An Integrated Approach For Performance Evaluation in Sustainable Supply Chain Networks - With A Case Study

Accepted Manuscript
An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain

networks (with a case study)
S. Motevali Haghighi, S.A. Torabi, R. Ghasemi
PII:
S0959-6526(16)31015-0
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.119
Reference:
JCLP 7691
To appear in:
Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 23 September 2015

Revised Date:
30 March 2016
Accepted Date: 20 July 2016
Please cite this article as: Haghighi SM, Torabi SA, Ghasemi R, An integrated approach for performance
evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study), Journal of Cleaner Production
(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.119.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
An Integrated Approach for Performance Evaluation in Sustainable Supply
Chain Networks (with a case study)
5
2
S. Motevali Haghighi, 1S.A. Torabi*, 3R. Ghasemi
RI
PT
1&2
School of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Department of Industrial Engineering, Esfarayen University of Technology, Esfarayen, 9661998195, Iran

3
School of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
SC
This paper proposes a novel hybrid BSC-DEA framework for performance evaluation in
11
sustainable supply chains. The proposed DEA model is capable of dealing with both qualitative
12
and quantitative indicators while accounting for desirable and undesirable indicators. A tailored
13
network DEA model involving a set of comprehensive sustainability indicators is applied to rank
14
different supply chains from sustainability viewpoint to find the efficient and benchmarked units
15
at each echelon. Then, sustainability indicators are classified into four groups according to BSC
16
perspectives to help policy makers and top managers to have a more comprehensive and
17
thorough understanding of the sustainability with respect to the long- and short term strategies.
18
Finally, a number of sensitivity analyses are performed to identify the effective factors and
19
strengths and weaknesses of each supply chain are identified based on BSC perspectives. To
20
demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed approach, this framework is implemented for
21
performance evaluation of plastic recycling companies in Mazandaran and Golestan provinces of
22
Iran and some helpful managerial insights are derived from the numerical results.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
10
Corresponding author, Tel.: +98 21 61114267; fax: +98 21 88013102.

E-mail addresses: sara.motevali@ut.ac.ir (S. Motevali), satorabi@ut.ac.ir (S. A. Torabi), ghasemir@ut.ac.ir (R.
Ghasemi)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
23
Keywords: Sustainable supply chain; Performance evaluation; Data envelopment analysis;
24
Balanced scorecard; Plastic recycling.
25
1.
Introduction
27
During the last decade, sustainability of supply chain operations has gained increasing attention
28
in the field of performance management (Hassini et al., 2012). Globalization forces organizations
29
to enhance their environmental and social performances, as well as their economic efficiencies
30
(Tajbakhsh and Hassini, 2014). Supply chain performance evaluation problems are
31
fundamentally complex problems with multilayered internally linked activities and multiple
32
entities (Tavana et al., 2013). Continual performance assessment of a supply chain can lead to
33
improvement of its members performance (Chen and Paulraj, 2004). In this regard, designing
34
and implementing a comprehensive performance management system (PMS) is quite necessary
35
for any sustainable supply chain (SSC) to raise the efficiency and effectiveness of its business
36
operations from the triple bottom-line aspects, i.e., environmental, social and economic
37
viewpoints (Tajbakhsh and Hassini, 2014). It is therefore quite essential to evaluate the
38
sustainability performance of supply chains by considering relevant sustainability factors.
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
26
Performance assessment of reverse logistics systems and closed loop supply chains is
40
gaining an increasing attention among both academia and practitioners (Govindan et al., 2014). It
41
is noted that reverse logistics just involves those activities in the backward flow while a closed
42
loop SC involves both forward and backward operations.
AC
C
39
43
Recycling industries play a critical role in sustainability. These industries can be introduced
44
as an example of reverse logistics for which a closed loop supply chain can be considered. It is
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
45
therefore quite essential to regularly evaluate the performance of recycling industries for which a
46
comprehensive sustainable supply chain performance management system should be provided.

Accounting for sustainability aspects has recently been emphasized by both academia and
48
practitioners. There are several definitions for sustainable supply chains. Carter and Rogers
49
(2008) define the concept of sustainability within the context of supply chain as the integration
50
of environmental, social, and economic criteria allowing an organization to achieve long term
51
economic viability. In this paper, a new framework is proposed to evaluate the sustainability
52
performance of supply chains by incorporating the most relevant sustainability factors in the
53
performance assessment process.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
47
One of the most ample performance measurement tools is balanced scorecard (BSC) through
55
which different financial and non-financial performance criteria as well as long- and short-term
56
strategies are jointly considered. Also, data envelopment analysis (DEA) is another performance
57
assessment approach which is highly flexible and can be integrated with other multi criteria
58
decision making techniques (Golany, 1988; Spronk and Post, 1999). To benefit from advantages
59
of both approaches, an integrated framework based on DEA and BSC approaches is introduced
60
in this paper for performance evaluation of SSCs. It considers both desirable and undesirable
61
outputs as well as qualitative and quantitative inputs and outputs. By using a set of
62
comprehensive sustainable indicators, the proposed DEA model is applied in order to rank a
63
number of competent sustainable supply chains to find the efficient and benchmarked unit(s) at
64
each echelon from the sustainability viewpoint. A number of sensitivity analyses are also
65
performed to identify the most important shaping factors. Then, the sustainability factors are
66
classified based on BSC perspectives to help mangers in order to provide the long- and short-
67
term improvement strategies. To do this, BSC factors weights are estimated based on the results
AC
C
EP
TE
D
54
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of sensitivity analyses at each echelon in order to enhance the efficiency with regards to BSC
69
perspectives. In addition, strengths and weaknesses of each supply chain are identified to help
70
decision makers and top managers for increasing the efficiency of their business operations. To
71
show the capability of the proposed approach, this framework is used to evaluate the
72
sustainability performance of forty supply chains pertaining to the plastic recycling companies in
73
Mazandaran and Golestan provinces of Iran. Each company has a supply chain consisting of
74
some suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Suppliers are those companies
75
producing green products. Recycling companies purchase recyclable products that are returned
76
by customers, and then convert them into the required raw material for different industries.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
68
Literature review shows that there are limited research works in the field of supply chain
78
sustainability management in recycling industries. More importantly, there is not a
79
comprehensive framework for performance assessment of such industries by considering all
80
sustainability factors. To fill this gap, a novel framework is proposed to evaluate the
81
sustainability performance of several recycling firms.
TE
D
77
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the related literature is reviewed.
83
The proposed framework and its implementation are presented in Section 3. Section 4 presents
84
the numerical experiments and analyses for this study. Finally, Section 5 draws conclusion and
85
future research opportunities.
86
AC
C
EP
82
87
2.
Literature review
88
Supply chain performance evaluation problems are fundamentally complex with multilayered
89
internally linked activities and multiple entities (Tavana et al., 2013). There are several
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
90
methodologies presented in the literature for supply chain performance assessment. In this
91
section, some relevant papers are reviewed in the area of supply chain performance evaluation
92
while focusing on those related to sustainable supply chains.

Shafiee et al. (2014) used DEA and BSC to evaluate supply chain performance. They
94
focused on relationship between BSC factors. Smeets et al. (2009) studied economic and
95
environmental performances of supply chains in the European Union and provided practical
96
improvement strategies in their study. Ravi et al. (2005) considered a reverse logistics problem to
97
evaluate various alternatives in order to manage the end-of-life (EOL) of computers. They used a
98
combination of BSC and analytic network process (ANP) approach to evaluate various
99
sustainability alternatives in the computer industry. A case study in the hardware computer
100
industry was also provided. Resource commitment was introduced to assess performance in
101
automobile aftermarket industry by Daugherty et al. (2005).
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
93
Saranga and Moser (2010) developed a new framework for performance measurement using
103
the classical and two-stage value chain DEA models. They considered a number of strategic
104
buyers, transactional buyers, suppliers, and cost savings as the performance indicators in the
105
context of purchasing and supply management. Trappey et al. (2010) used operational indicators
106
to evaluate the performance of a reverse logistics system using fuzzy cognitive maps and genetic
107
algorithm. Olugu et al. (2011) reviewed the literature of green supply chains and developed
108
performance measures for the green supply chain in an automobile industry. An and Searcy
109
(2012) performed an assessment on logistics systems and considered energy and economic
110
indicators as key performance indicators. For this aim, they applied a simulation approach and
111
conducted several sensitivity analyses.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
102
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cho et al. (2012) measured the performance of supply chain services using fuzzy AHP.
113
Demand management, customer relationship management, supplier relationship management,
114
capacity and resource management, service performance, information and technology
115
management, and service supply chain finance were selected as the important factors to assess
116
service supply chains. Their proposed model was applied for hotel supply chains. A closed-loop
117
supply chain management and environmental sustainability practices in manufacturing
118
companies were introduced by Olugu and Wong (2012). They evaluated an automotive industry
119
using a fuzzy rule based approach. Operational, green, customer and supplier indicators were
120
considered in their case study. A sustainable supply chain under the emission trading scheme
121
was introduced by Chaabane et al. (2012). They proposed a mathematical programming model
122
for designing a sustainable Aluminum supply chain with regards to environmental and economic
123
indicators. Agrell and Hatami-Marbini (2013) presented a network DEA to evaluate the
124
performance of supply chain systems and used the game theory and bi-level programming to
125
solve the proposed DEA model.
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
112
Costantino et al. (2013) considered information sharing and inventory control as two major
127
factors in supply chain problems. They used simulation approach to show the relation between
128
these factors and their impacts on supply chain performance. A conceptual framework for
129
evaluating food supply chains was introduced by Manzini and Accorsi (2013). They surveyed
130
different effective performance factors and selected quality, safety, sustainability, and logistics
131
efficiency as the key performance indicators. Tavana et al. (2013) evaluated the semiconductor
132
industry performance using a network DEA model based on epsilon-based measures. For this
133
aim, operational, customer, and flexibility indicators were imported to DEA in order to calculate
134
the supply chain efficiency.
AC
C
EP
126
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2014) developed a comprehensive reverse logistics enterprise
136
performance measurement system by incorporating capability indicators in their proposed
137
system. BSC and multi-criteria decision approaches were applied in their performance
138
measurement system. Biehl et al. (2013) evaluated the performance of a reverse logistics system
139
in the carpet industry. Boukherroub et al. (2015) identified a number of sustainable performance
140
indicators for a Canadian lumber industry case. Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) evaluated the
141
sustainability in manufacturing supply chains by a multi-stage DEA model in which several
142
economic, environmental, and social indicators are considered as inputs and outputs. Bansia et
143
al. (2014) evaluated the performance of a reverse logistics system in a battery manufacturer
144
using the fuzzy AHP and BSC. Ramos et al. (2014) assessed a recyclable packaging waste
145
collection system as a sustainable reverse logistics system in which economic, environmental,
146
and social indicators are accounted.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
135
The related literature indicates that there are very limited research works on the performance
148
evaluation of sustainable supply chains using an integrated DEA and BSC approach. Recycling
149
is a part of every closed loop supply chain which has an important role on sustainability of
150
supply chains. It is therefore quite essential to evaluate recycling industries. Surprisingly, there is
151
not any comprehensive framework for performance assessment in recycling industries while
152
considering all sustainability factors. Recently, Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) proposed a DEA-
153
based performance evaluation model for assessing the sustainability in supply chains. However,
154
it does not account for both desirable and undesirable outputs and just takes quantitative
155
indicators into account.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
147
156
These gaps motivated the authors to develop a novel framework for performance evaluation
157
of sustainable supply chains and identify the effective factors to enhance their efficiency. To do
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
so, a novel network DEA model is presented, which could be considered as an extension to that
159
of Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014). As mentioned before, the proposed DEA model is capable of
160
dealing with both qualitative and quantitative indicators. It also accounts for desirable and
161
undesirable outputs. In addition, a number of sensitivity analyses are performed to identify the
162
effective factors in sustainable supply chains and strengths and weaknesses of each supply chain
163
are identified based on BSC perspectives.
RI
PT
158
Features
SC
Table 1: The proposed approach vs. other studies
Data
complexity
and nonlinearity
BSC
factors
Sensitivity
Analysis
Quantitative
and
qualitative
data
Desirable
and
undesirable
factors
Sustainability
factors
Using an
optimization
framework
The proposed
method
Tajbakhsh and
Hassini
(2014)
Shafiee, et al.
(2014)
Tavana, et al.
(2013)
Saranga and
Moser (2010)
Cho, et al.
(2012)
Agrell and
HatamiMarbini
(2013)
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
Multiple
inputs
and
outputs

AC
C
Method
164
This approach can help decision makers and top managers to increase efficiency of their business
165
operations. Also, forty plastic recycling companies in Mazandaran and Golestan provinces of
166
Iran are considered as real cases to show the applicability of the proposed framework. Finally,
167
management decisions are provided based on BSC to improve the performance of supply chains
168
by considering sustainable indicators. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
evaluates the sustainability of a number of competing companies (with a case study in plastic
170
recycling firms) by an integrated DEA and BSC approach. Table 1 shows the advantages and
171
superiority of this study over the competing models.
172
3. The proposed framework
173
This paper proposes a new framework to evaluate the sustainability performance of some
174
competing supply chains by using an integrated DEA-BSC model. The proposed DEA model is
175
an extension of the model developed by Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) as it is capable of dealing
176
with both qualitative and quantitative indicators as well as accounting for both desirable and
177
undesirable outputs.
Literature review
Experts opinions
Snowball sampling
TE
D
Literature review
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
169
Snowball sampling
Determining the important sustainable

indicators for performance evaluation
Identifying important indicators in recycling

industry based on experts opinions
Classifying these indicators into the four
perspectives of BSC
AC
C
EP
Applying the proposed network DEA model for supply chain network of recycling
companies with respect to the set of comprehensive indicators
Performing sensitivity analyses to find the

most effective indicators in each echelon
Select the best recycling supply chain network as

the benchmark
Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each supply chain

Suggesting practical solutions for improving the performance of non-efficient supply chains
178
179
Figure 1. The proposed framework for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chains
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The proposed DEA model is used by considering a number of sustainability indicators. Then,
181
BSC approach is applied to classify the sustainability indicators into four BSC perspectives.
182
Afterwards, inputs, desirable and undesirable outputs are identified. Using a comprehensive set
183
of selected indicators from the literature, DEA is applied in order to rank all decision making
184
units and find the efficient units from the sustainability perspective. Finally, several sensitivity
185
analyses are performed to identify the most important shaping factors. Also, the importance of
186
each BSC perspective is achieved that can help decision makers and top managers to increase
187
business operations efficiencies. Figure 1 presents a schematic view of the proposed framework.
188
3.1.
189
Todays, sustainability is one of the most important subjects in the field of supply chain
190
management and organizations are increasingly considering sustainability issues in their long-
191
and short-term decisions. In this section, a number of important sustainability indicators are
192
introduced from which some suitable metrics are identified.
193
Boukherroub et al. (2015) introduced a number of sustainability factors in the three categories
194
namely economic, environmental, and social ones. Financial performance, responsiveness,
195
flexibility, reliability, and quality belong to the economic factors while resources consumption,
196
climate change, hazardous materials, and pollution were introduced as environmental factors.
197
Furthermore, health, safety, job criteria, wealth, and work conditions were the important social
198
indicators. Ahi and Searcy (2013) conducted a literature review to identify the most relevant
199
factors for the sustainable supply chains. In this paper, according to the literature review and
200
experts opinions, a number of important sustainability indicators have been identified for
201
recycling industry (see Table 2) whose importance degrees have been estimated using experts
202
judgments and Snowball sampling. It is worth mentioning that the proper measure for each
AC
C
EP
TE
D
Sustainability indicators
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
180
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
indicator is provided in Appendix I in the form of a question. The top manager answers to each
204
question based on the available historical data and her/his professional judgments and
205
experiences. It is noteworthy that the considered measures are standard ones so that the
206
procedure for computing each measure is similar in each company.
207
Also, it should be noted that the objective of the proposed framework is to enhance the
208
sustainability performance of supply chains under investigation for which there are three goals
209
namely economic, environmental, and social ones. Table 2 shows the relevant indicators for each
210
goal.
SC
RI
PT
203
Goal
Indicators
Flexibility, Production flexibility
Ahi and Searcy (2013); Boukherroub et al. (2015); Tavana et al. (2013)
2.
Delivery cost
Olugu and Wong (2012); Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014)
3.
Investment in sustainability
design
211
Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014)
Time delivery
Olugu and Wong (2012); Boukherroub et al. (2015)
5.
Supplier rejection rate
Sharma and Bhagwat (2007)
6.
Service quality
7.
Amount of Pollution
Epstein and Wisner (2001)

Ahi and Searcy (2013); Boukherroub et al. (2015); Rao and Holt(2005)
8.
ISO 14001 certification
Ahi and Searcy (2013); Rao and Holt (2005)
9.
Hazardous materials
Boukherroub et al. (2015)
10.
Number of green products
EP
TE
D
4.
Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014); Young and Kielkiewicz-Young (2001);

Rao (2002), Hu and Hsu (2010)
11.
Customers satisfaction
Ahi and Searcy (2013); Heikkil (2002); Gunasekaran et al. (2001);
12.
Health and Safety Staff
Ahi and Searcy (2013); Boukherroub et al. (2015)
AC
C
Social
References
1.
Economic
Environmental
M
AN
U
Table 2: Important SSCMs indicators for recycling industry
212
3.2.
Balanced ScoreCard
213
BSC is one of the most ample performance measurement tools (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) by
214
which both financial and non-financial measures along with long- and short-term strategies are
215
collectively considered for performance evaluation. BSC is not about mirroring the past but
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
about making future predictions. Moreover, BSC is utilized not only as a strategic measurement
217
tool but also as a strategic control tool which can support personal and organizational goals
218
(Nrreklit, 2000). This tool was originally introduced as a for-profit tool (Kaplan & Norton,
219
1992) and later turned out into a tool that addressed achieving strategic goals which might
220
include sustainability (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). BSC can illustrate cause and effect relations
221
between strategies and processes through the four perspectives of: Financial; Customer;
222
Internal business processes; and Learning and growth" (Shafiee et al., 2014). According to
223
BSC perspectives, an organization must consider customers requirements to achieve financial
224
benefits. Also, organization must pay attention to employee satisfaction, employee continuation,
225
and productivity of employees to achieve benefits and success (Shafiee et al., 2014).
226
The BSC has been adjusted many times, also towards sustainability. In this study, the three
227
categories of sustainability are incorporated into the BSC perspectives to evaluate decision
228
making units and provide long and short decisions. In this way, by adding social and
229
environmental factors to BSC, this tool can also reflect organizational sustainability (Lueg &
230
Carvalho-e-Silva, 2013; Lueg et al., 2015; Songini and Pistoni, 2012). During the last decade,
231
organizational sustainability has gained increasing attention in the field of performance
232
management. In this regard, Chalmeta and Palomero (2011) revisited BSC in order to include
233
sustainability factors. Furthermore, DiasSardinha and Reijnders (2005) and Tsai et al. (2009)
234
demonstrated how to apply a sustainable BSC for performance evaluation. This approach would
235
help policy makers and top managers to have a more comprehensive and thorough understanding
236
of the sustainability with respect to the long- and short-term strategies for future decisions.
237
3.2.1. Classification of SSCIs
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
216
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
To classify SSCIs into the four perspectives of BSC, Shafiee et al. (2014) and Sharma and
239
Bhagwat (2007) provided the most important SCMs indicators according to the four
240
perspectives of BSC. Also, Epstein and Wisner (2001), Figge et al. (2002), and Hart and Milstein
241
(2003) provided sustainable supply chain indicators based on BSC. The ultimate goal of any
242
commercial organization is to earn profit and financial perspective can play an important role to
243
achieve this goal. Considered indicators for this perspective usually contain return on investment,
244
operating income, operating costs, net profit rate, and net cash flow. In the internal business
245
processes, all processes are redesigned by considering customer requirements and the operating
246
strategy must be aligned to achieve customers expectations. Customer satisfaction, customer
247
achievement, and customer profitability are considered as the critical indicators in the customer
248
perspective. Also, learning and growth are two main elements which can help organizations to
249
have sustainable operations and development. In this paper, this approach is applied to classify
250
SSCIs into four categories according to the BSC perspectives in the plastic recycling industry.
251
3.2.2.
252
In this section, selected SSCIs for plastic recycling industry must be divided into the four
253
perspectives of BSC. In this regard, a suitable questionnaire was designed to properly assign
254
each indicator to one of these four perspectives. Snowball sampling method was applied in this
255
step. Based on this method, which is suitable when members of a population are hard to locate,
256
ten experts responded to the questionnaire. Finally, based on conducted literature review and
257
experts opinions, twelve indicators have been divided into the four BSC perspectives. Table 3
258
shows the selected sustainability KPIs for recycling industry based on BSC links performance
259
measures introduced by Kaplan and Norton (2005).
260
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
238
AC
C
EP
Classifying SSCIs into BSC perspectives in plastic recycling industry
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Environmental
Hazardous materials; Epstein and

Wisner, 2001)
Pollution prevention; (Hart and
Milstein, 2003; Hsu and Liu, 2010)
Number of green products; (Epstein and
Wisner, 2001)
Social
ISO 14001, self-assessment; (Epstein, et al.,

1997; Epstein and Wisner, 2001)
Health and Safety Staff (Figge et al., 2002)
SC
Flexibility, variety of products;

(Sharma and Bhagwat, 2007; Bhagwat
and Sharma, 2007)
M
AN
U
Economic
RI
PT
Table 3: KPIs of SSCM for recycling industry based on BSC approach

Financial perspective
Customer perspective
Goal
Indicator
Goal
Indicator
Delivery time (Sharma and Bhagwat, 2007;
Delivery cost; (Park et al., 2005)
Economic
Bhagwat and Sharma, 2007)
Supplier rejection rate; (Sharma and
Economic
Bhagwat, 2007)
Customers satisfaction (Chia et al., 2009)
Investment in sustainability design;
Social
(Hsu and Liu, 2010)
Service quality; (Epstein and Wisner, 2001)
Internal business process perspective
Learning and growth perspective
Goal
Indicator
Goal
Indicator
261
As seen in Table 3, sustainability factors are considered as goals and the relevent indicators for
263
each goal are derived from the literature review. BSC perspective for this study are well
264
illustrated in Table 3.
265
3.3. A novel network DEA model
266
DEA is a non-parametric method for computing the efficiency of multiple DMUs. This method
267
was proposed by Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes (CCR) in 1978 and since then many researchers
268
have applied this model for performance evaluation. DEA divides the indicators into the output
269
and input categories and aims to maximize the ratio of weighed outputs to weighed inputs (i.e.
270
each DMUs efficiency). In this study, DEA is used for performance evaluation of plastic
271
recycling companies as it is able to process multiple components (Charnes and Cooper, 1978)
272
and can analyze qualitative indicators as well as quantitative ones simultaneously (Shafiee, et al.,
273
2014). Also, this model is highly flexible and can be applied with other multi criteria decision
274
making techniques (Golany, 1988; Spronk and Post, 1999).
AC
C
EP
TE
D
262
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) developed a network DEA to evaluate the sustainability
276
performance in supply chain networks. Their model involves four echelons namely supplier,
277
manufacturing, distribution, and retailer echelons and only takes quantitative inputs and outputs
278
into account. In this study, this network DEA model is extended in two ways. First, outputs are
279
divided into the desirable and undesirable categories in order to increase the performance of
280
DMUs. In the classic DEA models, outputs must be maximized to achieve high efficiency but in
281
some real cases, there are also some undesirable indicators which need to be decreased in order
282
to improve the efficiency. The proposed model can handle such situations in the real world.
283
Second, it accounts for both qualitative and quantitative inputs and outputs to incorporate both
284
the available historical data and subjective judgments of experts in the proposed network DEA
285
model. Authors believe that considering these features concurrently makes the developed
286
network DEA model more accurate and realistic.
287
288
289
3.3.1. The original network DEA model
290
reviewed as the foundation of our proposed one. An assumption in this basic network DEA
291
model is that all inputs are under control of management. These inputs are called as discretionary
292
inputs. However, in practice, there might be other inputs, which are out of management control
293
named as non-discretionary or exogenous inputs. Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) used
294
intermediate measures to connect the components of two different echelons of a supply chain
295
while they can be of discretionary or non-discretionary type. The notations used in Tajbakhsh
296
and Hassini (2014) are as follows:
297
Indices and Sets
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
275
AC
C
EP
In this section, the network DEA model introduced by Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) is first
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Index of DMUs (j belongs to set DMU)
Index of DMUs under evaluation (k belongs to set DMU)
Index of suppliers ( belongs to set S)
Index of manufactures ( belongs to set M)
Index of distributers ( belongs to set D)
Index of retailers ( belongs to set R)
Index of each echelon ( belongs to {S,M,D,R})
IP.
Set of direct inputs into the echelon of a DMU
SC
Index of direct inputs into a echelon (i belongs to discretionary input set,
Dis (IP), or non-discretionary input set, Non (IP), and IP. set)
Index of direct outputs into the echelon (r belongs to OP. set )
Index of intermediates from supplier into manufacturer echelon (p belongs to
set SM)
Index of intermediates from manufacturer into supplier echelon (q belongs to
set MS)
Index of intermediates from manufacturer into distributer echelon (t belongs
TE
D
to set MD)
Index of intermediates from distributer into manufacturer echelon (u belongs
to set DM)
Index of intermediates from distributer into retailer echelon (v belongs to set
EP
DR)
Index of intermediates from retailer into distributer echelon (w belongs to set
RD)
AC
C
299
M
AN
U
298
Parameters
xij
yrj
RI
PT
Value of input i for DMU j
Value of output r for DMU j
Infinitesimal amount
Weight of echelon in performance
xij
Value of input i for DMU j in echelon
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
yrj
Value of output r for DMU j in echelon
zqj
Value of intermediate q from M() into S() of DMU j
zpj
Value of intermediate p from S() into M() of DMU j
301
Decision Variables
effk
Efficiency score of DMU k
effk
Efficiency score of echelon for DMU k
RI
PT
300
Degree of benchmarking for DMU j at the level of suppliers
Degree of benchmarking for DMU j at the level of manufactures
Degree of benchmarking for DMU j at the level of distributers
Degree of benchmarking for DMU j at the level of retailers
M
AN
U
SC
302
Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014) considered consumed/produced amount of intermediate measures
304
in their model to connect the components of two different echelons of a supply chain. Assume n
305
DMU that must be evaluated by a set of inputs indexed by i and outputs indexed by r. The
306
objective of network DEA model is maximization of the ratio of weighed outputs to weighed
307
inputs. In the network DEA model (1)-(26), which is applied for all DMUs simultaneously, there
308
is a separated model for each echelon, i.e., supplier, manufacturing, distribution, and retailer
309
echelons, in which consumed/produced amount of intermediate measures indexed by z connect
310
the components of two adjacent echelons. The variables s represent slack variables, stressing
311
deficiency amount of DMU k.

M in
312
313
314
315
316
s.t.:
AC
C
EP
TE
D
303
eff k Slack
(1)
Supplier echelon:
S ( )
jDMU
xij . j + si = eff k
j DMU
y rj . j s r+ = y rk
.xik
i IP.S
r OP.S
(2)
(3)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
j DMU
z qj . j + s q = z qk
q MS
j DMU
z pj . j s +p = z pk
p SM
(4)
(5)
j , si , sr+ , sq , s +p 0
jDMU
xij . j + si = eff kM ( ) . xik
jDMU
y rj . j s
j DMU
z pj . j + s
jDMU
z qj . j s
jDMU
zuj . j + s
jDMU
z tj . j s
320
321
+
r
= z pk
p SM
+
q
= z qk
q MS
= zuk
u DM
+
t
= z fk
+
q
,s ,s
+
t
,s
xij . j + si = eff kD ( ) . xik
j DMU
y rj . j s
jDMU
z tj . j + s
jDMU
zuj . j s
j DMU
z wj . j + s
j DMU
z vj . j s
+
r
= y rk
= zuk
= z wk
= z vk
322
+
v
,s
v DR
xij . j + si = eff k R ( ) . xik
j DMU
y rj . j s
jDMU
z vj . j + s
jDMU
z wj . j s
j,s ,s ,s
+
r
+
r
+
w
+
w
,s
= y rk
= z vk
= z wk
i IP.R
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
r OP.R
v DR
w RD
(8)
(14)
j DMU
AC
C
w RD
Retailer echelon
+
u
(7)
(13)
,s
j,s ,s ,s ,s
+
r
u DM
EP
+
v
t MD
i IP.D
r OP.D
= z tk
+
u
D
D
t MD
j DMU
r OP.M
Distributer echelon
323
= y rk
SC
j,s ,s ,s
+
r
i IP.M
M
AN
U
RI
PT
Manufacture echelon
TE
D
317
318
319
(6)
(21)
(22)
R
R
(23)
(24)
(25)
324
325
In objective function (1), the slack is the sum of all slack variables excluding non-
326
discretionary input constraints following by the * symbol and effk can be achieved by
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
327
Equation (26). DMUk is efficient in the above model if effk=1 and slack=0, (Tajbakhsh and
328
Hassini, 2014) where effk is computed as follows:

eff k =
W S ( ) .eff kS ( ) + W M ( ) .eff kM ( ) + W D ( ) .eff kD ( ) + W R ( ) .eff kR ( )

W S ( ) + W M ( ) + W D ( ) + W R ( )
(26)
3.3.1.1. The proposed network DEA model with desirable and undesirable outputs
334
and undesirable ones. Seiford and Zhu (2002) proposed an output-oriented DEA model with
335
undesirable outputs. Based on their proposed model, the following assumption (27) is considered
336
and imported to constraints (2) to (25).
RI
PT
329
330
331
332
333
M
AN
U
+
y =
SC
In this section, the outputs of aforementioned network DEA model are divided into the desirable
yg
y b
(27)
where yg and yb represent the desirable (good) and undesirable (bad) outputs, respectively. So,
339
constraints (2) to (25) can be rewritten as follows:
340
341
342
s.t.:
TE
D
337
338
Supplier echelon
jDMU
xij . j + si = eff kS ( ) . xik
jDMU
y . j s
jDMU
y . j + s
b
rj
g+
r
b
r
(29)
=y
b
rk
r OP .S
(30)
z qj . j + s
jDMU
z pj . j s
+
p
j,s ,s ,s ,s ,s
343
344
r OP .S
jDMU
d+
r
b
r
(28)
=y
g
rk
EP
g
rj
i IP.S
g
= z qk
q MS
(31)
= z pk
p SM
(32)
AC
C
+
p
(33)
Manufacture echelon
jDMU
j DMU
jDMU
xij . j + si = eff kM ( ) . xik
rj
. j s
g+
r
=y
rk
y b rj . j + srb = y b rk
i IP.M
r OP .M
g
r OP b .M
M
M
(34)
(35)
(36)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
jDMU
z pj . j + s p = z pk
p SM
z qj . j sq+ = z qk
q MS
jDMU
zuj . j + su = zuk
u DM
jDMU
ztj . j st+ = z fk
jDMU
t MD
M
M
j DMU
rj
. j s
rj
. j + s
jDMU
zuj . j s
jDMU
z wj . j + s
j DMU
z vj . j s
r OP .D
u DM
= z wk
w RD
= z vk
+
u
t MD
= zuk
+
v
= ztk
+
u
j,s ,s ,s ,s ,s
b
r
=y
ztj . j + s
g+
r
r OP .D
b
rk
=y
b
r
,s
v DR
+
v
,s
Retailer echelon
jDMU
jDMU
xij . j + si = eff kR ( ) . xik

y
rj
. j s
rj
. j + s
b
r
jDMU
z vj . j + s
jDMU
z wj . j s
j,s ,s ,s ,s
g+
r
b
r
g+
r
=y
=y
v
+
w
rk
rk
= z vk
= z wk
,s
+
w
r OP .R
g
r OP .R
b
v DR
w RD
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
i IP.R
(41)
TE
D
jDMU
EP
i IP.D
g
rk
g+
r
j DMU
347
348
RI
PT
SC
jDMU
xij . j + si = eff kD ( ) . xik
(40)
M
AN
U
j DMU
(39)
Distributer echelon
(38)
j , si , srg+ , srb , s p , sq+ , su , st+ 0

345
346
(37)
(50)
(48)
(49)
(47)
(51)
R
(52)
(53)
(54)
3.3.1.2. The proposed network DEA with qualitative and quantitative indicators
354
model. However, in real situations, it is essential to consider qualitative factors (with ordinal
355
scale) for performance assessment as well. Cooper et al. (1999) and Kim et al. (1999) discussed
356
about the ordinal (qualitative) and cardinal (quantitative) indicators in DEA models. In this
AC
C
349
350
351
352
353
All indicators are of quantitative type with numeric values in the Tajbakhsh and Hassinis (2014)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
357
study, ordinal and cardinal indicators are considered through constraints (55) to (58), where OD
358
and CD represent ordinal data and cardinal data set, respectively.
i IP.S
r , i OD
... y
... y
r OP .S
... y
... y
r OPb .S
g
r1
b
r1
g
r 2
b
r 2
g
rj
g
rk
b
rk
b
rj
xij , y , y
g
rn
b
rn
i IP.S
r OP .S
r, i OD
(56)
r, i OD
(57)
r OP .S
359
r, i CD
(58)
written as follows:
362
Supplier echelon
jDMU
x ijCD
. j + jDMU x OD
. j + si = eff kS ( ) .( x ikCD
+ x ikOD
)
ij
jDMU
y rjg,CD . j + jDMU y rjg,OD . j srg+ = y rkg ,CD + y rkg ,OD
jDMU
y rjb ,CD . j + jDMU y rjb ,OD . j + srb = y rkb ,CD + y rkb ,OD
jDMU
z qj . j + sq = z qk
q MS
jDMU
z pj . j s +p = z pk
p SM
j , si , srd+ , srb , sq , s +p 0
TE
D
M
AN
U
361
SC
According to constraints (55) to (58), the modified constraints of the supplier echelon can be
360
xi1 xi 2 ... xik ... xin
(59)
r OP g .S
(60)
r OP b .S
i IP.S
i IP.S
(61)
(62)
(63)
(64)
r , i OD
(65)
g
rn
r OP .S
r, i OD
(66)
yrb1 yrb2 ... yrkb ... yrnb
r OPb .S
r, i OD
(67)
g
r 2
... y
xij , yrjg , yrjb 0

363
g
rk
... y
i IP.S
r OP g .S
EP
g
r1
r OPb .S
r, i CD
(68)
The above model is non-linear because the value of ordinal indicators and related weights
AC
C
364
(55)
RI
PT
365
are unknown.
366
3.3.1.3. A linearized version of the proposed network DEA model
367
The above proposed network DEA model is a non-linear and complex model. The dual form of
368
this DEA model is then written in order to convert it to an equivalent linear model while
369
pervious steps are applied for the dual model. Also, reverse flows between echelons are not
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
considered here because there is not any reverse flow in the case under study. After that, the final
371
model with desirable and undesirable outputs and qualitative and quantitative indicators is
372
formulated. The following assumptions have been made to formulate the proposed network DEA
373
model:
RI
PT
370
374
Reverse flows between echelons are not considered.
375
Separate DEA models are formulated for different echelons with desirable and
each echelon consumes some inputs and produces some outputs.
378
379
The supplier echelon, which is the first echelon, consumes direct inputs and produces
initial outputs some of which are fed to the manufacturing echelon.
380
381
Each model involves two types of indicators (i.e. outputs and inputs). In other words,
M
AN
U
377
SC
undesirable outputs and qualitative and quantitative indicators.
376
The manufacturing echelon (i.e. the second echelon) consumes direct inputs and the
intermediate indicators between the supplier and manufacturing echelons and produces a
383
number of outputs, which some of them are fed to the distribution echelon.
384
TE
D
382
Distribution echelon (i.e. the third echelon) consumes direct inputs and the intermediate
indicators between the manufacturing and distribution echelons and produces a number
386
of outputs, which some of them are fed to the retailer echelon.

-
indicators between the distribution and retailer echelons and produces the final outputs.
388
389
392
For each echelon, a separate DEA model is run to calculate the efficiency of related
echelon.
390
391
Retailer echelon (i.e. the last echelon) consumes direct inputs and the intermediate
AC
C
387
EP
385
The whole supply chains efficiency can be achieved by the weighted average of these
four echelons efficiencies.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
393
Only direct inputs and outputs can be ordinal data while the flows between echelons (i.e.
the intermediate indicators) are measurable in this case study.
394
Now, models (1) to (4) pertaining to the supplier, manufacturer, distributor and retailer echelons,
396
respectively, are reformulated as follows:
397
Model 1: Supplier echelon
RI
PT
395
Max yrk .u r + z pk .g p
398
(69)
s.t.
y .u + z
rj
pj
.u p xij .wi 0
ik
M
AN
U
x .w = 1
i
ur , g p , wij 0
399
400
SC
Model 2: Manufacturing echelon
Max yrk .u r + ztk .g t z pk .g p

401
s.t.
rj
.u r + ztj .g t xij .wi z pj .g p 0
ik
.wi = 1
402
AC
C
s.t.
y .u + z
rj
vj
ik
.g v ztj .g v xij .wi 0
x .w = 1
i
ur , gv , gv , wi 0
405
(72)
(73)
(74)
(75)
Model 3: Distribution echelon
Max yrk .ur + zvk .g v ztk .g v

404
(71)
(76)
EP
ur , gt , wi , g p 0
403
TE
D
(70)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
406
Model 4: Retailer echelon
Max yrk .ur zvk .g v

r
s.t:
y .u z .g x .w 0
rj
vj
ij
(82)
RI
PT
407
(81)
x .w = 1
ik
(83)
ur , gv , wi 0
(84)
408
In the above models, u, w, and g are the direct and indirect inputs and outputs weights.
Finally, the efficiency of whole supply chain k can be achieved by Equation (85):
Efficiency of supply chaink =
M
AN
U
410
SC
409
W S ( ) .eff kModel1 + W M ( ) .eff kModel 2 + W D ( ) .eff kModel 3 + W R ( ) .eff kModel 4

W S ( ) + W M ( ) + W D ( ) + W R ( )
(85)
Now, each of aforementioned network DEA models can be reformulated while incorporating
412
the desirable and undesirable outputs as well as qualitative and quantitative indicators. All direct
413
inputs and outputs are divided into the ordinal and cardinal indicators as mentioned before. In
414
this way, model (1) as a sample can be modified as follows:
415
Supplier echelon
TE
D
411
,g
,b
,g
,b
Max y CD
.u r y CD
.u r + y OD
.u r + y OD
.u r + z pk .g p
rk
rk
rk
rk
CD , g
rj
EP
,b
,g
,b
.u r y CD
.ur + y OD
.u r y OD
.u r + z pj .u p x ijCD
.wij + x ijOD
.wij 0
rj
rj
rj
CD
ik
.wik + xikOD
.wik = 1
AC
C
ur , g p , wij 0
OD , g
r1
OD ,b
r1
y
y
416
OD
OD
(87)
(88)
(89)

OD
(86)
OD
(90)
OD , g
r 2
... y
... y
(91)
OD ,b
r 2
... y
... y
(92)
OD , g
rk
OD ,b
rk
OD , g
rn
OD ,b
rn
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
417
The above model is non-linear as the value of ordinal indicators and their weights are
418
unknown. To make the above model linear, Zhus (2003) simple approach is adopted here as
419
follows:
i , j ,
Yrjg = yrjg,OD .ur
r , j,
Yrjb = yrjb,OD .ur
r , j ,
RI
PT
(93)
(94)
(95)
420
421
Therefore, the linearized model is written as follows:
422
Supplier echelon
r
CD , g
rj
,b
,g
,b
.u r y CD
.u r + YrjOD
YrjOD
+ z pj .u p x ijCD
.wij + X ijOD
0
rj
CD
ik
.wik + X ikOD
=1
i
,g
,b
ur , g p , wij , YrjOD
, YrjOD
, X ijOD
0
X iOD
X iOD
... X ikOD
... X inOD
1
2
OD ,b
r 2
... Y
OD ,b
rk
423
TE
D
,g
,g
,g
,g
YrOD
YrOD
... YrkOD
... YrnOD
1
2
OD ,b
r1
(96)
M
AN
U
,g
,b
,g
,b
Max y CD
.u r y CD
.u r + YrkOD
YrkOD
+ z pk .g p
rk
rk
SC
X ij = x OD
.wi
ij
... Y
OD ,b
rn
(97)
(98)
(99)
(100)
(101)
(102)
Similarly, the network DEA models pertaining to other echelons can be modified in the same
425
way that was done on the supplier echelons model.
426
3.4. Sensitivity analyses
427
To identify the effective factors in recycling companies, the proposed network DEA is run by
428
omitting each indicator separately. If there is only one output or one input, one dummy output or
429
input is considered to perform sensitivity analysis after omitting the mentioned input or output
430
respectively. Furthermore, the relationship between the BSC perspectives and the performance of
AC
C
EP
424
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
431
each recycling industry can be achieved through the sensitivity analysis. Also, the impact of any
432
changes on each indicator over the time is examined by this analysis.

The omitted indicator, which creates the greatest change in the efficiency score is selected as
434
the most influential shaping indicator among the others. These important shaping factors belong
435
to different BSC factors; therefore, strengths and weaknesses of each company under
436
consideration are identified through this analysis while taking the importance of each perspective
437
into account.
438
4.
Computational results and discussions
SC
RI
PT
433
In this section, forty plastic recycling companies are studied for validating the proposed
440
performance evaluation framework. That is, the supply chain of each company is evaluated by
441
the proposed network DEA model. Additionally, the most influential shaping factors along with
442
the strengths and weaknesses of each company are identified by conducting several sensitivity
443
analyses. Table 4 shows the list of indicators for the proposed network DEA model.
Sup
x1
y1Sup
AC
C
zSup-Man
x1Man
y1Man
y2Man
y3Man
zMan-Dis
x1Dis
y1Dis
zDis-Ret
x1Ret
y1Ret
Table 4: Selected indicators for the proposed network DEA model

Type of
Echelon
Definition
outputs
Supplier
Delivery cost
--Supplier
Undesirable
Supplier
Hazardous materials
Manufacture
Investment in sustainability design
--Manufacture
Flexibility
Desirable
Manufacture
Health and Safety Staff
Desirable
Manufacture
ISO 14001 certification
Desirable
Manufacture
Number of green product
--Distribution
Delivery cost
--Distribution
Service quality
Desirable
Distribution
Time delivery
--Retailer
Delivery cost
--Retailer
Desirable
EP
Measure
TE
D
M
AN
U
439
444
4.1.
Type of indicators
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data collection
445
To gather required data, a proper measure for each indicator is provided in Appendix I based
446
on experts opinions in the form of a question. Top manager answers to each question based on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
historical data. The sample questionnaire containing sustainability measures has been provided in
448
Appendix I. Raw data for this study is shown in Table 5. It is important to note that the top
449
managers have reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of recorded information. As seen in Table
450
5, the supply chain of each plastic recycling company is considered as a decision making unit
451
(DMU). The obtained data are imported to the network DEA model to evaluate DMUs. The
452
questions related to each indicator and its unit of measurement are shown in Appendix I.
RI
PT
447
x1Man
y1Man
y2Man
y3Man
zMan-Dis
x1Dis
y1Dis
zDis-Ret
x1Ret
y1Ret
50
0.15
0.01
1.2
0.8
0.2
20
20
0.3
70
0.2
0.05
1.5
0.9
0.3
50
0.99
20
0.25
30
0.05
0.02
1.4
30
15
0.25
120
0.15
0.02
60
0.2
0.05
1.5
40
0.15
0.01
1.2
40
0.15
0.02
50
0.05
0.01
1.8
Sup-Man
70
0.1
0.03
1.5
20
0.15
0.05
1.5
11
40
0.2
0.05
12
30
0.3
0.05
13
50
0.15
0.02
14
50
0.05
0.01
15
50
0.25
0.05
16
60
0.15
17
35
0.2
18
20
0.1
20
21
22
0.2
0.5
0.05
50
0.99
20
0.35
0.8
0.1
50
40
0.25
0.9
0.1
60
50
0.2
0.7
0.05
70
15
0.1
0.5
0.1
20
0.95
20
0.2
0.7
0.2
40
50
0.25
0.65
0.2
45
40
0.15
0.7
0.3
60
0.9
30
0.15
1.3
0.8
0.1
80
30
0.2
1.5
0.7
0.05
50
0.96
20
0.2
1.5
0.6
0.2
100
15
0.25
0.7
0.2
20
25
0.15
EP
0.02
0.8
0.5
0.05
50
0.96
20
0.1
0.02
1.2
0.5
0.1
60
40
0.2
0.03
1.2
0.5
0.2
70
0.95
35
0.2
40
0.2
0.05
1.5
0.7
0.2
10
15
0.25
50
0.15
0.05
1.5
0.5
0.1
20
10
0.2
45
0.05
0.03
0.8
0.4
50
40
0.4
AC
C
19
0.5
TE
D
9
10
M
AN
U
DMU
y1Sup
SC
Table 5: Raw data for forty plastic recycling companies

x1Sup
20
0.1
0.02
1.5
0.6
0.2
50
0.99
15
0.1
30
0.15
0.05
2.4
0.9
0.5
45
0.98
50
0.6
24
50
0.05
0.05
1.6
0.6
0.1
60
15
0.1
25
30
0.05
0.1
1.5
0.7
0.2
80
20
0.1
26
30
0.25
0.02
2.5
0.95
0.7
12
65
0.95
70
0.75
27
70
0.2
0.02
1.5
0.5
0.2
50
45
0.2
28
40
0.15
0.01
1.4
0.6
0.3
20
35
0.15
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 5: Raw data for forty plastic recycling companies

x1Sup
y1Sup
zSup-Man
x1Man
y1Man
y2Man
y3Man
zMan-Dis
x1Dis
y1Dis
zDis-Ret
x1Ret
y1Ret
29
30
0.2
0.01
1.7
0.8
0.5
30
0.99
40
0.4
30
25
0.2
0.05
0.8
0.5
0.3
35
50
0.1
31
30
0.1
0.07
1.4
0.5
0.2
35
35
0.3
32
40
0.2
0.03
1.5
0.6
0.2
20
15
0.2
33
30
0.15
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.1
50
20
0.25
34
10
0.15
0.02
2.2
0.9
0.6
60
0.99
50
0.5
35
50
0.2
0.05
0.7
0.5
100
20
0.3
36
35
0.1
0.02
1.5
0.5
0.3
80
30
0.15
37
20
0.3
0.02
1.1
0.6
0.2
20
40
0.1
38
80
0.2
0.05
0.8
0.5
50
0.99
50
0.4
39
50
0.2
0.03
1.5
0.6
0.4
80
25
0.2
40
30
0.25
0.05
1.5
0.5
0.3
25
0.96
10
0.25
454
SC
M
AN
U
453
RI
PT
DMU
4.2. Results
The proposed DEA model is applied for the supply chain network of each plastic recycling
456
company by using data shown in Table 5. The efficiency score for each DMU is achieved
457
through this model and DMUs are ranked according to their efficiencies. Based on experts
458
opinions, equal weights are considered for different echelons of the supply chain networks under
459
consideration. Therefore, the total efficiency is achieved using Equation (18). Table 6 shows the
460
rank and efficiency score of each DMU. Noteworthy, GAMS software with CPLEX solver was
461
used to solve the related network DEA models in our numerical experiments.
EP
TE
D
455
AC
C
Table 6: Results of the proposed network DEA model
DMU
Efficiency scores
Rank
Retailer
Distribution
Manufacturing
Supplier
Total
Supply chain 1
0.2
0.80
Supply chain 2
0.5
0.997
0.143
0.66
Supply chain 3
0.667
0.5
0.333
0.63
Supply chain 4
0.7
0.083
0.70
Supply chain 5
0.25
0.7
0.167
0.53
20
Supply chain 6
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.42
39
Supply chain 7
0.267
0.286
0.25
0.45
34
Supply chain 8
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.53
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.2
0.25
0.974
0.143
0.39
40
Supply chain 10
0.15
0.222
0.949
0.5
0.46
33
Supply chain 11
0.2
0.325
0.25
0.44
36
Supply chain 12
0.267
0.187
0.953
0.333
0.44
37
Supply chain 13
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.45
35
Supply chain 14
0.667
0.35
0.2
0.55
Supply chain 15
0.24
0.2
0.61
Supply chain 16
0.2
0.167
0.59
RI
PT
Supply chain 9
0.2
0.25
0.286
0.43
Supply chain 18
0.229
0.211
0.5
0.49
32
Supply chain 19
0.667
0.25
0.73
Supply chain 20
0.8
0.5
0.939
0.2
0.61
Supply chain 21
0.4
0.533
0.222
0.54
11
Supply chain 22
0.267
0.2
0.5
0.49
31
Supply chain 23
0.48
0.963
0.333
0.54
10
Supply chain 24
0.267
0.167
0.2
0.53
19
Supply chain 25
0.2
0.375
0.333
0.52
23
Supply chain 26
0.429
0.462
0.333
0.52
25
Supply chain 27
0.178
0.2
0.143
0.51
29
Supply chain 28
0.171
0.5
0.25
0.51
30
Supply chain 29
0.4
0.889
0.333
0.52
28
Supply chain 30
0.08
0.571
0.4
0.52
26
Supply chain 31
0.571
0.429
0.333
0.52
27
Supply chain 32
0.533
0.5
0.25
0.52
24
Supply chain 33
0.5
0.4
0.333
0.53
21
0.4
0.722
0.53
18
0.1
0.2
0.53
15
0.2
0.125
0.286
0.54
12
Supply chain 37
0.1
0.75
0.5
0.54
13
Supply chain 38
0.32
0.4
0.125
0.53
16
Supply chain 39
0.32
0.125
0.2
0.53
17
Supply chain 40
0.4
0.333
0.54
14
Supply chain 35
AC
C
EP
Supply chain 36
M
AN
U
TE
D
Supply chain 34
SC
Supply chain 17
38
462
According to Table 6, supply chain 1 has the best performance among others and therefore it
463
can be selected as the benchmark to evaluate the other supply chains in the plastic recycling
464
industry. In other words, the supply chain network of other plastic recycling companies can learn
465
from the selected supply chain to improve their performances.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 2 illustrates the total efficiency scores for supply chains of plastic recycling
467
companies. As seen in Figure 2, Supply chains 6 and 9 need to improve their performances
468
because they have performed weaker than other companies. Furthermore, the efficiency scores of
469
different echelons of these supply chain networks have been shown in Figure 3.
RI
PT
466
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.50
0.73
0.70
0.66
0.63
0.61
0.59
0.53
0.55
0.53
0.45
0.42
0.460.44
0.440.45
0.49
0.43
0.39
0.540.530.52
0.54
0.540.540.530.530.54
0.520.510.510.520.520.520.520.530.530.53
0.49
M
AN
U
0.40
0.61
SC
0.70
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
470
471
472
473
TE
D
Figure 2: Total efficiency scores for supply chains of competing plastic recycling companies
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Manufacturing
Supplier
AC
C
Distribution
EP
Retailer
1.2
0
SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
474
475
Figure 3: Efficiency score for each echelon of competing plastic recycling companies
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
According to Figure 3 and Table 6, supply chain 34 has the best performance in the supplier
477
echelon. Therefore, the related supplier can be selected as the most desirable supplier among
478
other suppliers. Almost, all supply chains have the same performance in the manufacturing
479
echelon. In the distribution echelon, supply chains 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 19 can be considered as
480
the benchmark for other plastic recycling companies. For the retailer echelon, supply chains 1,
481
35, and 40 have the best performance among the others. In other words, these retailers have the
482
best policies for customers satisfaction and cost reduction.
SC
484
Figure 4 shows the average efficiency for each echelon of considered supply chain networks.
According to Figure 4, the manufacturing echelon has the best performance among the others.
M
AN
U
483
RI
PT
476
0.9953
1
0.8
0.6
0.48855
0.3995
0.28655
0.2
0
TE
D
0.4
Retailer
Distribution
Manufacturing
Supplier
485
486
487
488
489
As seen in Figure 4, the main reason for low efficiency for most of supply chain networks is
490
due to their poor performances in supplier, distribution, and retailer echelons. It is therefore quite
491
essential to improve these echelons efficiencies. For example, due to the low performance of
492
current suppliers, management must look into the optimal selection of suppliers through
493
designing and solving a supplier selection and order allocation (SS&OA) problem (see for
494
instance Aissaoui et al., 2007; Torabi et al., 2015). The manufacture echelons performance is
495
better than the other echelons performances and Figure 4 shows a high level of performance for
AC
C
EP
Figure 4: Average efficiency for each echelon of considered supply chains
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
this echelon. Moreover, although the performance of distributin echelon is higher than those of
497
supplier and retailer echelons but the efficiency of this echelon should be improved as well by
498
looking into the performance of benchmarked units and the details of their distribution networks.
499
4.3. Results of sensivitity analyses
RI
PT
496
To identify the most influential shaping indicators for each echelon of supply chain networks
501
under consideration, the developed network DEA model is run by omitting each indicator
502
separately, and important indicators are selected based on described procedures in Section 4.4.
503
4.3.1. Supplier echelon
M
AN
U
SC
500
504
In the supplier echelon, there are three indicators. Therefore, the proposed DEA model is run
505
three times to find the most effective indicators. Table 7 shows the efficiency results from
506
conducted sensitivity analyses at this echelon.
Table 7: Sensitivity analyses results for the supplier echelon

Omitted indicator
Supplier rejection
rate
0.06
Hazardous
materials
0
SC 2
0.5
0.214
SC 3
0.2
SC 4
0.2
SC 5
0.5
SC 6
0.1
Omitted indicator
Supplier rejection
rate
0.2
Hazardous
materials
0
SC 22
0.2
0.3
0.2
SC 23
0.5
0.5
0.05
SC 24
0.5
0.3
0.25
SC 25
0.075
SC 26
0.2
0.2
EP
AC
C
SC 7
SC 21
Delivery
cost
0.3
TE
D
SC 1
Delivery
cost
0.1
DMU
DMU
0.2
0.15
SC 27
0.2
0.086
0.1
0.06
SC 28
0.1
0.075
0.3
0.129
SC 29
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.75
SC 30
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.375
SC 31
0.7
0.7
SC 12
0.5
0.5
SC 32
0.3
0.225
SC 13
0.2
0.12
SC 33
SC 14
0.1
0.06
SC 34
0.2
0.6
SC 15
0.5
0.3
SC 35
0.5
0.3
SC 16
0.2
0.1
SC 36
0.2
0.171
SC 8
SC 9
SC 10
SC 11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC 17
Delivery
cost
0.2
Omitted indicator
Supplier rejection
rate
0.171
Hazardous
materials
0
SC 18
0.3
0.45
SC 19
0.5
SC 20
0.5
DMU
SC 37
Delivery
cost
0.2
Omitted indicator
Supplier rejection
rate
0.3
Hazardous
materials
0
SC 38
0.5
0.187
0.375
SC 39
0.3
0.18
0.3
SC 40
0.5
RI
PT
Table 7: Sensitivity analyses results for the supplier echelon
0.5
DMU
507
According to Table 7, eliminating hazardous materials indicator has the greatest impact on
509
the average efficiency. As the result, this indicator can be selected as the most influential shaping
510
indicator in this echelon. As stated before, supplier echelon has undesirable performance in all
511
supply chains and the SS&OA problem must be revisited especially under supply risks (see for
512
instance Torabi wt al., 2015) to select an optimal supply base in all competing supply chains.
513
Planning to improve this influential shaping indicator can enhance the supplier echelons
514
performance considerably. The differences between obtained results from the network DEA
515
model before and after eliminating these indicators are shown in Figure 5.
0.3000
0.2500
0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
AC
C
0.0500
0.2866
EP
0.3500
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
508
0.0684
0.0188
0.0000
516
517
518
Hazardous materials
Delivery cost
Figure 5: Differences between results of DEA for omitted indicators in the supplier echelon
519
As seen in Figure 5, elimination of hazardous materials has the greatest effect on efficiency
520
scores. This indicator can play a key role in management decisions. To show the impact of the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
521
eliminating indicator, the paired t-test is applied to compare the average of the efficiency before
522
and after eliminating each indicator. The results of this statistical test are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Paired t-test on sensitivity analyses results for the supplier echelon
Hypotheses test
P-value
RI
PT
H 0 : without delivery cost = full factor
0.120
H1 : without delivery cost full factor

H 0 : without supplier rejection rate = full factor
0.582
H1 : without supplier rejection rate full factor
SC
H 0 : without hazardous materials = full factor
0.000
H1 : without hazardous materials full factor
M
AN
U
523
524
As seen in Table 8, elimination of hazardous materials has the greatest impact on the
525
efficiency scores and difference between the average efficiency after and before elimination of
526
this indicator is significance at 0.95 confidence level.
4.3.2. Manufacturing echelon
528
Six indicators are considered for the manufacturing echelon. Therefore, DEA model is run
529
six times for this echelon. Table 9 shows the results of these sensitivity analyses. As seen in
530
Table 9 and Figure 6, the flexibility of production system is the most effective indicator in
531
providing the higher performance at this echelon. Thus, this indicator can play an important role
532
in management decisions to improve the manufacturing echelons performance of competing
533
supply chains.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
527
Table 9: Sensitivity analyses results for the manufacturing echelon
DMU
Hazardous
materials
SC 1
Investment
in
sustainability
design
1
SC 2
0.997
Omitted indicator
Health
and
ISO 14001
Safety
certification
Staff
1
1
0.997
0.95
Number
of green
product
Flexibility
0.978
0.857
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Omitted indicator
Health
and
ISO 14001
Safety
certification
Staff
1
1
DMU
Hazardous
materials
SC 3
Investment
in
sustainability
design
1
SC 4
SC 5
SC 6
SC 7
SC 8
0.903
SC 9
0.944
0.974
0.974
SC 10
0.944
0.949
SC 11
SC 12
0.943
SC 13
0.944
SC 14
0.944
SC 15
SC 16
SC 17
SC 18
SC 19
SC 20
0.939
SC 21
SC 22
SC 23
Flexibility
0.857
0.624
0.635
0.832
0.933
0.833
0.629
0.884
0.777
0.949
0.667
0.745
0.932
0.953
0.886
0.852
0.987
0.992
0.776
0.719
0.97
0.833
0.804
0.709
0.726
0.939
0.978
0.774
0.939
0.939
0.8
0.658
0.783
0.718
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.7990
SC 24
0.671
SC 25
0.863
0.661
0.83
SC 29
SC 30
SC 31
0.615
SC 32
0.718
SC 33
SC 34
0.929
SC 35
0.825
SC 36
0.759
SC 37
0.88
SC 38
0.913
SC 27
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
AC
C
SC 28
EP
SC 26
RI
PT
Number
of green
product
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hazardous
materials
SC 39
SC 40
Omitted indicator
Health
and
ISO 14001
Safety
certification
Staff
1
1
1
534
0.86
0.682
SC
0.001175
ISO 14001
certification
Health and
Safety Staff
0.00635
Flexibility
Hazardous
materials
Number of
green product
0.0047
Investment in
sustainability
design
Figure 6: Differences between results of DEA for omitted indicators in the manufacturing echelon
TE
D
In addition, the paired t-test is utilized to demonstrate which indicator creates the maximum
change in the efficiency scores. The results are provided in Table 10.
Table 8: Paired t-test on sensitivity analyses results of manufacturing echelon
Hypotheses test
P-value
H 0 : without hazardous materials = full factor
EP
539
0.028325
0.002375
H1 : without hazardous materials full factor

H 0 : without investment in sustainability design = full factor
H1 : without investment in sustainability design full factor
AC
C
535
536
537
538
0.181425
Flexibility
M
AN
U
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Number
of green
product
RI
PT
DMU
Investment
in
sustainability
design
1
H 0 : without health and safety staff = full factor

H1 : without health and safety staff full factor
H 0 : without ISO 14001 certificationf = full factor
H1 : without ISO 14001 certification full factor
H 0 : without number of
green product
= full factor
H1 : without number of
green product
full factor
0.048
0.049
0.151
0.323
0.009
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
H 0 : without flexibility = full factor
0.000
H1 : without flexibility full factor

540
Based on p-values presented in Table 10, the impact of eliminating the flexibility and the
542
number of green products are significance at 0.95 confidence level, so these indicators are the
543
most influential ones for the manufacturing echelons performance. Also, the hazardous material
544
and investment in sustainability design indicators are the next significance ones at 0.95
545
confidence level.
SC
RI
PT
541
4.3.3. Distribution echelon
547
DEA model is run four times for the distribution echelon by omitting each indicator
548
considered at this echelon separately. Sensitivity analyses results for this echelon is shown in
549
Table 11.
M
AN
U
546
Table 11: Sensitivity analyses results for the distribution echelon
Number
of green
product
Delivery
cost
SC 1
0.5
SC 2
0.4
SC 3
0.333
SC 4
0.6
SC 5
0.4
SC 6
Service
quality
Time
delivery
Omitted indicator
DMU
Number of
green
product
Delivery
cost
Service
quality
Time
delivery
0.833
SC 21
0.4
0.533
0.2
0.294
SC 22
0.2
0.99
0.2
0.198
EP
DMU
TE
D
Omitted indicator
0.444
0.5
SC 23
0.667
0.963
0.218
0.198
SC 24
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.667
0.2
SC 25
0.25
0.375
0.125
0.167
0.222
0.25
SC 26
0.462
0.462
0.146
0.143
0.238
0.286
SC 27
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.95
0.5
0.475
SC 28
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
SC 29
0.667
0.99
0.889
0.33
0.222
0.222
0.222
SC 30
0.286
0.476
0.571
0.167
0.9
0.278
0.283
SC 31
0.286
0.381
0.429
SC 12
0.125
0.167
0.187
SC 32
0.5
0.5
0.5
SC 13
0.2
0.96
0.2
0.192
SC 33
0.2
0.333
0.4
SC 14
0.2
0.333
0.1
SC 34
0.5
0.722
0.165
SC 15
0.5
0.833
SC 35
0.1
0.1
0.1
SC 7
SC 8
SC 9
SC 10
SC 11
AC
C
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 11: Sensitivity analyses results for the distribution echelon

Omitted indicator
Omitted indicator
Number
of green
product
Delivery
cost
Service
quality
Time
delivery
DMU
Number of
green
product
Delivery
cost
Service
quality
Time
delivery
SC 16
0.2
SC 36
0.125
0.125
0.125
SC 17
0.167
0.222
0.25
SC 37
0.5
SC 18
0.143
0.95
0.19
0.193
SC 38
0.4
SC 19
SC 39
0.125
SC 20
0.5
0.5
0.5
SC 40
0.4
RI
PT
DMU
0.667
0.75
0.99
0.4
0.198
0.125
0.125
0.96
0.4
0.384
As seen in Table 11, eliminating the delivery cost indicator has the maximum impact on the
551
efficiency scores and can be considered as the most influential performance indicator in the
552
distribution echelon. The higher efficiency can be achieved by improving this indicator at this
553
echelon. Figure 7 shows the differences between the results of DEA before and after eliminating
554
these indicators. Also, the results of the paired t-test before and after elimination of each
555
indicator show that all indicators in the distribution echelon have significance effect on
556
efficiency at 0.95 confidence level.
TE
D
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.5037
0.14725
0.133275
AC
C
0.1
EP
0.4
0.3
M
AN
U
SC
550
0.023125
Time delivery
557
558
559
Service quality
Delivery cost
Number of green product
Figure 7: Differences between results of DEA for omitted indicators in the distribution echelon
Table 12: Paired t-test on sensitivity analyses results for the distribution echelon
Hypotheses test
H 0 : without number of
green product
= full factor
H1 : without number of
green product
full factor
P-value
0.000
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.000

H 0 : without service quality = full factor
0.001
H1 : without service quality full factor
RI
PT
H 0 : without time delivery = full factor
0.001
H1 : without time delivery full factor

560
561
4.3.4.
Retailer echelon
Three indicators are considered in the retailer echelon whose sensitivity analyses results
563
have been shown in Table 13. In this echelon, eliminating the delivery time and cost, and
564
customers satisfaction have almost the identical effect on performance, so they could be
565
considered as the most influential indicators in this echelon. Therefore, to improve the
566
performance of retailer echelon, these indicators can play an important role.
M
AN
U
SC
562
Table 13: Sensitivity analyses results for the retailer echelon
SC 1
Omitted indicator
Time
Delivery Customers
delivery
cost
satisfaction
0.6
1
0.5
0.5
SC 3
0.667
SC 4
0.7
SC 5
0.25
SC 6
DMU
SC 21
0.5
0.333
0.667
SC 23
0.48
0.8
0.2
0.467
0.5
SC 24
0.267
0.133
0.667
0.333
0.25
SC 25
0.2
0.133
0.5
0.16
0.267
0.2
SC 26
0.429
0.143
SC 7
0.267
0.133
0.667
SC 27
0.178
0.267
0.222
SC 8
0.4
0.267
0.5
SC 28
0.171
0.2
0.286
SC 9
0.2
0.333
0.2
SC 29
0.4
0.533
0.25
SC 10
0.15
0.2
0.25
SC 30
0.08
0.133
0.2
SC 11
0.2
0.2
0.333
SC 31
0.343
0.286
SC 12
0.267
0.267
0.333
SC 32
0.533
0.267
0.667
SC 13
0.4
0.267
0.5
SC 33
0.5
0.333
0.5
SC 14
0.667
0.333
0.667
SC 34
0.4
0.667
0.2
SC 15
0.24
0.2
0.4
SC 35
0.6
0.5
SC 16
0.2
0.133
0.5
SC 36
0.2
0.2
0.333
SC 17
0.2
0.267
0.25
SC 37
0.1
0.133
0.25
AC
C
SC 22
Omitted indicator
Time
Delivery
Customers
delivery
cost
satisfaction
0.4
0.533
0.25
0.333
EP
SC 2
TE
D
DMU
0.267
0.133
0.667
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 13: Sensitivity analyses results for the retailer echelon

Omitted indicator
Delivery Customers
cost
satisfaction
0.267
0.286
SC 18
Time
delivery
0.229
SC 19
0.667
0.333
SC 20
0.8
0.267
DMU
SC 38'
Time
delivery
0.32
0.667
SC 39
0.32
SC 40
567
0.035
0.4
0.333
0.022775
0.01
0.005
0
M
AN
U
0.015
SC
0.0257
0.02
568
569
570
0.267
0.02955
0.03
0.025
Omitted indicator
Delivery
Customers
cost
satisfaction
0.533
0.2
RI
PT
DMU
Time delivery
Delivery cost
Figure 8: Differences between results of DEA for omitted indicators in the retailer echelon
The paired t-test is also performed for the retailer echelon in order to recognize the most
572
important indicators. The results are presented in Table 14.
TE
D
571
Table 14: Paired t-test on sensitivity analyses results in the retailer echelon
Hypotheses test
EP
H 0 : without time delivery = full factor

H1 : without time delivery full factor
AC
C

H 0 : without customers satisfaction = full factor
H1 : without customers satisfaction full factor
573
P-value
0.092
0.429
0.499
574
As shown in Table 14, elimination of the time delivery indicator has a significance impact on
575
efficiency at 0.95 confidence level.
576
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4.4. Management decisions for future predictions based on BSC
578
In this section, management decisions based on BSC approach are described. The most
579
influential indicator(s) at each echelon of considered supply chain networks are identified
580
according to the aforementioned sensitivity analyses (see Tables 7, 9, 11, and 13). As declared
581
before, these important shaping indicators belong to different BSC perspectives, so the impact of
582
each BSC perspective on sustainability performances of competing supply chains can be
583
assessed through these sensitivity analyses. To do so, the percentage of changes in the efficiency
584
scores created by each indicator is calculated based on sensitivity analyses. Then, the percentage
585
of changes in the efficiency scores created by each BSC perspective is calculated for each
586
echelon of supply chain according to Table 3. This percentage shows the degree of effectiveness
587
for each BSC factor. Figures 9 to 12 show these results for each echelon. In this way, the top
588
managers can improve the performance of supply chain networks under consideration by
589
focusing on the most influential BSC factors.
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
577
EP
Financial
23%
AC
C
Internal
business
process
77%
Figure 9: Percentage of each BSC factor in forming efficiency
scores based on sensitivity analyses done in the supplier echelon
Financial
38%
Customer
62%

scores based on sensitivity analyses done in the retailer echelon
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Learning Financial
and growth
2%
2%
Internal
business
process
18%
RI
PT
Internal
business
process
96%
Customer
65%
According to Figures 9 to 12, following conclusions can be extracted:
M
AN
U
591
Figure 12: Percentage of each BSC factor in forming

efficiency scores based on sensitivity analyses done in the
distribution echelon
SC

scores based on sensitivity analyses done in the manufacturing
echelon
590
Financial
17%
Suppliers efficiencies are very low, so that the performance of this echelon needs a
considerable improvement. The most influential BSC factor in this echelon is related to
593
the internal business processes. Therefore, management can improve the performance of
594
this echelon by focusing on suppliers technical issues and planning for process
595
improvement at this echelon using for example supplier relationship management (SRM)
596
and lean management (LM) tools; can help to improve Suppliers performances in the
597
future.
600
601
602
603
EP
599
Manufacturing echelon has a desirable performance in our case study (see Table 6).
However, to improve the current efficiency of manufacturing echelon, production
AC
C
598
TE
D
592
managers must improve their manufacturing processes using for instance the business
process reengineering (BPR) and lean management (LM) tools as they have the most
impact on the efficiency. In addition, a proper plan for improvement of internal processes
at this echelon could surely create future success as well.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
604
Customer issues are the most influential performance factors in the distribution echelon.
605
Therefore, the main weakness in this echelon can be alleviated by improving the
606
customer service level and satisfaction.

Customer issues are also the most influential performance factors in the retailer echelon.
RI
PT
607
As stated before, the main reason for low efficiency of supply chain networks is due to
609
the poor performance of retailer echelon in this study. Considerable performance
610
improvement in this echelon is necessary through focusing on customer issues (for
611
example by applying inventory management tools).
SC
608
It should be noted that the above discussions are related to the recycling companies under
613
investigation. Obviously, in order to implement the proposed framework in other industries, the
614
most relevant indicators must be first recognized and the indicators identification process should
615
be revised based on the industry type.
617
5.
Concluding remarks
TE
D
616
M
AN
U
612
In this paper, the sustainability performances of several plastic recycling companies were
619
evaluated through a novel hybrid DEA-BSC framework while considering different economic,
620
environmental and social indicators. A new network DEA model was proposed to rank all
621
recycling companies in order to find the most efficient units (i.e. benchmarked units) at each
622
echelon of related supply chain networks. The proposed DEA model is capable of dealing with
623
qualitative and quantitative indicators simultaneously while it can also accounts for desirable and
624
undesirable outputs. Top managers can improve the considered supply chain networks
625
performances by comparing their performances against the benchmarked units at each echelon
626
and the details of current procedures at benchmarked units. Additionally, the sustainability
AC
C
EP
618
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
factors are divided into four perspectives of BSC to evaluate the decision making units (i.e. the
628
aforementioned recycling companies) regarding the long- and short-term strategies. Also, a
629
number of sensitivity analyses were performed to recognize the most influential sustainability
630
indicators in each echelon. These important shaping factors belong to different BSC factors, so
631
strengths and weaknesses of each company are identified through these analyses. Moreover, the
632
importance of each perspective is also achieved to help decision makers and top managers when
633
trying to increase the efficiency of their business operations. Finally, typical management
634
decisions based on BSC approach were suggested in order to increase future performances. The
635
results showed that the internal processes perspective was the most influential BSC factor in the
636
supplier and manufacturing echelons. In addition, the main weakness in the distribution and
637
retailer echelons can be removed by improving the customer satisfaction indicators. This is the
638
first study in the literature presenting a performance assessment framework using a mixed DEA-
639
BSC approach to evaluate some plastic recycling companies.
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
627
The proposed framework would help policy makers and top managers to have a more
641
comprehensive and thorough understanding about the sustainability performance in the supply
642
chain networks under consideration. The proposed framework is implemented to evaluate the
643
sustainability performance in a number of plastic recycling companies in Mazandaran and
644
Golestan provinces of Iran. Nevertheless, a same framework could be applied for other industries
645
while their most effective sustainability indicators must be first identified. Accounting for
646
possible interrelationships between indicators can be considered as a suitable avenue for further
647
research in this area. Also, using fuzzy set theory to reflect the subjective judgments of decision
648
makers regarding the qualitative indicators could be useful in assessing the performance of
649
competing supply chain networks.
AC
C
EP
640
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References
651
Agrell, P.J., Hatami-Marbini, A. (2013). Frontier-based performance analysis models for supply
652
chain management: State of the art and research directions. Computers & Industrial
653
Engineering, 66, pp. 567583.
656
657
658
659
660
661
sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, pp. 329-341.
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2015). An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and
SC
655
Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 360-377.
M
AN
U
654
RI
PT
650
Aissaoui, N., Haouari, M. and Hassini, E., (2007). Supplier selection and order allocation
modeling: A review. Computers & Operations Research, 34(12), 3516-3540.
An, H. and Searcy, S.W. (2012). Economic and energy evaluation of a logistics system based on
biomass modules. Biomass and bioenergy, 46, pp.190-202.
Bansia, M., Varkey, J.K. and Agrawal, S. (2014). Development of a Reverse Logistics
663
Performance Measurement System for a battery manufacturer. Procedia Materials
664
Science, 6, pp. 1419 1427.
TE
D
662
Bhagwat, R., and Sharma, M. K. (2007). Performance measurement of supply chain
666
management: A balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
AC
C
667
EP
665
53(1), 43-62.
668
Biehl, M., Prater, E. and Realff, M.J. (2007). Assessing performance and uncertainty in
669
developing carpet reverse logistics systems. Computers & Operations Research, 34, pp.
670
671
672
443463.
Boukherroub, T., Ruiz, A., Guinet, A., and Fondrevelle, J. (2015). An integrated approach for
sustainable supply chain planning. Computers & Operations Research, 54, 180-194.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
673
Carter, R.C. and D.S. Rogers. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
674
moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
675
Management, 38(5), pp. 360-387.

Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A. and Paquet, M. (2012). Design of sustainable supply chains under
677
the emission trading scheme. International Journal Production Economics, 135, pp. 37
678
49.
RI
PT
676
Chalmeta, R., & Palomero, S. (2011). Methodological proposal for business sustainability
680
management by means of the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of the operational research
681
society, 62(7), 1344-1356.
683
M
AN
U
682
SC
679
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
Chen, I.J., and Paulraj, A. (2004). Understanding supply chain management: critical research and
685
a theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Research, 42, pp. 131-163.
686
Chia, A., Goh, M., and Hum, S. H. (2009). Performance measurement in supply chain entities:
687
balanced scorecard perspective. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(5), 605-
688
620.
EP
TE
D
684
Cho, D.W., Lee, Y.H., Ahn, S.H. and Hwang, M.K. (2012). Framework for measuring the
690
performance of service supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
691
692
693
AC
C
689
62, pp.801818.
Cooper, W.W., Park, K.S., Yu, G. (1999). IDEA and AR-IDEA: Models for dealing with
imprecise data in DEA. Management Science, 45 (4), pp. 597607.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
694
Costantino, F., Gravio, G.D., Shaban, A. and Tronci, M. (2014). The impact of information
695
sharing and inventory control coordination on supply chain performances. Computers &
696
Industrial Engineering, 76, pp. 292306

Daugherty, P.J., Richey, R.G., Genchev, S.E. and Chen, H. (2005). Reverse logistics: superior
698
performance through focused resource commitments to information technology.
699
Transportation Research Part E, 41, pp. 7792.
RI
PT
697
DiasSardinha, I., & Reijnders, L. (2005). Evaluating environmental and social performance of
701
large Portuguese companies: a balanced scorecard approach. Business Strategy and the
702
Environment, 14(2), 73-91.
705
706
M
AN
U
704
Epstein, M. J., and Roy, M. J. (1997). Using ISO 14000 for improved organizational learning
and environmental management. Environmental Quality Management, 7(1), 21-30.
Epstein, M. J., and Wisner, P. S. (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability.
Environmental Quality Management, 11(2), 1-10.
TE
D
703
SC
700
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced
708
scorecardlinking sustainability management to business strategy. Business strategy and
709
the Environment, 11(5), 269-284.
711
Golany, B. (1988). An interactive MOLP procedure for the extension of DEA to effectiveness
AC
C
710
EP
707
analysis. The Journal of The Operational Research Society, 39, pp.725-734.
712
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H. and Kannan, D. (2015). Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply
713
chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. European Journal of Operational
714
Research, 240 (3), pp. 603-626.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
715
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a
716
supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production
717
Management, 21(1/2), 71-87.
719
Hart, S. L., and Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of Management
RI
PT
718
Executive, 17(2), 56-67.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., and Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable
721
supply chains with a focus on metrics. International Journal of Production Economics,
722
140(1), 69-82.
724
Heikkil, J. (2002). From supply to demand chain management: efficiency and customer
M
AN
U
723
SC
720
satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 20(6), 747-767.

Hsu, Y.L., and Liu, C.C. (2010). Environmental performance evaluation and strategy
726
management using balanced scorecard. Environmental monitoring and assessment,
727
170(1-4), 599-607.
TE
D
725
Hu, A. H., and Hsu, C. W. (2010). Critical factors for implementing green supply chain
729
management practice: an empirical study of electrical and electronics industries in
730
Taiwan. Management research review, 33(6), 586-608.
EP
728
Kaplan, R., and Noton, D., (1996). The balanced scorecard. HBS Press, Boston.
732
Kapan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard-Measures That Drive
733
734
735
AC
C
731
Performance. Harvard Business Review, 1(70).
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced
scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
736
Kim, S.H., Park, C.G., Park, K.S. (1999). An application of data envelopment analysis in
737
telephone oces evaluation with partial data. Computers and Operations Research, 26
738
(1), pp. 5972.

Lueg, R., & Carvalho-e-Silva, A. L. (2013). When one size does not fit all: a literature review on
740
the
modifications
of
the
741
Management, 11(3), 61-69.
balanced
RI
PT
739
scorecard. Problems
and
Perspectives
in
Lueg, R., Pedersen, M. M., & Clemmensen, S. N. (2015). The Role of Corporate Sustainability
743
in a LowCost Business ModelA Case Study in the Scandinavian Fashion
744
Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(5), 344-359.
746
M
AN
U
745
SC
742
Manzini, R. and Accorsi, R. (2013). The new conceptual framework for food supply chain
assessment. Journal of Food Engineering, 115, pp. 251263.
Mirhedayatian, S.M., Azadi, M., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2014). A novel network data
748
envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply chain management.
749
International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 544-554.
752
753
754
assumptions. Management accounting research, 11(1), 65-88.
EP
751
Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard a critical analysis of some of its
Olugu, E.U. and Wong, K.Y. (2012). An expert fuzzy rule-based system for closed-loop supply
AC
C
750
TE
D
747
chain performance assessment in the automotive industry. Expert Systems with
Applications, 39, pp.375384.
755
Olugu, E.U., Wong, K.Y. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2011). Development of key performance
756
measures for the automobile green supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
757
55, pp. 567579.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
758
759
Park, J. H., Lee, J. K., and Yoo, J. S. (2005). A framework for designing the balanced supply
chain scorecard. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(4), 335-346.
Ramos, T.R.P., Gomes, M.I. and Barbosa-Pvoa, A.P. (2014). Planning a sustainable reverse
761
logistics system: balancing costs with environmental and social concerns. Omega, 48, pp.
762
60-74.
764
Rao, P. (2002). Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 632-655.
SC
763
RI
PT
760
Rao, P., and Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
766
performance? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(9),
767
898-916.
M
AN
U
765
Ravi, V., Ravi Shankar and Tiwari, M.K. (2005). Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for
769
end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial
770
Engineering, 48 pp. 327356.
TE
D
768
Saranga, H. and Moser, R. (2010). Performance evaluation of purchasing and supply
772
management using value chain DEA approach. European Journal of Operational
773
Research, 207, pp. 197205.
775
Seiford, L. M., and Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in eciency evaluation.
European Journal of Operational Research, 142, pp. 1620.
AC
C
774
EP
771
776
Shafiee, M., Lotfi, F. H., and Saleh, H. (2014). Supply chain performance evaluation with data
777
envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach. Applied Mathematical
778
Modelling, 38 (21-22), pp. 50925112.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
779
Shaik, M.N. and Abdul-Kader, W. (2014). Comprehensive performance measurement and
780
causal-effect decision making model for reverse logistics enterprise. Computers &
781
Industrial Engineering, 68, pp. 87103.

Sharma, M. K., and Bhagwat, R. (2007). An integrated BSC-AHP approach for supply chain
RI
PT
782
management evaluation. Measuring Business Excellence, 11(3), 57-68.
783
Smeets, E. M. W., Lewandowski, I. M., and Faaij, A. P. C. (2009). The economical and
785
environmental performance of miscanthus and switchgrass production and supply chains
786
in a European setting. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, pp. 12301245.
789
790
791
792
L.,
&
Pistoni,
A.
M
AN
U
788
Songini,
(2012).
Accounting,
auditing
and
control
for
sustainability. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 202-204.

Spronk, J. and Post, T. (1999). Performance benchmarking using interactive data envelopment
analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 115, pp. 472-487.
Tajbakhsh, A. and
Hassini, E. (2014). A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate
TE
D
787
SC
784
sustainability in supply chain networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press.

Tavana, M., Mirzagoltabar, H., Mirhedayatian, S.M., Farzipoor Saen, R. and Azadi, M. (2013).
794
A new network epsilon-based DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation.
795
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 66, pp. 501513.
AC
C
EP
793
796
Torabi, S.A., Baghersad, M. and Mansouri, S., (2015). Resilient supplier selection and order
797
allocation under operational and disruption risks. Transportation Research Part E:
798
Logistics and Transportation Review, 79, 22-48.
799
Trappey, A.J.C., Trappey, C.V. and Wu, C.R. (2010). Genetic algorithm dynamic performance
800
evaluation for RFID reverse logistic management. Expert Systems with Applications, 37,
801
pp. 73297335.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
802
Tsai, W. H., Chou, W. C., & Hsu, W. (2009). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a
803
framework for selecting socially responsible investment: an effective MCDM
804
model. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(10), 1396-1410.
807
808
Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(3), 260-268.
Zhu, J. (2003). Imprecise data envelopment analysis (IDEA): A review and improvement with an
application. European Journal of Operational Research, 144 (3), pp. 513529.
M
AN
U
809
810
811
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
EP
815
AC
C
814
TE
D
812
813
RI
PT
806
Young, A., and Kielkiewicz-Young, A. (2001). Sustainable supply network management.
SC
805
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appendix I: Questionnaire
826
1- Transportation cost for recycled products as raw material from the supplier echelon to the
827
manufacturer echelon.
828
2- Percentage of rejected raw material to the supplier.
829
3- The number of hazardous materials sent to the manufacturing echelon.
830
4- Required investment for green production.
831
5- Transportation cost in the manufacturing echelon.
832
6- The
833
manufacturers (a number between 1 and 5 where 1 and 5 denote very low and very high,
834
respectively).
835
7- The number of employees in the manufacturing processes who work under safe conditions.
836
8- Percentage of compliance with ISO 14001 in production processes.
837
9- Percentage of pollutant manufacturing processes.
838
10- The number of green products produced in the manufacturing sector.
839
11- Transportation cost for final products from the manufacturing echelon to the distribution
840
echelon.
841
12- Percentage of the delivered products without any damage.
842
13- Delivery time to the customer for final products (in days).
843
14- Transportation cost from the distribution to retailer echelon
844
15- Percentage of customers who are satisfied with the final products.
845
manufacturer
in
SC
each
producing
various
products
among
other
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
of
AC
C
rank
RI
PT
825
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
Developing a hybrid DEA-BSC model for performance evaluation in sustainable supply
RI
PT
chains
Proposing a novel network DEA model capable of dealing with both qualitative and
quantitative indicators as well as desirable and undesirable outputs
Identifying the most effective sustainability factors for plastic recycling industry
Assessing the sustainability performance of a number of plastic recycling companies as a
SC
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
case study

An Integrated Approach For Performance Evaluation in Sustainable Supply Chain Networks - With A Case Study

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

An Integrated Approach For Performance Evaluation in Sustainable Supply Chain Networks - With A Case Study

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Accepted Manuscript

An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 23 September 2015

Accepted Date: 20 July 2016

An Integrated Approach for Performance Evaluation in Sustainable Supply

Chain Networks (with a case study)

S. Motevali Haghighi, 1S.A. Torabi*, 3R. Ghasemi

School of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Department of Industrial Engineering, Esfarayen University of Technology, Esfarayen, 9661998195, Iran

School of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

performance evaluation of plastic recycling companies in Mazandaran and Golestan provinces of

Corresponding author, Tel.: +98 21 61114267; fax: +98 21 88013102.

Keywords: Sustainable supply chain; Performance evaluation; Data envelopment analysis;

Balanced scorecard; Plastic recycling.

and implementing a comprehensive performance management system (PMS) is quite necessary

sustainability performance of supply chains by considering relevant sustainability factors.

loop SC involves both forward and backward operations.

comprehensive sustainable supply chain performance management system should be provided.

performance assessment process.

sustainability management in recycling industries. More importantly, there is not a

comprehensive framework for performance assessment of such industries by considering all

sustainability performance of several recycling firms.

future research opportunities.

while focusing on those related to sustainable supply chains.

automobile aftermarket industry by Daugherty et al. (2005).

conducted several sensitivity analyses.

Demand management, customer relationship management, supplier relationship management,

capacity and resource management, service performance, information and technology

supply chain management and environmental sustainability practices in manufacturing

solve the proposed DEA model.

the supply chain efficiency.

Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2014) developed a comprehensive reverse logistics enterprise

performance measurement system by incorporating capability indicators in their proposed

sustainability in manufacturing supply chains by a multi-stage DEA model in which several

collection system as a sustainable reverse logistics system in which economic, environmental,

and social indicators are accounted.

indicators into account.

are identified based on BSC perspectives.

Table 1: The proposed approach vs. other studies

superiority of this study over the competing models.

3. The proposed framework

Determining the important sustainable

Identifying important indicators in recycling

Performing sensitivity analyses to find the

Select the best recycling supply chain network as

Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each supply chain

introduced from which some suitable metrics are identified.

namely economic, environmental, and social ones. Financial performance, responsiveness,

procedure for computing each measure is similar in each company.

Flexibility, Production flexibility

Olugu and Wong (2012); Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014)

Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014)

Olugu and Wong (2012); Boukherroub et al. (2015)

Supplier rejection rate

Sharma and Bhagwat (2007)

Epstein and Wisner (2001)

ISO 14001 certification

Ahi and Searcy (2013); Rao and Holt (2005)

Boukherroub et al. (2015)

Number of green products

Tajbakhsh and Hassini (2014); Young and Kielkiewicz-Young (2001);

Ahi and Searcy (2013); Heikkil (2002); Gunasekaran et al. (2001);