Composite Strategy for Carbon Emission Control in Supply Chains: A novel model for Sustainable Management Decision Making
Author(s)
Sun Licheng , Lloyd Anadjoe , Atta Emmanuel Kofi ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 143-151 | Views: 1150 | Downloads: 315 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3490191
Abstract
A novel composite incentive strategy for carbon emission reduction (CISCER) was developed, incorporating existing carbon emission technologies and practice of green product manufacturing and supply GMPs. The proposed strategy was tested in a cross-sectional survey using the European Customer Satisfaction Index and a partial least square design for structural equation modeling using the SmartPLS (version 3) software. Stimulating variables were tested for the effects on the willingness of supply chain managers to adopt the proposed CISCER model and findings showed that almost all except premiums had a significant influence on the perceived level of satisfaction derived by supply chain managers with the CISCER model which is directly linked to their willingness to adopt same. The correlation coefficient of most influencing variable was perceived profits (0.81), followed by perceived sustainability (0.71), perceived organizational image (0.60), perceived product value (0.56), perceived cost reduction (0.52), and premiums (0.34) being the least influential on willingness. The model was further proved and a quadratic optimization modeling approach proposed for the maximization of profits and reduction of costs. Approach and findings are relevant in the development, testing, and adoption of new strategies towards the realization of carbon emission reduction goals of firms in supply chain management.
Keywords
Supply chain management, decision support, carbon emission reduction, composite incentive strategy
References
i. Abel, D.W., Holloway, T., Harkey, M., Meier, P., Ahl, D., Limaye, V.S., & Patz, J.A. (2018). Air-quality-related health impacts from climate change and from adaptation of cooling demand for buildings in the eastern United States: An interdisciplinary modeling study. PLoS Med., 15(7), e1002599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002599.
ii. Ahmed, W., & Sarkar, B. (2018). Impact of carbon emissions in a sustainable supply chain management for a second generation biofuel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 807-820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.289.
iii. Ahumada, O., & Villalobos, J.R. (2009). Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.014.
iv. Barari, S., Agarwal, G., Zhang, W.J., Mahanty, B., & Tiwari, M.K. (2012). A decision framework for the analysis of green supply chain contracts: An evolutionary game approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 2965–2976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.158.
v. Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments and Future Directions. Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). All Sprouts Content, 9/27/2009.
vi. CSX Transportation (2017). Supply Chain Trends in 2017. Available at http://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SUPPLY-CHAIN-TRENDS-2017.pdf. Accessed 18/09/2018.
vii. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
viii. Diabat, A., & Govindan, K. (2011). An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55(6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.002.
ix. Esmaeili, M., Aryanezhad, M., & Zeephongsekul, P. (2009). A game theory approach in seller-buyer supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 195, 442-448. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.026.
x. Farajzadeh, Z. (2018). Emissions tax in Iran: Incorporating pollution disutility in a welfare analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 618-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.093.
xi. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq, A.N. (2014). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.08.018.
xii. Helming, J., & Tabeau, A. (2018). The economic, environmental and agricultural land use effects in the European Union of agricultural labour subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. Reg Environ Change, 18, 763–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1095-z.
xiii. Kim, J., Chung, B.D., Kang, Y., & Jeong, B. (2018). Robust optimization model for closed-loop supply chain planning under reverse logistics flow and demand uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 1314-1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.157.
xiv. Lessmann, S., Coussement, K., De Bock, K., & Haupt, J. (2018). Targeting Customers for Profit: An Ensemble Learning Framework to Support Marketing Decision Making. IRTG 1792 Discussion Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3130661.
xv. Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., & Geng, Y. (2013). An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod., 47, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042.
xvi. Schusser, S., & Jaraitė, J. (2018). Explaining the interplay of three markets: Green certificates, carbon emissions and electricity. Energy Economics, 71, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.012.
xvii. Shen, Z.J.M. (2006). A profit-maximizing supply chain network design model with demand choice flexibility. Operations Research Letters, 34(6), 673-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2005.10.006.
xviii. Sun, L., Wang, Q., & Ge, S. (2018). Urban resident energy-saving behavior: a case study under the A2SC framework. Nat Hazards, 91, 515-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3138-2.
xix. Veira, A., Lasslop, G., & Kloster, S. (2016). Wildfires in a warmer climate: emission fluxes, emission heights, and black carbon concentrations in 2090–2099. J Geophys Res Atmos. 121, 3195–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024142.
xx. Wang, X., Wang, J., Tian, B., Cui, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2018). Economic Dispatch of the Low-Carbon Green Certificate with Wind Farms Based on Fuzzy Chance Constraints. Energies, 11, 943. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11040943.
xxi. WIPO (2017). Geographical Indications: An introduction. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/geographical/952/wipo_pub_952.pdf.
Cite this Article: