An Assessment of the Barriers to Social Dimension of SSCM Practice Implementation Using Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach: A Case from Turkey

Abstract

The Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) concept, which establishes a balance between economic, social and environmental dimensions, provides an extremely important conceptual framework for companies. Although not all of these dimensions have the same significance, researchers mostly focus on economic and environmental aspects. However, it is very difficult to apply the social dimension in the adoption of SSCM due to the barriers encountered in SSCM. Based on this, this paper aims to analyze the social barriers and identify the relationship between the barriers with the help of Fuzzy DEMATEL. In this study, thirteen barriers to analysis have been determined. As a result of the analysis, the first major barrier is defined as “Stakeholders’ Negative Influence (B12)”, the second barrier as “Lack of Culture without Engagement and Support (B8)”, and the third one as “Ignoring the Rights of Stakeholders (B13)”. The barrier having the most impact on other barriers was determined as “Lack of State Support” and the barrier which was affected most by other barriers is “Low price demand of the community (B6)”.

Keywords

• Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM),Social Dimensions,Barriers,Fuzziness,DEMATEL,Turkey

References

1. Ahmadi, H. B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., & Rezaei, J. (2017). Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126, 99-106.
2. Al Zaabi, S., Al Dhaheri, N., & Diabat, A. (2013). Analysis of interaction between the barriers for the implementation of sustainable supply chain management. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68(1-4), 895-905.
3. Al Khidir, T., & Zailani, S. (2009). Going green in supply chain towards environmental sustainability. Global Journal of Environmental Research, 3(3), 246-251.
4. Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable supplier selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing, 12(6), 1668-1677.
5. Ashby, A., Leat, M., & Hudson-Smith, M. (2012). Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 497-516.
6. Azadnia, A. H., Saman, M. Z. M., & Wong, K. Y. (2015). Sustainable supplier selection and order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective decision-making process. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 383-408.
7. Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 252-264.
8. Behdioglu, S., & Koca, G. (2017). Green Supply Chain Initiatives In Turkish Automotive Main Industry. Journal of Strategic Research in Social Science, 3(3), 177-188.

9. Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 38(5), 360-387.
10. Dalalah, D., Hayajneh, M., & Batieha, F. (2011). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Expert systems with applications, 38(7), 8384-8391.
11. Fontaine, C., Haarman, A., & Schmid, S. (2006). The stakeholder theory. Edlays education, 1, 1-33. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner production, 47, 345-354. Govindan, K., Jafarian, A., Khodaverdi, R., & Devika, K. (2014a). Two-echelon multiple-vehicle location– routing problem with time windows for optimization of sustainable supply chain network of perishable food. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 9-28. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq, A. N. (2014b). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 555-568. Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411-432. Kamali, F. P., Borges, J. A. R., Osseweijer, P., & Posada, J. A. (2018). Towards social sustainability: Screening potential social and governance issues for biojet fuel supply chains in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92, 50-61. Khan, M., Hussain, M., Gunasekaran, A., Ajmal, M. M., & Helo, P. T. (2018). Motivators of social sustainability in healthcare supply chains in the UAE—Stakeholder perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 14, 95-104. Kiris, S. B., & Borekci, D. Y. (2018). Drivers and barriers for sustainable port management: a triple bottom line approach. Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 192-220. Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and operations management, 14(4), 482-492. Koho, M., Nylund, H., Arha, T., & Torvinen, S. (2011). Towards manufacturing system sustainability assessment: an initial tool and development plans. In Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing (pp. 309314). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Koska, A., Goksu, N., &Sunbul, M.B. (2016), Barrıers of green supply chaın management ımplementatıon: An applıcatıon in Kipaş paper factory. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 6(2), 117-140.
12. Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of cleaner production, 18(12), 1161-1170. Lam, M. L. L. (2011). Successful strategies for sustainability in China and the global market economy. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 3(1), 73-90.
13. Lin, R.-J., Tan, K.-H., Geng, Y., (2013). Market demand, green product innovation, and firm performance: evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 40, 101-107.
14. Lund‐Thomsen, P., Nadvi, K., Chan, A., Khara, N., & Xue, H. (2012). Labour in global value chains: Work conditions in football manufacturing in China, India and Pakistan. Development and Change, 43(6), 1211-1237.
15. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K., Garg, C.P., 2017a. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 140, Part 3, 1686–1698.
16. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Mangla, S.K., 2017b. Structural model for sustainable consumption and production adoption—a grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resour. Conserv. and Recycl. 125, 198–207.
17. Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., & Dubey, R. (2016). Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evidence from India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 111, 42-52.
18. Moktadir, M. A., Ali, S. M., Rajesh, R., & Paul, S. K. (2018). Modeling the interrelationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 631-651.
19. Morais, D. O., & Silvestre, B. S. (2018). Advancing social sustainability in supply chain management: Lessons from multiple case studies in an emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 222-235.
20. Muhammad, M. N., & Cavus, N. (2017). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for identifying LMS evaluation criteria. Procedia computer science, 120, 742-749. Narayanan, A. E., Sridharan, R., & Ram Kumar, P. N. (2018). Analyzing the interactions among barriers of sustainable supply chain management practices: A case study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
21. Ozcelik, F., & Oztürk, B. A. (2014). A Research On Barrıers To Sustaınable Supply Chaın Management And Sustaınable Supplıer Selectıon Crıterıa. Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 16(2).
22. Popovic, T., Barbosa-Póvoa, A., Kraslawski, A., & Carvalho, A. (2018). Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 748-768.
23. Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37, 599-615.
24. Presley, A., Meade, L., & Sarkis, J. (2007). A strategic sustainability justification methodology for organizational decisions: a reverse logistics illustration. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19), 4595-4620.
25. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of cleaner production, 16(15), 1699-1710. Shieh, J. I., Wu, H. H. and Huang, K. K. (2010). A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23, 277-282.
26. Silvestre, B. S. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: Environmental turbulence, institutional voids and sustainability trajectories. International Journal of Production Economics, 167, 156-169.
27. Smith, S. L. (1995). Ecologically sustainable development: integrating economics, ecology, and law. Willamette L. Rev., 31, 261.
28. Tseng, M. L. (2009). A causal and effect decision making model of service quality expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert systems with applications, 36(4), 7738-7748.
29. Wang, D. H. M., Chen, P. H., Yu, T. H. K., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2015). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand equity and firm performance. Journal of business research, 68(11), 2232-2236.
30. Wu, W. W., & Lee, Y. T. (2007). Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert systems with applications, 32(2), 499507.