed
in the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability [11]. This sustainability perspective is sometimes
presented in the literature by utilizing the planet, people, and profit as the main features of sustainability (e.g. [12–15]),
though some authors dispute whether these ‘‘3P’s’’ actually cover the same ground as the TBL [16].
Researchers and practitioners in different fields are increasingly considering the impacts and implications of sustainabil-
ity on traditional assumptions and practices in their fields [17]. Accordingly, debates on the application of sustainability in a
supply chain context have grown over the last decade [18,19]. The term ‘‘supply chain management’’ (SCM) has evolved to
encompass the planning and control of materials, information flows, and logistics activities both within and between com-
panies [20]. Moreover, the breadth of activities addressed by SCM has continued to expand over time [21]. For example,
starting from an initial emphasis on material flows, the SCM concept has grown to incorporate information flows and rela-
tionship networks [22,23]. Stock et al. [22] explained that SCM developed as ‘‘a means of improving an organization’s com-
petitive advantage and the competitiveness of its constituent members by creating mutually beneficial or symbiotic supply
chain networks’’ (p. 34). Integrating a variety of functions and processes within and between organizations is an essential
element of SCM [24,25]. Accordingly, SCM concepts have been applied across organizations to improve operating perfor-
mance, provide new sources of competitive advantage while offering better value(s) to consumers, and ultimately develop
superior managed organizations and inter-organizational relationships [26]. Building on the above, as a representative def-
inition, Mentzer et al. [27] defines SCM as ‘‘the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the
tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the
purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a whole’’ (p. 18).
Given the influence of SCM on the economic, environmental, and social impacts of an organization, it is vital to contemplate
its relation to sustainability initiatives.
It is important to recognize that there are several factors that either enable or hinder progress towards sustainability in
the supply chain context. A number of organization specific and operating environment specific factors can be drawn from
the literature. For example, prominent organization specific factors could include the desire to reduce costs [28–31], the
management of risk [28,31], the drive to improve quality [29,32], the desire to obtain ISO 14000 certification [33], the level
of employee involvement [30,34], the values of the organizational founder [29,31,35], and investor pressure [28,36]. Clearly,
customer demands [30], collaboration with suppliers [37], and the integration of the supply network [31,38] will also play
important roles. Monitoring performance has also been widely identified as a key factor in this regard [31,39–44]. Key factors
in the broader operating environment that may either enable or inhibit progress towards sustainability in the supply chain
may include regulations [28,31,45–49] and proactive action to prevent further regulation [30,50,51]. Public pressure [46],
competitive challenges [31,49,52–57], and the limits of the local and global environment [58] are other representative exam-
ples. Many of these organization specific and operating environment specific factors could serve as either an enabler or an
inhibitor of sustainability depending on how they are handled by the focal organization in the supply chain.
There is a need to better understand how these factors affect the sustainability performance of supply chains. This need is
rooted in the fact that it is becoming an essential requirement to measure the sustainability level of supply chains and also to
monitor their performance towards sustainability over time. In particular, there is a tangible need for stochastic modeling
approaches that can account for the uncertain decision environment in which these many complex factors exist [59]. The
current paper contributes to these needs through the development of a unique probabilistic model for assessing sustainabil-
ity in the supply chain. The paper makes several contributions to the literature. First, it provides one of the first probabilistic
models for assessing sustainability in the supply chain. The model explicitly recognizes that the factors that enable and inhi-
bit sustainability in a supply chain are all fundamentally context dependent. The model is unique in that it addresses all
three areas of the TBL from a probabilistic perspective. The model also incorporates a unique weighting component that
has not been previously addressed in this context in the literature. Second, the paper provides a clear reference point for
future work by both academics and practitioners. The paper highlights the need to systematically identify the key sustain-
ability challenges and opportunities in a particular supply chain. Critically, it also highlights the need for improved reporting
and standardization of data collection procedures across the entire supply chain. The paper identifies and explains the key
challenges in collecting sustainability data at the supply chain level. Furthermore, it discusses how this data can be trans-
lated into values that can be used in a probabilistic approach. If data collection challenges can be overcome, the model pro-
vides a practical and straightforward way to assess the sustainability performance of any supply chain. The development of
the proposed model was guided by the need for ease of use, simplicity, and the ability to quickly provide feedback on sus-
tainability status of supply chains over time.
2. Literature review
Organizations are increasingly assimilating sustainability into their SCM practices [60]. Although the motivations of indi-
vidual organizations may vary, key objectives generally include an interest in achieving sustainable streams of products, ser-
vices, information and funds to provide maximum value to all involved stakeholders [14,61]. Considering the ambiguities
and vagueness inherent in the definition of sustainability [6], there are complexities when trying to adopt the principles
of sustainability in practice. More complications can be expected when dealing with the TBL sustainability approach, which
involves a higher number of interacting factors. In this view, sustainability is considered to be more than an aggregation of
the important subjects, it is about their interconnections and the dynamics developed within an organization or a supply
chain [62,63]. The multidimensionality of sustainability is a characteristic that makes the search for appropriate measures
to monitor sustainability performance very difficult [64].
A number of theoretical and practical approaches for developing appropriate performance measures have been proposed.
However, it is widely recognized that further work is necessary. For example, further research is needed in the selection of
measures that take into account all areas of the TBL [65]. The essentially multidimensional nature of sustainability requires
simultaneous consideration of measures representing the various features of sustainability over time. Accordingly, more
research on the exchanges between conflicting sustainability objectives is required [66]. The fact that the sustainability
objectives underlined in the TBL approach are not always mutually supportive is seldom recognized in the development
of sustainability measures [67]. An integrative sustainability framework is therefore required to analyze the trade-offs
among such objectives across all the involved channels in the supply chain(s) [59]. Moreover, while the literature highlights
a research bias toward practical measures as the means to address sustainability in supply chains, it does not offer a consid-
erable number of tangible outputs [68]. This was also emphasized by Hassini et al. [69] who argued that there is a relative
dearth of efforts on developing measures required for assessing sustainability in supply chains.
Building on the above, measuring sustainability in a supply chain context is a growing area of interest among researchers
and practitioners in the field [59,67]. However, the literature on this subject is still relatively limited. Drawing on the recent
research by Hassini et al. [69], Seuring [70], and Brandenburg et al. [59], quantitative models for assessing sustainability in a
supply chain may be organized into the following distinct analytical modeling approaches: life-cycle assessment (LCA) based
models, applications of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), equilibrium models, multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
models, input–output analysis (IOA) based models, and composite metrics.
LCA is a systematic method for studying and evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with a product,
process, or activity, by identifying and quantifying materials used, energy consumed, and wastes discharged to the environ-
ment [71,72]. Seuring [70] found LCA to be the most commonly used technique for assessing sustainability issues in supply
chains [70]. This finding is supported by earlier research [73] that had emphasized the use of LCA based criteria in a supply
chain context. Evaluating environmental issues and attempting to minimize their impacts along a supply chain were the typ-
ical components addressed in this approach (e.g. [74–79]). AHP is the second most commonly used modeling approach for
assessing sustainability issues in the supply chain context [70]. AHP is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing
complex and multi objective decisions [80]. This methodology does not usually contemplate a complete mathematical for-
mulation of a specific problem, and hence is often employed as semi-quantitative decision making technique (e.g. [81,82]).
However, it is widely used for simplifying and structuring complex decisions [83]. Accordingly, considering the inclusion of
sustainability requirements in the supply chain context, employing the AHP technique provided opportunities for assessing
complex decision situations where environmental and economic goals were evaluated simultaneously (e.g. [82,55,84,85]).
Equilibrium modeling is a standard and well established methodology on evaluating performance of a supply chain
[86,87] and has been used to assess sustainability concerns in supply chains [70]. The typical foundation of the equilibrium
models in the literature were the balancing of environmental and economic issues, by offering a relevant equilibrium or opti-
mum solution (e.g. [88–91]). No probabilistic approach was emphasized in any of the published models. MCDM is another
commonly utilized analytical modeling approach [59,70]. MCDM is a discipline that explicitly considers multiple conflicting
criteria, which need to be evaluated in decision-making processes. This approach is concerned with structuring and solving
decisions and planning problems comprising multiple criteria. Optimizing environmental and economic criteria by balancing
trade-offs or proposing optimal solutions are typically the main areas of emphasis in this approach (e.g. [92–95]). Seuring
[70] has explained that the identified MCDM and equilibrium models exhibit somewhat comparable initial points, in that
they both intend to find a balance between various environmental and economic performance criteria. Input–output analysis
(IOA) is another analytical modeling technique used for assessing sustainability related issues in supply chains [59]. In this
modeling approach the relationships between outputs of some performance measures and the supply chain’s input param-
eters and their related decision factors can be analyzed. Accordingly, the IOA technique provides opportunities to evaluate
throughputs of environmental capital (e.g., renewable and non-renewable ecological goods, material use, ecosystem services,
and impact of emissions on human health) and economic goals (i.e., lowering costs and/or maximizing profits) along supply
chain networks (e.g. [65,96–99]). The last analytical modeling approach that may be used to address sustainability issues in
the supply chain context is developing and employing composite metrics [59,69]. Composite metrics applied with varying
levels of complexity [100] are gaining merit, and are increasingly recognized as practical tools for policy prioritization, deci-
sion-making, and communication with respect to different levels of system performance [63]. Ample research has been con-
ducted on this subject (e.g., [63,101–105]). Drawing on the theory of performance measure design (e.g., [106]) composite
metrics are practical tools in focusing attention through their ability to summarize complex and multifaceted problems into
one metric [63]. While different methodologies have been proposed for the development and implementation of composite
metrics in the sustainability context (e.g., [102,107–110]), it is often argued that composite metrics are too subjective, as
their results undesirably are dependent on the specific weighting system employed alongside the aggregation method used
for combining the various factors involved [63,103].
The literature shows that there is a very strong dominance on addressing the environmental dimension of sustainability
in a supply chain (e.g. [72,76,111,112]). While the environmental aspect of sustainability forms the main foundation in the
majority of the modeling approaches identified [59,70], it is important to acknowledge that there are a number of publica-
tions that address both the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable supply chain performance (e.g.,
[71,74,77,96,97,113,114]). However, very few approaches explicitly address the social dimension of sustainability (e.g.,
[75,115–117]). The concentration to date has been first on environmental issues and then on the combination of environ-
mental and economic aspects, while the focus on the social features of sustainability (e.g. [118]) has been relatively limited
[67,119]. This is further emphasized by Seuring [70] and Brandenburg et al. [59] who argued that the social aspect is almost
completely missing or sometimes grasped in a far too simplified manner in the sustainability measurement studies. This
argument is also supported by the wider literature reviews available (e.g., [119–122]), which also highlighted a lack of
research on social features. Overall, although assessing sustainability in the supply chain has become a growing research
area in the academic literature [59,123], the existing approaches rarely offer an integrated approach that takes the many dif-
ferent aspects of sustainability into consideration simultaneously [69,124].
Considering all of the discussions provided above, there is a clear requirement for developing integrative frameworks that
take all sustainability features into account for assessing the sustainability level of supply chains. This is also supported by
Seuring [70] who emphasized that there is a clear research gap concerning the overall integration of the three sustainability
dimensions. Furthermore, as emphasized by Brandenburg et al. [59], there is a tangible need for stochastic modeling
approaches to measuring sustainability in supply chains in order to take into account the complex, uncertain decision envi-
ronments in which they operate. In this light, the current paper aims to respond to these needs by developing an integrative
probabilistic model that adopts the TBL sustainability perspective, and can be used as a practical tool for sustainability
assessment of supply chains.
3. Model formulation
Model-based quantitative research is a type of study where models of causal relationships among different control and
performance variables are developed, analyzed and tested [125]. This research method has been used in the supply chain
literature (e.g. [87,126,127]) and is employed in the current paper.
For the purposes of this study, sustainability is described as ‘‘the long term capability of well being by encompassing
the responsible management of all resources, which results in meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ [128]. This builds on the most widely-accepted definition of sus-
tainability provided by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 [6]. Building on a principle established in Ahi and Searcy
[128], the fundamental assumption for the development of the sustainability model proposed in this paper is that there
are several enablers and barriers for any supply chain, which either further or hinder the supply chain’s progress towards
sustainability. It is also conceptualized that any supply chain will have certain challenge-resisting strength. In this view,
the enabler factors support the supply chain’s competence by strengthening the capability of the supply chain to move
towards sustainability. The barrier factors cause challenges to the supply chain, and/or reduce the strength of the supply
chain to withstand such challenges. If the supply chain’s strength exceeds the challenges that are induced by the pre-
sented barriers, the supply chain will exhibit sustainability. Fig. 1 represents elements of the framework for constructing
the proposed model.
Progress towards sustainability
Yes
Enablers Strength > Challenge Barriers
No
Regress from sustainability
Fig. 1. Framework for construction of the proposed sustainability model.
Since not all relations identified in sustainability analysis of the supply chain will have similar relevance, weight and
meaning, the involved supportive and hindering factors are all considered fundamentally context dependent. Furthermore,
since it is difficult to determine the precise transition between states of sustainability and unsustainability for complex sys-
tems (such as supply chains), this paper assumes that it is only possible to assess progress (or decline) towards sustainability,
rather than the firm status of sustainability for the supply chain. The principles of context-dependency and measuring pro-
gress rather than a firm status in sustainability were also established by Ahi and Searcy [128]. Additionally as highlighted by
Foran et al. [129], decision-makers require timely information, which reveals whether a supply chain is generally becoming
more or less sustainable. In light of the above and considering the fact that all potential supportive and hindering factors for
the supply chain’s sustainability are fundamentally context dependent, it can be argued that the prediction of being success-
ful (or unsuccessful) in sustainability is essentially a probabilistic problem [128]. Accordingly, as utilization of probabilistic
methods has been previously deemed to be a feasible and practical approach in sustainability analysis [59,130], this paper
argues that variable characterization of sustainability functions can provide a realistic analytical model for sustainability
assessments of supply chain(s) and, hence, a probabilistic sustainability model is proposed.
Building on the discussions provided above, identifying and understanding the potential enabler and barrier factors are
important for the development of the proposed sustainability model. These enablers and barriers will vary from supply chain
to supply chain, but it is possible to offer several representative examples. Relying on renewable energy sources, reusing pro-
cess water (e.g., for cooling), increasing return on average capital employed (ROACE), customer satisfaction, and contribu-
tions to local and national employment are some examples of the enabling factors that may support a supply chain’s
strength. On the other hand, emissions of air pollutants, toxic materials, fines and penalties paid for non-compliances with
legal requirements, customer complaints, and work interruptions due to lost-time injuries as result of work related
accidents, are some examples of potential barriers to sustainability and therefore impose challenges on the supply chain.
According to the framework illustrated in Fig. 1, the sustainability of a supply chain will be an estimation of the ability of
the supply chain under consideration to withstand challenges imposed by the presented barriers. Therefore, in the proposed
model, the supply chain is considered sustainable if and only if the challenge(s) imposed on the supply chain do not exceed
the supply chain’s strength [128]. Both the strength and challenge factors can be analyzed probabilistically and treated as
random variables.
The challenge factors represent an aggregate of the obstacles and barriers in the supply chain. Examples of potential envi-
ronmental challenges to the supply chain could include rate of non-renewable energy used relative to the total energy con-
sumption and disposal rate of hazardous solid wastes. Potential economic challenges could be represented by the ratio of
faulty orders and/or orders received with damage or defected products over the total orders issued and rate of non-
compliance-related penalties paid relative to the total obtained revenue, while the percentage of work interruptions due
to lack of required training and/or work related accidents and the rate of customer complaints could represent potential
social challenges to the supply chain. Many possibilities for example strength factors also exist. The level of recycled or
re-used packaging relative to the total amount of packaging, percentage of residual hazardous materials (RHMs) diverted
from landfill (i.e., all highlighting environmental issues), total costs of employment as a proportion of net sales, ratio of green
purchases (i.e., environmental-friendly material and/or products) over the total purchases made, proportion decrease in total
supply chain cycle time (i.e., all highlighting economic issues), rate of employment sourced from local communities, and rate
of customer satisfaction (i.e., all highlighting social issues) can be some representations for the supporting factors towards a
supply chain’s sustainability. Many of these examples for both strength and challenge factors are typically reported in pub-
licly available corporate sustainability reports, though some further work may be necessary in order to translate them into
numbers that can be used in a probabilistic model. Relatively few examples of indicators reported in probabilistic fashion at
the level of a supply chain are available.
Considering all of the above, the first step in assessing the sustainability of any supply chain is to determine the param-
eters that affect the supply chain’s strength and challenge. Since different supply chains operate in different contexts, these
parameters will vary from one supply chain to another. Given that the primary users of the sustainability assessment will be
decision-makers in the supply chain’s focal firm, ultimate responsibility for the selection of these parameters rests with the
focal firm. Consultation with other players in the supply chain (e.g., suppliers, distributors, etc.) and other key external stake-
holders (e.g., communities, non-governmental organizations, etc.) will be important inputs into the selection of the key
strength and challenge factors. As mentioned earlier, sustainability in this study is conceptualized as the probability that
the supply chain’s strength is greater than the challenge imposed on the supply chain. This is consistent with the approach
outlined in Ahi and Searcy [128]. Therefore:
Sus ¼ P ðS > GÞ ¼ PðS G > 0Þ ð1Þ

Building on the discussion above, if the Probability Density Functions (PDF) for the strength S and challenge G can be
denoted by f(s) and f(g), respectively, Eq. (1) can be written as (adapted from Ahi and Searcy [128]):
Z 1 Z s
Sus ¼ PðS > GÞ ¼ f ðsÞ f ðgÞdg ds ð2Þ
0 0
Since the main purposes of the current study is to evaluate a supply chain’s progress towards sustainability over time, the
proposed model has been designed to accommodate ‘‘n’’ number of designated periods (e.g., year), over which the sustain-
ability analysis will be carried out. In a key departure from Ahi and Searcy [128], which focused on a single dimension, this
paper adopts a three-dimensional approach to assessing sustainability performance. Adopting the TBL sustainability
approach, the model recognizes that different environmental, economic, and social variables are involved in any supply
chain. These variables will jointly form each of the supply chain’s strength and challenge components in every designated
period. Accordingly, if V st , C st and Ost represent the environmental, economic, and social factors affecting the strength of
the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’, respectively, and moreover, wv st , wcst and wost represent the respective weights signifying
the prominence of these supporting factors, then the PDF for these factors may be denoted as f ðwv st v st Þ, f ðwcst cst Þ, and
f ðwost ost Þ, respectively. The incorporation of a weighting scheme further distinguishes this model from that presented in
Ahi and Searcy [128], which implicitly assumed that all factors must be equally weighted. Therefore, the corresponding
Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) for the strength of the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’ can be defined as:
Z wvd
s v st
Z wcd
s cst
Z wod
s ost
t t t
Fðst Þ ¼ f wv st v st ; wcst cst ; wost ost dwv s v st dwcs cst dwos ost : ð3Þ
t t t
0 0 0

Taking Eq. (3), f wv st v st ; wcst cst ; wost ost is a joint PDF constructed from random variables representing the weighted
environmental, economic, and social factors that affect the strength and jointly form the variable ‘‘st ’’, which represents the
strength of the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’.
Similarly, if V gt , C gt and Ogt represent the environmental, economic, and social types of challenge factors imposed on the
supply chain in period ‘‘t’’, respectively, and moreover, wv gt , wcgt and wogt represent the respective weights signifying the prom-
inence of these challenge factors, then the PDF for these factors may be denoted as f ðwv gt v gt Þ, f ðwcgt cgt Þ, f ðwogt ogt Þ, respec-
tively. Therefore, the corresponding CDF for the challenge to the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’ can be defined as:
Z wvd
g t v g t
Z wcd
g c g t
Z wod
g og t
t t
Fðg t Þ ¼ f wv gt v gt ; wcgt cgt ; wogt ogt dwv g v gt dwcg cgt dwog ogt : ð4Þ
t t t
0 0 0

As shown in Eq. (4), f wv gt v gt ; wcgt cgt ; wogt ogt is a joint PDF constructed from random variables representing the
weighted environmental, economic, and social factors that jointly form the variable ‘‘g t ’’, which represents the challenge
to the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’.
Based on an assumption that all of the factors comprising the supply chain’s strength and challenge are normally distrib-
uted, the CDF for the respective strength and challenge of the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’ can be defined as:
Z wvd
s v st
Z wcd
s cst
Z wod
s ost n o
t t t
Fðst Þ ¼ ð1=2pÞ3=2 jRst j1=2 exp 1=2MTst R1
st M st dwv st v st dwcst cst dwost ost ð5Þ
0 0 0
And
Z wvd
g t v g t
Z wcd
g c g t
Z wod
g og t n o
t t
Fðg t Þ ¼ ð1=2pÞ3=2 jRgt j1=2 exp 1=2M Tgt R1
g t M g t dwv g t v gt dwcg t cgt dwogt ogt ð6Þ
0 0 0
The normal distribution is one of the most commonly used probability distributions in practice. In this model, it is used
due to the fact that the variability in strength, challenge, or both parameters may be caused by the sum of many effects, no
one of which is dominant. Therefore, by applying Eqs. (5) and (6), the strength and challenge of the supply chain in period ‘‘t’’
can be calculated.
As mentioned earlier, variables ‘‘st ’’ and ‘‘g t ’’ are representing the supply chain’s strength and challenge in each designated
period ‘‘t’’. By considering normal distribution for these variables, Eq. (2) can now be written as:
2 3
Z 1
ðst ls Þ2
t Z st
ðg t lg Þ2
t
1
2r2
4 1
2r2
Sust ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi e st pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi e gt
dgt 5dst ð7Þ
0 r st 2p 0 rgt 2p
As previously explained, one of the key assumptions in the model is that sustainability is conceptualized as the probabil-
ity that the strength of the supply chain exceeds the challenges imposed upon it. Eq. (7) may therefore be simplified as
follows:
!
lst lgt
Sust ¼ 1 u 1=2
ð8Þ
ðr2st þ r2gt Þ
Since both papers assume normal distributions for the involved factors, Eqs. (7) and (8) were also used in Ahi and Searcy
[128]. By calculating the related strength and challenge for different periods of ‘‘t’’ and applying the results in Eq. (8) in con-
junction with use of the standard normal tables, the sustainability of the supply chain under consideration can be estimated
for each period of interest, separately.
As noted above, the approach used in this paper shares two key features with a previous paper by Ahi and Searcy [128].
First, the notion of potential barriers and enablers of sustainability articulated in Ahi and Searcy is one of the foundations of
this paper. Both papers further recognize that these factors are context-dependent. Second, both the paper by Ahi and Searcy
and this paper assume a normal distribution for the variables. This is a common assumption in research employing proba-
bilistic models that are applicable outside of the sustainability realm. However, there are also a number of important differ-
ences between the models in each paper. The earlier paper by Ahi and Searcy focused on a one-dimensional approach to
measuring the environmental performance of a company at the level of a single firm. As outlined above, this paper provides
a three-dimensional perspective to measuring the sustainability performance of a supply chain. The model in this paper is
therefore capable of accommodating scenarios not envisioned in the earlier paper. It specifically addresses the economic and
social performance dimensions of sustainability that were not explicitly incorporated into the earlier paper. Moreover, it
underlines the need to consider players in the supply chain beyond the focal firm. Given the growing recognition that sus-
tainability extends beyond the boundaries of any one firm [131], this represents a significant extension of the model pre-
sented in the earlier paper. The model described above also incorporates a mechanism for weighting of the various
factors included in the model. This is in recognition of the fact that different factors may have different priorities in different
supply chains. The model in the earlier paper assumed that the weights for each factor were equal in all cases. In practice, all
sustainability factors are rarely of equal importance in different supply chains. The model presented in this paper, therefore,
provides greater flexibility for decision-makers. The model provides a clear method of tailoring efforts to measure sustain-
ability in supply chains to the unique circumstances faced by those decision-makers. Moreover, the model presented in the
current paper provides a unique opportunity for evaluating the sustainability of the supply chain at any designated period of
interest whilst the cumulative effects of all the involved factors in all the previous periods are being considered. With that in
mind, the model presented in this paper represents a significant extension of the earlier paper by Ahi and Searcy. Overall, it is
important to stress that the two papers each represent unique contributions. Further details on the contributions of the cur-
rent paper are provided below.
4. Illustration and discussions
As mentioned earlier, the proposed model recognizes that any supply chain will have multiple strength and challenge
factors. These factors may be represented by sustainability indicators. Several representative example indicators were pro-
vided in the previous section. Other representative examples are widely available in corporate sustainability reports, partic-
ularly those produced in accordance with the reporting guidelines provided by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [132].
Although these representative indicators provide a useful reference point, the specific strength and challenge factors must
be tailored to suit the unique circumstances of the supply chain under evaluation. In other words, they must address the
specific context within which that supply chain operates. That said, one of the key features of the probabilistic model pro-
vided here is that the indicators must be expressed as a percentage. This builds on the research of Ebert and Welsch [133],
who underscored the importance of using ratio scale indicators in sustainability analysis. To demonstrate how indicators
may be selected and employed, this section presents an illustrative application of the proposed model. This example will
demonstrate how the model may be used in practice. A detailed discussion of the implications of the model is also provided.
4.1. Example application of the model
Measuring the sustainability of any supply chain necessitates that data is available at the supply chain level. However,
virtually all corporate sustainability indicators are based on data that addresses a single organization. Indicators that address
suppliers are typically limited. For example, the world’s most widely-used sustainability reporting guidelines, the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) [132], have relatively little to say on supply chains. Of the 91 performance indicators suggested
by the GRI, only 15 address supply chain issues [[132], p. 86]. ‘‘Percentage of new suppliers that were screened using envi-
ronmental criteria’’, ‘‘Significant actual and potential negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken’’,
‘‘Percentage of new suppliers that were screened using labor practices criteria’’, ‘‘Significant actual and potential negative
impacts for labor practices in the supply chain and actions taken’’, ‘‘Percentage of new suppliers that were screened using
human rights criteria’’, ‘‘Percentage of new suppliers that were screened using criteria for impacts on society’’, ‘‘Significant
actual and potential negative impacts on society in the supply chain and actions taken’’, and ‘‘Proportion of spending on local
suppliers at significant locations of operation’’ are some representative examples of such indicators suggested by the GRI
[132]. The GRI thus underlines the need to address supply chain issues in sustainability performance measurement. It is
important to note that the GRI does not provide much, if any, guidance on how to aggregate data at the supply chain level.
Additionally, indicators that address core sustainability issues, such as emissions and economic value added, tend to be
restricted to a single entity in the supply chain. It has been widely noted in the literature that data collection has overwhelm-
ingly focused on single firms rather than the supply chain as a whole (e.g. [69,70,131,134–136]). This makes the testing of
models with real-world data difficult. Corporations are not widely publicly reporting on the impacts of their supply chains
and data is generally not presented at the supply chain level. This may be due to the difficulties of aligning data collection
and reporting procedures across the many players in a supply chain. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the probabi-
listic approach employed by the model in this paper necessitates that the indicators be translated into probability numbers.
Although some publicly reported indicators may already appear in this format, many do not. Ahi and Searcy [128] provided
some examples of how publicly available data could be used to develop probability numbers for a company. However, it is
important to underline that data availability is a fundamental issue for any model focused on measuring sustainability per-
formance in supply chains. There is a relatively small amount of data available that is reported at the level of a supply chain.
This is true of both the academic and practitioner literature. In the rare cases where such data is available, it is generally not
reported in a probabilistic fashion. Therefore, few examples of probabilistic indicators for supply chains currently exist. For
illustrative purposes, several example strength and challenge factors at the supply chain level were given in Section 3. These
examples provide insight into how sustainability factors can be translated into probability numbers. As previously noted, the
specific sustainability factors that are relevant to any particular supply chain will vary, but the principles of translating the
factors into probability numbers are broadly the same as shown in the examples. A key challenge in applying the model in
practice is therefore not just in conceiving potential sustainability factors to include in the model, but also in the availability
of the data needed to support those factors.
The challenges described above necessitate the use of a theoretical example to demonstrate the application of the model
presented in the previous section. Further discussions of the challenges associated with data collection at the supply chain
level are provided in the discussion on the implications of the model. It is therefore necessary to make several assumptions
to demonstrate the application of the model. Assume that 5 sustainability indicators considered for each variable type are
presented in Tables 1 and 2, where j (i.e., 1, 2, ..., 5) is the index of such indicators and t (i.e., 1, 2, ..., 5) is the index of designated
periods (i.e., years). These indicators must be selected to suit the unique circumstances of any particular supply chain, but
the indicators listed earlier provide some insight into the options available. By taking Eqs. (5) and (6), these variables will
jointly form strength and challenge components of the supply chain under evaluation in 5 different years. If v ^ sj , ^csj and
1 1
^sj are the numerical values for the sustainability indicators representing environmental, economic, and social factors
o
1
Table 1
Sustainability indicators representing strength factors.*
v sj ; csj ; osj
t t t
t
1 2 3 4 5
v s1 t v^ s 11
v^ s 12
v^ s 13
v^ s 14
v^ s 15
v s2 t v^ s 21
v^ s 22
v^ s 23
v^ s 24
v^ s 25
v s3 t v^ s 31
v^ s 32
v^ s 33
v^ s 34
v^ s 35
v s4 t v^ s 41
v^ s 42
v^ s 43
v^ s 44
v^ s 45
v s5 t v^ s 51
v^ s 52
v^ s 53
v^ s 54
v^ s 55
cs1t ^cs1 ^cs1 ^cs1 ^cs1 ^

c s1 5
1 2 2 4

c s2 5
1 2 3 4

c s3 5
1 2 3 4

c s4 5
1 2 3 4

c s5 5
1 2 3 4
os1t ^ s1
o ^ s1
o ^ s1
o ^s1
o ^ s1
o
1 2 3 4 5
os2t ^ s2
o ^ s2
o ^ s2
o ^s2
o ^ s2
o
1 2 3 4 5
os3t ^ s3
o ^ s3
o ^ s3
o ^s3
o ^ s3
o
1 3 3 4 5
os4t ^ s4
o ^ s4
o ^ s4
o ^s4
o ^ s4
o
1 2 3 4 5
os5t ^ s5
o ^ s5
o ^ s5
o ^s5
o ^ s5
o
1 2 3 4 5
*
For the purpose of simplicity, all the sustainability indicators representing
strength factors are equally weighted in the illustrative example.
Table 2
Sustainability indicators representing challenge factors.*
v gj ; cgj
t t
; ogjt t
1 2 3 4 5
v g1 t v^ g 11
v^ g 12
v^ g 13
v^ g 14
v^ g 15
v g2 t v^ g 21
v^ g 22
v^ g 23
v^ g 24
v^ g 25
v g3 t v^ g 31
v^ g 32
v^ g 33
v^ g 34
v^ g 35
v g4 t v^ g 41
v^ g 42
v^ g 43
v^ g 44
v^ g 45
v g5 t v^ g 51
v^ g 52
v^ g 53
v^ g 54
v^ g 55
cg1t ^
cg 1 ^cg1 ^cg1 ^cg1 ^cg1
1 2 2 4 5
cg2t ^
1 2 3 4 5
cg3t ^
1 2 3 4 5
cg4t ^
1 2 3 4 5
cg5t ^
1 2 3 4 5
og1t ^g1
o ^g1
o ^g 1
o ^g 1
o ^g 1
o
1 2 3 4 5
og2t ^g2
o ^g2
o ^g 2
o ^g 2
o ^g 2
o
1 2 3 4 5
og3t ^g3
o ^g3
o ^g 3
o ^g 3
o ^g 3
o
1 3 3 4 5
og4t ^g4
o ^g4
o ^g 4
o ^g 4
o ^g 4
o
1 2 3 4 5
og5t ^g5
o ^g5
o ^g 5
o ^g 5
o ^g 5
o
1 2 3 4 5
*
For the purpose of simplicity, all the sustainability indicators representing challenge
factors are equally weighted in the illustrative example.
affecting the strength of the supply chain in year ‘‘1’’, respectively, then the value of the supply chain’s strength for the year
‘‘1’’, s1 , can be computed by applying Eq. (5). Similarly, if v ^ gj , ^cgj and o
^gj are the numerical values for the sustainability indi-
1 1 1
cators representing environmental, economic, and social types of challenge factors imposed on the supply chain in year ‘‘1’’,
respectively, then the value of the challenge imposed on the supply chain for the year ‘‘1’’, g 1 , can be calculated by applying
Eq. (6). By employing the same methodology, the strength and challenge of the supply chain under evaluation can be calcu-
lated for each year, separately. Accordingly, s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 and s5 are the calculated values of the supply chain’s strength for the
years ‘‘1’’ to ‘‘5’’, respectively. Similarly, g 1 ; g 2 ; g 3 ; g 4 and g 5 are the calculated values of the challenges imposed on the supply
chain under consideration for the years ‘‘1’’ to ‘‘5’’, respectively. It should be noted that for the sake of simplicity, all of the
respective prominence weights for the sustainability indicators involved in this example were set to be equal. As previously
noted, the weights assigned to each factor can be adjusted by decision-makers to suit the unique priorities and circum-
stances of their supply chains. There are a number of weighting options that are available. Techniques like factor analysis,
data envelopment analysis, and unobserved components models (i.e., derived from statistical techniques), or analytical hier-
archy process, budget allocation process, conjoint analysis, and Delphi models (i.e., participatory methods) can all provide a
method of assigning the respective weights [107]. In cases where decision-makers assign different weights to the factors, it is
recommended that they consider analyzing the effect of different weighting scenarios. This will provide insight into how dif-
ferent weights can influence the measurement of the supply chain’s overall sustainability progress.
With the above in mind, for the purposes of illustration, assume that ls5 ¼ 0:7114 and lg5 ¼ 0:4701 are mean values, and
rs5 ¼ 0:1579 and rg5 ¼ 0:1175 are standard deviations for the related strength and challenge components calculated for the
years ‘‘1’’ to ‘‘5’’, respectively. By applying these values in Eq. (8) and using standard normal tables, the sustainability of the
supply chain under evaluation for the year ‘‘5’’ may be calculated as Sus5 ¼ 0:8907 or 89:07%. This calculated value for sus-
tainability shows that with the probability of 89.07%, the supply chain under evaluation was successful in overcoming the
imposed challenges, and hence progressed towards sustainability in the year ‘‘5’’. In other words, this result shows that the
probability that the supply chain under evaluation has improved (progressed) in positioning to be sustainable in the year ‘‘5’’
is equal to 89.07%. Taking Eq. (8), it is clear that if the strength of the supply chain is getting stronger while the challenge
imposed on the supply chain is increasing at the same time, there might not be much progress observed towards sustain-
ability. But if the supply chain’s strength is getting stronger while the imposed challenge is weakening, where the difference
between the mean values of the involved strength and challenge components is getting larger, better sustainability results
will be expected.
The proposed sustainability model is particularly useful for evaluating changes in the sustainability of a supply chain over
time. Accordingly, the process outlined above can be repeated to compute scores for subsequent years. For example, by plot-
ting the numerical values of the sustainability indicators representing environmental, economic, and social factors affecting
the strength and challenge of the supply chain in the subsequent period (i.e., year ‘‘6’’), the respective strength (i.e., s6 ) and
challenge (i.e., g 6 Þ components of the supply chain under evaluation can be calculated. Then, by employing all the calculated
values of strength and challenge components for the year ‘‘1’’ to ‘‘6’’ (i.e., s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 ; s5 ; s6 and g 1 ; g 2 ; g 3 ; g 4 ; g 5 ; g 6 Þ, the rele-
vant mean values (i.e., ls6 ; lg6 ) and standard deviations (i.e., rs6 ; rg6 ) for the year ‘‘6’’ can be determined. Ultimately, by
applying the results of these computations in Eq. (8) and using standard normal tables, the sustainability of the supply chain
under evaluation for the year ‘‘6’’ can be estimated. This methodology can be used to calculate the involved strength and
challenge components of the supply chain for any subsequent period (e.g., year 7, 8, ...), which ultimately will lead to the esti-
mation of the sustainability of the supply chain under evaluation over the period of interest. This also highlights the fact that
in order to estimate the sustainability of the supply chain at any designated period of interest, it is necessary to calculate and
employ all the strength and challenge components of all the previous periods involved.
As emphasized in the illustrative example above, fluctuations of values for the involved strength and challenge factors
will affect the supply chain’s strength and challenge components in each period, which will ultimately affect the sustainabil-
ity of the supply chain under evaluation over time. Dealing with situations where the strength and challenge factors affecting
the sustainability of any supply chain under consideration are constantly changing is a major issue for policy prioritization
and decision making. The supply chain’s strength might be deteriorating while at the same time the imposed challenges are
intensifying, or vice versa. Consequently, it is necessary to monitor variations of the involved strength and challenge factors,
and to keep track of their changes over time. In order to do so, reliable and effective tools that are easy to use and able to
provide fast feedback on the sustainability status of supply chain(s), are required. By applying Eq. (8) the progress status
of the supply chain under evaluation towards or away from sustainability, can be assessed for each designated period, sep-
arately. Furthermore, the cumulative impacts of factors involved in the supply chain’s sustainability are implicitly addressed
in the proposed sustainability model. As illustrated in the above example, all of the calculated strength and challenge com-
ponents for the years ‘‘1’’ to ‘‘5’’ (i.e., s1 ; s2 ; s3 ; s4 ; s5 and g 1 ; g 2 ; g 3 ; g 4 ; g 5 Þ, were explicitly used in the computation of the sus-
tainability for year ‘‘5’’. They were also included in the computation of the sustainability for year ‘‘6’’, alongside the
respective calculated strength (i.e., s6 ) and challenge (i.e., g 6 Þ components of the supply chain under evaluation in the same
year. The sustainability of the supply chain in each designated period of interest therefore necessitates that the cumulative
effects of all the involved factors in all the previous periods are considered.
4.2. Implications of the model
The model presented in this paper has a number of implications for academics and practitioners. From an academic per-
spective, this paper presents one of the first probabilistic models developed for sustainability assessment of supply chains.
This addresses an important gap in the literature given the ability of probabilistic models to accommodate the uncertainty
associated with factors relevant to sustainability in supply chains [59]. The paper also reinforces the notion of context-
dependent strength and challenge factors in sustainability assessment [128]. This underlines the importance of taking the
unique local context of any particular supply chain into account. Several representative indictors were provided for these
factors for all three areas of the TBL. However, the model also underscores the need for additional ratio-based indicators that
comprehensively address the TBL in a supply chain context. Although some attempts have been made to highlight the sus-
tainability indicators used to address performance measurement in sustainable supply chains (e.g., [69]), the literature also
highlights that many of the indicators used were not designed to be applied in that context [69]. As a result, the indicators
utilized often do not span all channels in the supply chain [69]. The model therefore also highlights the need to measure
sustainability at the level of a supply chain, rather than that of a single firm. This, however, introduces a number of key
research challenges. The effectiveness of any tool designed to measure sustainability on a supply chain basis is very much
dependent on the availability of data across the entire chain under evaluation. However, as previously explained, such data
is rarely available. In fact, the difficulties in obtaining the required data have formed a major barrier to the development of
robust methods to measure the sustainability of supply chains [69,70,131,134–137]. Scientifically-sound methods of collect-
ing data at the supply chain level are urgently needed. Moreover, this effort must be supported by improved methods of
reporting on the sustainability performance of supply chains. Since few mandatory sustainability reporting requirements
presently exist, the proposed model must rely on voluntarily reported information. This reliance on voluntarily shared infor-
mation is particularly problematic given that the widely-used sustainability standards, including the GRI, were not designed
to be primarily applied in a supply chain context. Although the GRI has recognized the importance of addressing issues
related to the supply chain [132], more specific guidance is necessary. Research on reporting at the supply chain level is
therefore needed, particularly with respect to how the GRI could better accommodate that need. Finally, given that suppliers
often play a role in multiple supply chains, there is a need to determine how their key sustainability impacts can be allocated
to those chains. This is one of the fundamental challenges of measuring performance at the level of a supply chain. One of the
reasons this is particularly important is that significant impacts could be generated at any point in the supply chain. For
example, the greatest number of greenhouse gas emissions (a common factor used in sustainability performance measure-
ment) in any particular supply chain may be generated in the extraction of raw materials by a supplier rather than in the
production of the product by the focal firm. Failing to account for impacts throughout the entire supply chain could provide
a distorted picture of the chain’s overall sustainability performance. It is therefore essential that all key impacts for the factor
in question are captured when the value for the factor is tabulated. Research on the allocation of environmental impacts is
available in the literature on life cycle assessment. However, little work has been done on the allocation of a supplier’s
broader TBL impacts in the context of measuring sustainability performance at the supply chain level. The allocation of social
impacts in supply chains is particularly challenging. Further research in this area is needed to support efforts to measure
sustainability in the supply chain.
The model also has a number of important practical implications. Many of these implications align with the academic
implications noted above. For example, there is a clear need for practitioners to also work on devising better methods of
collecting and reporting on data at the supply chain level. However, there are several other implications that are unique
to practitioners. As pointed out earlier, policy and decision makers require timely information that reveals if a supply chain is
generally becoming more or less sustainable [129]. Accordingly, reliable measures that can be clearly interpreted and easily
communicated and at the same time have the ability to provide timely information on sustainability assessment of supply
chains are in demand. By focusing on the principles entrenched in the TBL sustainability perspective, the model developed in
this study can be employed as an integrative, three-dimensional sustainability tool to analyze the trade-offs among the
involved factors representing the environmental, economic, and social dimensions in the supply chain context. Moreover,
given its probabilistic nature, the proposed sustainability model can encompass the involved uncertainty issues and behav-
iors (e.g. [138,139]), which have been relatively lacking in the various sustainability measures introduced in the literature
[140]. Additionally, the cumulative impacts required for the explicit long-term focus of sustainability, which has rarely been
addressed in the published studies on sustainability assessment measures [140,141], can be embraced in the proposed
model. Accordingly, in the proposed model, the sustainability of the supply chain under evaluation can be estimated for
any designated period of interest while the cumulative effects of the involved factors in all the previous periods are taken
into account. The sustainability model proposed in this study can be employed as a practical and effective tool for the sus-
tainability assessment of any supply chain under consideration. The increased understanding provided by the model can
assist practitioners as they improve the sustainability performance of their supply chains over time.
5. Conclusion
The integration of sustainability into the supply chain is an area of growing research interest. Focusing on the triple bot-
tom line (TBL) perspective, sustainability should be viewed as a holistic and interdisciplinary concept that encompasses
environmental, economic, and social issues at different stages in the supply chain(s). Accordingly, it is becoming an essential
requirement to assess sustainability in the supply chain context by developing appropriate tools to monitor a supply chain’s
performance towards sustainability.
This paper presented a unique mathematical model for assessing sustainability in a supply chain. The model explicitly
recognized that the involved supportive and hindering factors for sustainability in a supply chain are all fundamentally con-
text dependent. Therefore, the probabilistic representation of sustainability presented in this paper can offer realistic ana-
lytical modeling for sustainability assessment of supply chain(s). To demonstrate the application of the proposed
sustainability model, an illustrative example was provided and discussed. By focusing on the principles embedded in the
TBL sustainability perspective, the proposed model can be employed as an integrative, three-dimensional sustainability tool
to evaluate the effects of different environmental, economic, and social issues in the supply chain context. The developed
model can be utilized as a practical tool particularly for assessing sustainability performance of any supply chain under eval-
uation over time.
The paper makes a number of important contributions to research and practice. From a research perspective, the paper
addresses an explicit call in the literature to develop probabilistic models for assessing sustainability in supply chains. This is
important because probabilistic models are capable of accommodating the complexity and uncertainty inherent in modeling
sustainability performance. The paper also highlights the need for research on aligning data collection, indicator develop-
ment, and reporting efforts across the entire supply chain. To date, the overwhelming majority of the research has focused
on data collection, indicator development, and reporting for single entities in a supply chain, rather than the chain as a
whole. It is acknowledged that measuring sustainability at the supply chain level is difficult. Collecting and reporting data
across an entire supply chain is challenging even in supply chains with a small number of players. As the number of players
increases these challenges are magnified. The fact that different suppliers play a role in different supply chains further com-
plicates the matter. The paper therefore highlights the need for further research on allocating the environmental, economic,
and social impacts of suppliers to their (potentially many) customers. The measurement of sustainability at the level of a
supply chain is not possible in the absence of such allocation mechanisms. Finally, the limited data that is available on supply
chain sustainability is typically not reported in a manner that lends itself to a probabilistic approach to measurement. There
is a need for further research on the development of probabilistic sustainability factors, including on how information may
be translated into probability numbers that make sense. There is also a need for research on how this information could be
reported so as to make measurement at the supply chain level possible on a wider scale than currently exists. All of these
issues make the evaluation of sustainability performance at the supply chain level problematic in practice. From a practical
perspective, the model developed in this paper provides a straightforward way of assessing the sustainability performance of
a supply chain over time. It therefore provides decision makers with a needed reference point in identifying the challenges
and opportunities for improving the sustainability of the supply chains under their management.
In this work a three-dimensional approach adopting the TBL sustainability perspective was employed, which emphasizes
the need to use indicators that address the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. In the model
proposed, all indicators can be assigned their respective prominence weights signifying their relative importance (as deter-
mined by decision-makers in the focal firm in the supply chain) in the sustainability performance of supply chains. Accord-
ingly, it is important to recognize that considering the companies’ unique local circumstances in any particular supply chain,
different decision-makers may wish to assign different weights to different involved strength and challenge factors.
Future research would need to focus on accommodating different enablers and inhibitors of sustainability that different
companies in the supply chain may have. This challenge will become more complex as the number of players in the supply
chain increases and it is recognized that detailed guidance on managing those challenges are needed. As a part of this effort,
further research on the specific indicators that are applicable to measuring sustainability in supply chains is needed. Many of
the indicators in the literature are either not intended to be applied in a supply chain context or do not lend themselves to
being used in a probabilistic model. Although many example indicators were provided in this paper, it is important to stress
that they are intended as starting points. More detailed guidance on tailoring indicators to the unique needs of different sup-
ply chains is needed.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for providing
funding for this research.
References
[1] P. Ahi, C. Searcy, A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management, J. Cleaner Prod. 52 (2013) 329–
341.
[2] S. Seuring, Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13 (2008)
128–137.
[3] D. Pearce, Economics, equity and sustainable development, Futures 20 (1988) 598–605.
[4] J. Wilson, P. Tyedmers, R. Pelot, Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics, Ecol. Ind. 7 (2007) 299–314.
[5] G. Aras, D. Crowther, Making sustainable development sustainable, Manage. Decis. 47 (2009) 975–988.
[6] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1987.
[7] S. Vinodh, R.J. Girubha, PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection, Appl. Math. Model. 36 (2012) 5301–5308.
[8] R. Kemp, Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability, Futures 26 (1994) 1023–1046.
[9] S.L. Hart, Beyond greening, Harvard Bus. Rev. 1 (1997) 66–76.
[10] N. Myers, J.R. Vincent, T. Panayotou, Consumption: challenge to sustainable development, Science 276 (1997) 53–57.
[11] J. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone, Oxford, 1997.
[12] P. Shrivastava, The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability, Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1995) 936–960.
[13] C. Holliday, Sustainable growth, the DuPont way, Harvard Bus. Rev. 79 (2001) 129–134.
[14] O. Salzmann, A. Ionescu-Somers, U. Steger, The business case for sustainability: literature review and research options, Eur. Manage. J. 23 (2005) 27–
36.
[15] M. Asif, C. Searcy, A. Zutshi, N. Ahmad, An integrated management systems approach to corporate sustainability, Eur. Bus. Rev. 23 (2011) 353–367.
[16] M.W. McElroy, J.M.L. van Engelen, Corporate sustainability management: the art and science of managing non-financial performance, Earthscan,
London, UK, 2012.
[17] C. Gimenez, E.M. Tachizawa, Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 17 (2012) 531–543.
[18] I.J. Chen, A. Paulraj, Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements, J. Oper. Manage. 22 (2004) 119–150.
[19] C.R. Carter, D.S. Rogers, A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 38
(2008) 360–387.
[20] M.C. Cooper, D.M. Lambert, J.D. Pagh, Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics, Int. J. Logist. Manage. 8 (1997) 1–13.
[21] K. Burgess, P. Singh, R. Koroglu, Supply chain management: a structured literature review and implications for future research, Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage. 26 (2006) 703–729.
[22] J.R. Stock, S.L. Boyer, T. Harmon, Research opportunities in supply chain management, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (2010) 32–41.
[23] C. Wong, H. Skipworth, J. Godsell, N. Achimugu, Towards a theory of supply chain alignment enablers: a systematic literature review, Supply Chain
Manage Int. J. 17 (2012) 419–437.
[24] J.T. Mentzer, T.P. Stank, T.L. Esper, Supply chain management and its relationship to logistics, marketing, production, and operations management, J.
Bus. Logist. 29 (2008) 31–46.
[25] R. Frankel, Y.A. Bolumole, R.A. Eltantawy, A. Paulraj, G.T. Gundlach, The domain and scope of SCM’s foundational disciplines – insights and issues to
advance research, J. Bus. Logist. 29 (2008) 1–30.
[26] R. Trent, What everyone needs to know about SCM, Supply Chain Manage. Rev. 8 (2004) 52–60.
[27] J.T. Mentzer, W. DeWitt, J.S. Keebler, S. Min, N.W. Nix, C.D. Smith, Z.G. Zacharia, Defining supply chain management, J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2001) 1–25.
[28] K. Green, B. Morton, S. New, Purchasing and environmental management: interactions, policies and opportunities, Bus. Strat. Environ. 5 (1996) 188–
197.
[29] R. Handfield, S.V. Walton, L.K. Seegers, S.A. Melnyk, Green value chain practices in the furniture industry, J. Oper. Manage. 15 (1997) 293–315.
[30] C.R. Carter, M. Dresner, Purchasing’s role in environmental management: cross-functional development of grounded theory, Supply Chain Manage. 37
(2001) 12–26.
[31] H. Walker, L. Di Sisto, D. McBain, Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private
sectors, J. Purchas. Suppl. Manage. 14 (2008) 69–85.
[32] F.K. Pil, S. Rothenberg, Environmental performance as a driver of superior quality, Prod. Oper. Manage. 12 (2003) 404–415.
[33] F. Montabon, S.A. Meinyk, R. Stroofe, R.J. Calantone, ISO 14000: assessing its perceived impact on corporate performance, J. Supply Chain Manage. 36
(2000) 4–16.
[34] M.D. Hanna, W.R. Newman, P. Johnson, Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involvement, Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage. 20 (2000) 148–165.
[35] I. Wycherley, Greening supply chains: the case of the body shop international, Bus. Strat. Environ. 8 (1999) 120–127.
[36] P. Trowbridge, A case study of green supply chain management at advanced micro devices, Greener Manage. Int. 35 (2001) 121–135.
[37] R.D. Klassen, S. Vachon, Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: the impact on plant-level environmental investment, Prod. Oper. Manage.
12 (2003) 336–352.
[38] S. Vachon, R. Klassen, Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of upstream and downstream integration, Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage. 26 (2006) 795–821.
[39] M.E. Porter, C. Van de Linde, Green and competitive, Harvard Bus. Rev. (September–October 1995) 120–134.
[40] C.R. Carter, R. Kale, C.M. Grimm, Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an empirical investigation, Transport. Res. Part E Logist. Transport.
Rev. 36 (2000) 219–228.
[41] S.A. Melnyk, R.P. Sroufe, R. Calantone, Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance, J.
Oper. Manage. 21 (2003) 329–351.
[42] J. Gonzalez-Benito, O. Gonzalez-Benito, Environmental proactivity and business performance. an empirical analysis, Omega Int. J. Manage. Sci. 33
(2005) 1–15.
[43] C.C. Chen, Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000, J. Cleaner Prod. 13 (2005) 927–933.
[44] P. Rao, D. Holt, Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?, Int J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 25 (2005) 898–916.
[45] S. Walton, R. Handfield, S. Melnyk, The green supply chain: integrating suppliers into environmental management processes, Int. J. Purchas. Mater.
Manage. 3 (1998) 2–11.
[46] B.M. Beamon, Designing the green supply chain, Logist. Inf. Manage. 12 (1999) 332–342.
[47] J. Hall, Environmental supply chain innovation, Greener Manage. Int. 35 (2001) 105–119.
[48] H. Min, W.P. Galle, Green purchasing practices of US firms, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 21 (2001) 1222–1238.
[49] Q.H. Zhu, J. Sarkis, An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: drivers and practices, J. Cleaner Prod. 14 (2006) 472–
486.
[50] F. Bowen, P. Cousins, R. Lamming, A. Faruk, Horses for courses: explaining the gap between the theory and practice of green supply, Greener Manage.
Int. 35 (2001) 41–60.
[51] F. Bowen, P. Cousins, R. Lamming, A. Faruk, The role of supply management capabilities in green supply, Prod. Oper. Manage. 10 (2001) 174–189.
[52] R. Lamming, J. Hampson, The environment as a supply chain management issue, Br. J. Manage. 7 (1996) S45–S62 (special issue).
[53] S. Sharma, H. Vredenburg, Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities,
Strat. Manage. J. 19 (1998) 729–753.
[54] S. New, K. Green, B. Morton, Buying the environment: the multiple meanings of green supply, in: S. Fineman (Ed.), The Business of Greening,
Routledge, London, 2000.
[55] J. Sarkis, A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management, J. Cleaner Prod. 11 (2003) 397–409.
[56] H. Noori, C. Chen, Applying scenario-driven strategy to integrate environmental management and product design, Prod. Oper. Manage. 12 (2003)
353–368.
[57] M.E. Ferguson, L.B. Toktay, The effect of competition on recovery strategies, Prod. Oper. Manage. 15 (2006) 351–368.
[58] J. Rockstrom, W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F.S. Chapin III, et al, A safe operating space for humanity, Nature 461 (2009) 472–475.
[59] M. Brandenburg, K. Govindan, J. Sarkis, S. Seuring, Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions, Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 233 (2014) 299–312.
[60] O. Morali, C. Searcy, A review of sustainable supply chain management practices in Canada, J. Bus. Ethics 117 (2013) 635–658.
[61] M. Weber, The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level measurement approach for CSR, Eur. Manage. J. 26 (2008) 247–261.
[62] N. Yakovleva, J. Sarkis, T. Sloan, Sustainable benchmarking of supply chains: the case of the food industry, Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (2012) 1297–1317.
[63] R.K. Singh, H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta, A.K. Dikshit, An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies, Ecol. Indic. 15 (2012) 281–299.
[64] A. Bodini, Building a systemic environmental monitoring and indicators for sustainability: what has the ecological network approach to offer?, Ecol
Indic. 15 (2012) 140–148.
[65] M. Bonney, M.Y. Jaber, Developing an input–output activity matrix (IOAM) for environmental and economic analysis of manufacturing systems and
logistics chains, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 143 (2013) 589–597.
[66] T. Hahn, F. Figge, J. Pinkse, L. Preuss, Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake and eat it, Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (2010) 217–229.
[67] C.H. Glock, M.Y. Jaber, C. Searcy, Sustainability strategies in an EPQ model with price- and quality-sensitive demand, Int. J. Logist. Manage. 23 (2012)
340–359.
[68] A. Ashby, M. Leat, M. Hudson-Smith, Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature, Supply Chain Manage.
Int. J. 17 (2012) 497–516.
[69] E. Hassini, C. Surti, C. Searcy, A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (2012)
69–82.
[70] S. Seuring, A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management, Decis. Support Syst. 54 (2013) 1513–1520.
[71] T. Abdallah, A. Farhat, A. Diabat, S. Kennedy, Green supply chains with carbon trading and environmental sourcing: formulation and life cycle
assessment, Appl. Math. Model. 36 (2012) 4271–4285.
[72] M.S. Pishvaee, J. Razmi, Environmental supply chain network design using multi-objective fuzzy mathematical programming, Appl. Math. Model. 36
(2012) 3433–3446.
[73] H.L. Pesonen, Environmental management of value chains, Greener Manage. Int. 33 (2001) 45–58.
[74] H.H. Khoo, T.A. Spedding, I. Bainbridge, D.M.R. Taplin, Creating a green supply chain, Greener Manage. Int. 35 (2001) 71–88.
[75] U. Sonesson, J. Berlin, Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in Sweden: a scenario study, J. Cleaner Prod. 11 (2003) 253–266.
[76] R.B.H. Tan, H.H. Khoo, An LCA study of a primary aluminum supply chain, J. Cleaner Prod. 13 (2005) 607–618.
[77] I. Ferretti, S. Zavanella Zanoni, A.L. Diana, Greening the aluminium supply chain, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 108 (2007) 236–245.
[78] S. Cholette, K. Venkat, The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: a study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers, J. Cleaner
Prod. 17 (2009) 1401–1413.
[79] J.B. Edwards, A.C. McKinnon, S.L. Cullinane, Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing: a ‘‘last mile’’
perspective, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 40 (2010) 103–123.
[80] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48 (1990) 9–26.
[81] G. Noci, Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance, Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 3 (1997)
103–114.
[82] J. Sarkis, Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107 (1998) 159–174.
[83] W. Ho, Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: a literature review, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186 (2008) 211–228.
[84] C.W. Hsu, A.H. Hu, Green supply chain management in the electronic industry, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5 (2008) 205–216.
[85] M.N. Faisal, Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers, Bus. Process Manage. J. 16 (2010) 508–529.
[86] A. Nagurney, J. Dong, D. Zhang, A supply chain network equilibrium model, Transport. Res. Part E 38 (5) (2002) 281–303.
[87] M.J. Meixell, V.B. Gargeya, Global supply chain design: a literature review and critique, Transport. Res. Part E 41 (2005) 531–550.
[88] C.J. Corbett, G.A. De Croix, Shared-savings contracts for indirect materials in supply chains: channel profits and environmental impacts, Manage. Sci.
47 (2001) 881–893.
[89] A. Nagurney, F. Toyasaki, Supply chain supernetworks and environmental criteria, Transport. Res. Part D 8 (2003) 185–213.
[90] Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara, A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green supply chain management, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 101 (2006) 99–108.
[91] M. Saint Jean, Polluting emissions standards and clean technology trajectories under competitive selection and supply chain pressure, J. Cleaner Prod.
16 (2008) 113–123.
[92] W. Fichtner, M. Frank, O. Rentz, Inter-firm energy supply concepts: an option for cleaner energy production, J. Cleaner Prod. 12 (2004) 891–899.
[93] A. Hugo, E.N. Pistikopoulos, Environmentally conscious long-range planning and design of supply chain networks, J. Cleaner Prod. 13 (2005) 1471–
1491.
[94] J. Geldermann, M. Treitz, O. Rentz, Towards sustainable production networks, Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (2007) 4207–4424.
[95] P. Georgiadis, M. Besiou, Environmental strategies for electrical and electronic equipment supply chains: which to choose?, Sustainability 1 (2009)
722–733
[96] N.U. Ukidwe, B.R. Bakshi, Flow of natural versus economic capital in industrial supply networks and its implications to sustainability, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 39 (2005) 9759–9769.
[97] A.M.A. El Saadany, M.Y. Jaber, M. Bonney, Environmental performance measures for supply chains, Manage. Res. Rev. 34 (2011) 1202–1221.
[98] M.Y. Jaber, A.M.A. El Saadany, M.A. Rosen, Simple price-driven reverse logistics system with entropy and exergy costs, Int. J. Exergy 9 (2011) 486–502.
[99] M. Bonney, M.Y. Jaber, Deriving research agendas for manufacturing and logistics systems: a methodology, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 157 (2014) 49–61.
[100] E. Turnhout, M. Hisschemoller, H. Eijsackers, Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy, Ecol. Indic. 7 (2007) 215–228.
[101] F. Booysen, An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development, Social Indic. Res. 59 (2002) 115–151.
[102] M. Saisana, S. Tarantola, State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development, European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit, Report number:
EUR 20408 EN, 2002.
[103] C. Bohringer, P.E.P. Jochem, Measuring the immeasurable – a survey of sustainability indices, Ecol. Econ. 63 (2007) 1–8.
[104] A.L. Mayer, Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems, Environ. Int. 34 (2008) 277–291.
[105] R.K. Singh, H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta, A.K. Dikshit, An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies (review), Ecol. Indic. 9 (2009) 189–212.
[106] E. Bendoly, E.D. Rosenzweig, J.K. Stratman, Performance metric portfolios: a framework and empirical analysis, Prod. Oper. Manage. 16 (2007) 257–
276.
[107] M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, Tools for composite indicators building, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the
Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Econometrics and Statistical Support to Antifraud Unit, I-21020 Ispra (VA) Italy, Report number: EUR 21682
EN, 2005.
[108] R.K. Singh, H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta, A.K. Dikshit, Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry, Ecol. Indic. 7 (2007)
565–588.
[109] L. Zhou, H. Tokos, D. Krajnc, Y. Yang, Sustainability performance evaluation in industry by composite sustainability index, Clean Technol. Environ.
Perform. 14 (2012) 789–803.
[110] E.W.T. Ngai, D.C.K. Chau, C.W.H. Lo, C.F. Lei, Design and development of a corporate sustainability index platform for corporate sustainability
performance analysis, J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 34 (2014) 63–77.
[111] A.A. Hervani, M.M. Helms, J. Sarkis, Performance measurement for green supply chain management, Benchmarking Int. J. 12 (2005) 330–353.
[112] M.Y. Jaber, C.H. Glock, A.M.A. ElSaadany, Supply chain coordination with emission reduction incentives, Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (2013) 69–82.
[113] H.M. Wee, M.C. Lee, J.C.P. Yu, C.E. Wang, Optimal replenishment policy for a deteriorating green product: life cycle costing analysis, Int. J. Prod. Econ.
133 (2011) 608–611.
[114] C.T. Zhang, L.P. Liu, Research on coordination mechanism in three-level green supply chain under non-cooperative game, Appl. Math. Modell. 37
(2013) 3369–3379.
[115] R. Clift, Metrics for supply chain sustainability, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 5 (2003) 240–247.
[116] A. Brent, Integrating LCIA and LCM: evaluating environmental performances for supply chain management in South Africa, Manage. Environ. Qual.
Int. J. 16 (2005) 130–142.
[117] S. H’Mida, S.Y. Lakhal, A model for assessing the greenness effort in a product supply chain, Int. J. Global Environ. Issues 7 (2007) 4–24.
[118] M.J. Hutchins, J.W. Sutherland, An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions, J. Cleaner Prod. 16
(2008) 1688–1698.
[119] S. Seuring, M. Muller, From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management, J. Cleaner Prod. 16 (2008) 1699–
1710.
[120] S. Srivastava, Green supply-chain management: a state-of the-art literature review, Int. J. Manage. Rev. 9 (2007) 53–80.
[121] S. Gold, S. Seuring, P. Beske, The constructs of sustainable supply chain management: a content analysis based on published case studies, Prog. Ind.
Ecol. Int. J. 7 (2010) 114–137.
[122] C.S. Tang, S. Zhou, Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 223 (2012) 585–594.
[123] M. Shuaib, H. Metta, T. Lu, F. Badurdeen, I.S. Jawahir, T. Goldsby, Design and performance evaluation of sustainable supply chains: approach and
methodologies, Adv. Sustainable Manuf. 8 (2011) 347–352.
[124] M.P. De Brito, E.A. Van der Laan, Supply chain management and sustainability: procrastinating integration in mainstream research, Sustainability 2
(2010) 859–870.
[125] J.W.M. Bertrand, J.C. Fransoo, Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 22 (2002)
241–264.
[126] B.M. Beamon, Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 55 (1998) 281–294.
[127] H. Min, G. Zhou, Supply chain modeling: past, present and future, Comput. Ind. Eng. 43 (2002) 231–249.
[128] P. Ahi, C. Searcy, A stochastic approach for sustainability analysis under the green economics paradigm, Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 28 (2014)
1743–1753.
[129] B. Foran, M. Lenzen, C. Dey, M. Bilek, Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting, Ecol. Econ. 52 (2005) 143–157.
[130] F. Putzhuber, H. Hasenauer, Deriving sustainability measures using statistical data: a case study from the Eisenwurzen, Austria, Ecol. Indic. 10 (2010)
32–38.
[131] S. Seuring, S. Gold, Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: from stakeholders to performance, J. Cleaner Prod. 56 (2013) 1–6.
[132] Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf,
2013, accessed on February 20, 2014.
[133] U. Ebert, H. Welsch, Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 47 (2004) 270–283.
[134] M. Pagell, Z. Wu, Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars, J. Supply Chain
Manage. 45 (2009) 37–56.
[135] M. Björklund, U. Martinsen, M. Abrahamsson, Performance measurements in the greening of supply chains, Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 17 (2012)
29–39.
[136] J. Miemczyk, T.E. Johnsen, M. Macquet, Sustainable purchasing and supply management: a structured literature review of definitions and measures at
the dyad, chain and network levels, Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 17 (2012) 478–496.
[137] V. Veleva, M. Hart, T. Greiner, C. Crumbley, Indicators for measuring environmental sustainability: a case study of the pharmaceutical industry,
Benchmarking Int. J. 10 (2003) 107–119.
[138] V.A. Sanchez Rodrigues, A.T. Potter, M.M. Naim, The impact of logistics uncertainty on sustainable transport operations, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manage. 40 (2010) 61–83.
[139] E. Arikan, J. Fichtinger, J.M. Ries, Impact of transportation lead-time variability on the economic and environmental performance of inventory
systems, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 157 (2014) 279–288.
[140] C. Searcy, Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: a review and research agenda, J. Bus. Ethics 107 (2012) 239–253.
[141] M. Lenzen, C.J. Dey, S.A. Murray, Historical accountability and cumulative impacts: the treatment of time in corporate sustainability reporting, Ecol.
Econ. 51 (2004) 237–250.

Applied Mathematical Modelling: Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Mathematical Modelling: Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Mathematical Modelling 39 (2015) 2882–2896

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematical Modelling

Assessing sustainability in the supply chain: A triple bottom line

G challenge imposed on the supply chain

rst standard deviation of the variable st

Progress towards sustainability

Enablers Strength > Challenge Barriers

Regress from sustainability

Fig. 1. Framework for construction of the proposed sustainability model.

Sus ¼ P ðS > GÞ ¼ PðS G > 0Þ ð1Þ

4. Illustration and discussions

4.1. Example application of the model

cs1t ^cs1 ^cs1 ^cs1 ^cs1 ^

cs2t ^cs2 ^cs2 ^cs2 ^cs2 ^

cs3t ^cs3 ^cs3 ^cs3 ^cs3 ^

cs4t ^cs4 ^cs4 ^cs4 ^cs4 ^

cs5t ^cs5 ^cs5 ^cs5 ^cs5 ^

4.2. Implications of the model

You might also like