Sustainable Supplier Evaluation practices across the Supply Chain

  1. Medina-Serrano, Rubén 1
  2. González-Ramírez, María 1
  3. Gascó-Gascó, José Luis 1
  4. Llopis-Taverner, Juan 1
  1. 1 University of Alicante Faculty of Economics Campus Sant Vicent del Raspeig C.P. 03080. Alicante
Revista:
Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

ISSN: 1132-175X

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 69

Páginas: 13-26

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.37610/DYO.V0I69.558 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

Resumen

In the last decade, academic research on sustainability has evolved rapidly in the supply chain literature, so there has been scant opportunity thus far for the research community to complete a global assessment of sustainable supplier evaluation activities. This paper seeks to address this need by exploring sustainable supplier evaluation practices and developing a multiple criteria decision- making (MCDM) model based on the combination of the triple bottom line (TBL) and the TOPSIS methodologies to help managers evaluate external providers all along the supply chain. In order to create a robust framework for sustainable supplier evaluation, two case studies were selected and compared. Both case studies were also useful to refine the framework and illustrate how to use it. Identifying best practices for integrating corporate social responsibility involves the evaluation of external providers’ certification according to the ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 50001 and ISO 45001 standards. Accepting the firm’s code of conduct and monitoring it throughout the whole supply chain phases are relevant factors to be considered in order to ensure procurement sustainability. The proposed model can be used as a guideline to provide managers, practitioners and academics with a practical solution to resolve external provider evaluation decisions and determine the ranking order of preferred external providers in a more structured and consistent manner.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Assari, A., Mahesh, T. and Assari, E. (2012). Role of public participation in sustainability of historical city: usage of TOPSIS method. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, pp. 2289-2294.
  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-120.
  • Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M. and Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method, Expert Systems with Applications, pp. 11363-1368.
  • Chaharsooghi, S. K. and Ashrafi, M. (2014). Sustainable Supplier Performance Evaluation and Selection with Neofuzzy TOPSIS Method, International Scholarly Research Notices, Vol. 2014, Article ID 434168, 10 pages.
  • Chen, C.-T., Lin, C.-T. and Huang, S.-F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 102, pp. 289-301.
  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm, Economica, Vol. 4, No. 16, pp. 386-405.
  • Deng, H., Yeh, C. H. and Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 27, pp. 963-973.
  • Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R. and Jayatilaka, B. (2004). Information Systems Outsourcing: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature, ACM SIGMIS, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 6-102.
  • EcoVadis, (2018). Sustainability Ratings Solution for Supply Chains. http://www.ecovadis.com/de/uber-uns/activity-report/.
  • Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.57-74.
  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: win–win–win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 90-100.
  • Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1990). Noncooperative Game Theory for Industrial Organization, In
  • Handbook of Industrial Organizations, R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig (Ed.), Vol.1, New
  • York, Oxford, Tokyo, pp. 259-327.
  • Gencer, C. and Gürpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 31, pp. 2475-2486.
  • Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, No. 1, pp. 149-159.
  • Gualandris, J., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2015). Sustainable evaluation and verification in supply chains: Aligning and leveraging accountability to stakeholders, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 38, pp. 1-13.
  • Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J. and Liu, T.Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making, Computers and Operational Research, Vol. 20, pp. 889-899. DOI:10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-v.
  • Hashim, M., Nazam, M., Yao, L., Baig, S. A., Abrar, M. and Zia-ur-Rehman, M. (2017). Application of Multi-Objective Optimization Based on Genetic Algorithm for Sustainable Strategic Supplier Selection under Fuzzy Environment, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 73-89.
  • Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • ISO 26000 (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Guidance on Social Responsibility. https://www.iso. org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html.
  • Jackson, A., Boswell, K. and Davis, D. (2011). Sustainability and triple bottom line reporting – What is it all about? International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 55-59.
  • Kou, G., Ergu, D. and Shang, J. (2014). Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 236, pp. 261-271.
  • Kumar BR, R., Agarwal, A., Sharma, M. K. (2016) "Lean management – a step towards sustainable green supply chain", Competitiveness Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.311-331.
  • Kumar, P., Singh, R. K. and Vaish, A. (2017) Suppliers’ green performance evaluation using fuzzy extended ELECTRE approach, Clean Techn Environ Policy, Vol. 19, pp. 809-821.
  • Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage Publications.
  • Öztürk, B. A. and Özçelik, F. (2014). Sustainable Supplier Selection with A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method Based on Triple Bottom Line, Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 129-147.
  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York: Blackwell.
  • Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, New York: Harper & Row.
  • Sarkis, J. and Dhavale, D. G. (2015). Supplier selection for sustainable operations: A triple-bottom-line approach using a Bayesian framework, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 166, pp. 177-191.
  • Sevkli, M., Koh, S. C. L., Zaim, S., Demirbağ, M. and Tatoglu, E. (2007). An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case study of BEKO in Turkey, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 1973-2003.
  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational, New York: Wiley.
  • Temuçin, T., ToTemuzan, H., Valíček, J. and Harničárová, M. (2013). A Fuzzy based decision support model for non-traditional machining process selection, Technical Gazette, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 787-793.
  • Thompson, R. L. (1967). Organizations in Action, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment, Psychological Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 273-286.
  • Tsai, H.-Y., Huang, B.-H. and Wang A. S. (2008). Combining ANP and TOPSIS Concepts for
  • Evaluation the Performance of Property-Liability Insurance Companies, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 56-61.
  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization, New York: Free Press
  • Williamson, O. E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 548-577.
  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, New York, London: Free Press, Collier Macmillan.
  • Winter, S. and Lasch, R. (2016). Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation--Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 139, pp. 175-190.
  • Yin, S., Li, B., Dong, H., and Xing, Z. (2017). A New Dynamic Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Green Supplier Selection in Construction Projects under Time Sequence, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2017, 13 pages.
  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, London: Sage Publications.
  • Yoon, K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations. Journal of Operational Research Society. Vol. 38. pp. 277-286.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet