Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental sustainability assessment in supply chain: An emerging T

economy context
Saima Ahmed Suhia, Rafid Enayeta, Tasmiah Haquea, Syed Mithun Alia, , Md. Abdul Moktadirb,
⁎

Sanjoy Kumar Paulc

a
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
b
Institute of Leather Engineering and Technology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1209, Bangladesh
c
UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Environmental sustainability is not being practiced in the supply chains of many industries. Previous studies on
Environmental sustainability environmental sustainability have not outlined clear strategies to achieve sustainability across supply chains,
Supply chain management particularly in the context of emerging economies, and have been of limited relevance in settings beyond the
Waste management geographical region of their focus. To address these gaps, we have proposed a best worst method (BWM) as a
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
framework to assess the environmental criteria for sustainability in select industries in Bangladesh. Different
Best worst method (BWM)
industrial activities or criteria affecting the environment in various ways were assessed and weighted using the
Emerging economy
BWM. To ensure the efficiency and accuracy of this framework, we sought the opinions of 34 experts to specify
the most suitable indicators from our initial literature review. Findings from this study revealed that “waste
management” was the most important indicator for establishing environmental sustainability in industries in
Bangladesh, which was substantiated by a sensitivity analysis. This research will assist industry managers and
entrepreneurs to work toward environmental sustainability across supply chains.

1. Introduction performance of companies without changes to productivity (Bocken

Amid technological advances in many business sectors, supply chain
management (SCM) has become an important consideration for orga-
nizations seeking supply chain efficiency (Beatriz et al., 2014a; Pires
Ribeiro and Barbosa-Povoa, 2017; Scavarda et al., 2019). Extensive
studies regarding sustainable supply chain design and management
have been undertaken over the past two decades (Mitra, 2014; Ivanov,
2017). To date, theorists and practitioners of supply chain sustainability
have mainly focused on reducing the environmental impacts of supply
chains (Ivanov, 2017). The Brundtland Report by the World Commis-
sion on Environment and Development (Nations, 1987) demonstrated
the scope for supply chains to contribute to global environmental sus-
tainability. During the 1990s, the Manufacturing Research Institute at
Michigan State University depicted the significance of environmental
cautiousness in managing sustainability in SCM (Wu et al., 2018).
Sustainability denotes efficacious optimization of the processes con-
sidering three sectors, i.e., environmental, social, and economic
(Azevedo et al., 2019).
Practitioners argue that the primary goal of environmental sus-
tainability in supply chains should be to improve the environmental
et al., 2013; Parajuli et al., 2019). Product manufacturers continue to
struggle with how to set, assess, and achieve sustainability goals,
whether these be economic, environmental, or social (Kremer et al.,
2016). Companies and academics have been involved in joint efforts to
reposition the focus of SCM toward sustainability (Pires Ribeiro and
Barbosa-Povoa, 2017). Minimizing environmental damage is of critical
importance in today's globalized supply chains (José and Jabbour,
2013a; Ding et al., 2016). With increasing environmental problems and
the failure of “treatment after pollution” strategies, business activities
have accumulated significant negative externalities (Ding et al., 2015).
Green SCM has been developed to integrate environmental thinking in
SCM (Chin et al., 2015). Companies are inaugurating environmental
training to make internal employees, stakeholders, and customers
aware of the significance of green SCM (José and Jabbour, 2013b;
Beatriz et al., 2014b). (Ahi and Searcy, 2015; Acquaye et al., 2017a)
reported on the need for the performance measurement of supply chain
sustainability given opportunities for continuous improvement. Several
models have been developed to measure the environmental perfor-
mance of organizations' SCM because a large component of sustain-
ability depends on environmental activities (Koberg and Longoni,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: syed.mithun@gmail.com (S.M. Ali), sanjoy.paul@uts.edu.au (S.K. Paul).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106306
Received 6 May 2019; Received in revised form 7 August 2019; Accepted 20 August 2019
0195-9255/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S.A. Suhi, et al.
2019). These models and their applications are an important element of
the transition of sustainability in supply networks (Hassini et al., 2012;
Jaehn, 2016).
The prevailing literature on environmental sustainability mainly
focuses on the focal firm perspective. It is prominent from the literature
that developing nations suffer greatly from various environmental
pollution that is mostly related to industrial activities. To the best of our
knowledge, cross-firms/supply chain perspectives for assessing en-
vironmental sustainability by considering multiple factors together
have rarely been studied. To address these gaps, in the present study we
targeted environmental sustainability in the context of an emerging
economy to contribute to the prevailing literature. We highlighted en-
vironmental aspects rather than social issues as sustainability is affected
more by the environment in most of the emerging economies (Li and
Mathiyazhagan, 2017). Several studies have recently focused on social
sustainability, e.g., (Munny et al., 2019) and Badri Ahmadi et al.
(2017); therefore, our focus was on environmental sustainability.
The concept of sustainability has multiple conflicting issues that
include the market, stakeholders, and supplier and customer policies
and their requirements (Zhou et al., 2000). Among these, implementing
environmental sustainability has multiple goals. To prevent harm to
humans, environmental sustainability seeks to ensure that the sources
of raw materials used for human welfare are improved (Goodland and
Bank, 1995). Researchers suggest that sustainability should be a built-in
concept when administrating consumption and production activities
(Wu et al., 2018). Managing the renewable sources over the long term,
reducing waste and pollution, using energy and material efficiently,
using solar energy profitably, and achieving customer satisfaction are
required to repair the damage done to Earth by unthinking in-
dustrialization (Goodland et al., 2013). All these factors are the goals of
establishing an environmentally sustainable supply chain system. To
align the existing practices of environmental sustainability, the present
study aimed to answer the following questions:
RQ1. What are the environmental sustainability indicators in supply
chains in the context of Bangladesh?
RQ2. How can decision-makers assess the importance of the identified
environmental sustainability indicators?
RQ3. How do the findings help decision-makers achieve successful
implementation of sustainability practices?
The present study focused on the identification of the criteria re-
sponsible for environmental sustainability in supply chains and de-
termined the importance and ranking of each criterion using the best
worst method (BWM) in the context of Bangladesh. We chose
Bangladesh as the setting for this research considering the efforts made
by the Bangladeshi authorities to solve the country's pollution problems
and improve hygiene in Bangladesh, particularly for the industrial
sector. These factors highlight the need to assess indicators for estab-
lishing environmental sustainability in Bangladeshi industrial sectors.
As experts are currently involved with these industries, their opinions
represent the current scenario of environmental sustainability in SCM
and including their expert knowledge in the present study makes it
more relevant from a practical perspective.
The present study contributes to the existing literature on SCM by
fulfilling the following objectives:
a) To propose a model to evaluate environmental sustainability in
supply chains in the context of Bangladesh.
b) To identify the criteria of environmental sustainability in SCM from
the literature.
c) To assess the key indicators for maintaining environmental sus-
tainability in accordance with their weight using the newly devel-
oped BWM.
d) To develop some managerial and research implications for emerging
economies based on the outcomes of BWM assessment
2
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306
Developed by Jafar Rezaei in 2015, BWM is a multi-criteria deci-
sion-making (MCDM) tool that requires fewer pairwise comparison
matrices than most MCDM methods. Therefore, BWM requires fewer
data and less time to produce results than conventional MCDM analysis
(Salimi and Rezaei, 2018). BWM evaluates alternatives to select the best
(most) and worst (least) criteria through structured calculation (Rezaei,
2015).
The structure of the remaining sections of this paper is as follows.
Section 2 reviews the existing literature on sustainable SCM, the en-
vironmental impacts of supply chains, BWM and environmental sus-
tainability in Bangladesh. Section 3 discusses our proposed metho-
dology and implementation of BWM. Section 4 outlines the sensitivity
analysis that substantiates the findings of this research. Section 5 pre-
sents the analysis of findings of the present study, Section 6 includes the
implications of our research. Finally, Section 7 depicts the Conclusions,
limitations, and scope for future works.
2. Literature review
This section reviews the existing literature on sustainable SCM,
environmental sustainability, and BWM.
2.1. Sustainable supply chain management (SCM)
Sustainability is the philosophy of meeting the needs of existing
demands while considering the capacity to meet future demands (Dong
and Hauschild, 2017). As a triple bottom line concept, sustainability
encompasses environmental, social, and economic performance (Jaehn,
2016; Acquaye et al., 2017a). From the early 2000s, researchers have
mentioned repeatedly the need to integrate the three dimensions of
sustainability into SCM (Rajeev et al., 2017). Businesses and researchers
have come to view sustainability as an essential tool for reducing long-
term risk, depletion and digression of energy, and pollution and product
liabilities (Manning, 2016). From the 12 definitions of SSCM, (Ahi and
Searcy, 2013; Brandenburg and Rebs, 2015) concluded that SSCM is a
combination of key elements of business sustainability and SCM char-
acteristics. SCM has attracted the focus of practitioners and researchers
in light of its potential to improve global environmental sustainability
without compromising business productivity (Hassini et al., 2012;
Acquaye et al., 2017a). Sustainability is the main focal point of in-
dustries and their stakeholders, who embed it in the basic levels of their
planning and operations (Bocken et al., 2013; Lo et al., 2018; Wang
et al., 2018; Hou et al., 2019). The planning and control of materials,
internal and external information flows, and logistics activities were
behind SCM during the early 1980s. However, more recent research has
focused not only on material flows but also on additional aspects such
as performance, risk and integration (Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Re-
searchers and practitioners argue that companies and other organiza-
tions with sustainable supply chains are more efficient and have better
public images and decreased environmental and social liability than
those without sustainable supply chains (Chin et al., 2015). For these
reasons, many organizations implement supply chain sustainability
measures with the expectation of increased financial turnover in the
long run (Seuring and Müller, 2008; Lin and Tseng, 2016). However,
suppliers in particular might lack an understanding of environmental
management practices (Chiarini, 2012). Practitioners agree that en-
vironmental sustainability confers social and economic benefits to or-
ganizations (Kusi-Sarpong et al., 2016; Ansari and Kant, 2017; Kusi-
Sarpong et al., 2018). Maintaining sustainability in supply chains is
important for organizations in developing countries to mitigate any
negative effects on local employees, customers, suppliers, the environ-
ment, and society.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has also been integrated into
the concept of sustainability. The evolution of the conceptualization of
social and environmental issues originated from the term “standalone”
(i.e., a standalone company or organization manages its own activities
S.A. Suhi, et al.
and does not depend on a larger organization for money or approval)
through the concept of CSR and sustainability (Carter et al., 2011).
Standalone activities have been viewed within a wide conceptualization
of CSR in studies by (Carter and Jennings, 2002) and (Murphy et al.,
2002). Social and environmental activities were placed under the
header of social responsibility by both these studies. Implementation of
SSCM practice, including sustainable supplier management and the
management of social responsibility risks, can be amplified by the
pressures of stakeholder groups (e.g., customers, government, and other
internal and external stakeholders) (Seuring and Müller, 2008). Sus-
tainability goals such as social, environmental, and economic perfor-
mance are the aim of these practices (Carter et al., 2008).
Since the late 1990s, studies have demonstrated that operational
research tools can be used to improve environmental sustainability.
Some studies have addressed the incorporation of sustainability into the
supply chain system as being the future of operations management
(Beatriz et al., 2014a). SCM has gained strategic relevance because it
encompasses activities that range from the processing of raw materials
to the final product (Ferreira et al., 2016). SSCM includes managing
supply chain activities, operations, planning, and customer and em-
ployee needs; maximizing profitability; and minimizing the negative
effects of supply chains on the environment as well as on society (Badri
Ahmadi et al., 2017; Hassini et al., 2012).
2.2. Environmental sustainability
The unremitting pressure of global regulatory and social trends of
awareness has compelled companies to incorporate environmental
sustainability in their businesses (Gregoris et al., 2018). The environ-
mental impact assessment was introduced several decades ago, which
aims to analyze the effects of any development project including new or
existing industrial activities (Khosravi et al., 2019). Businesses have
taken initiatives to make their operations more environmentally sus-
tainable in response to increasing awareness of the need to respond to
global climate change, including among consumers (Hassini et al.,
2012; Jaehn, 2016; Acquaye et al., 2017b). Environmental sustain-
ability is the most traditional form of sustainability (Pimenta and Ball,
2015). Considering environmental responsibility as an integrated part
of the SCM processes of organizations, stakeholders, government, and
consumers can contribute to efficient collaboration regarding company
operations (Ding et al., 2015). Business activities threaten the natural
environment through the disposal of toxic materials, carbon and sul-
phur emissions, and other industrial pollutants (Chin et al., 2015).
Bocken et al. (2013) found that environmental metrics (waste, water,
energy, and carbon dioxide emissions) of performance can vary by up to
400%–500% across sites that make the same product using similar
technology. Some studies based on the Brazilian electronics industry
showed that environmental damage can be mitigated by increasing the
use of renewable energy such as solar, geothermal, low carbon fossil
fuels, biomass, and wind (Govindan et al., 2013; Kannan et al., 2013).
This highlights the need for research that examines environmental
sustainability from the perspective of different countries. For this
reason, this research focused on SCM in Bangladesh.
In recent decades, companies have incorporated environmental
management in their supply chain processes through regular auditing
against environmental indicators (Ferreira et al., 2016). Previous re-
search has examined environmental management practices within or-
ganizations. However, research is limited regarding the role of SCM
processes in organizations' environmental management (Rajeev et al.,
2017). Use of indicators to judge the environmental performance of
companies has led to industry-specific benchmarks of environmental
sustainability, including methodological approaches to evaluate en-
vironmental performance (Genovese et al., 2018).
Jaehn (2016) argued that sustainability measures should consider the
economic effects of environmental issues on organizations. Today, many
businesses have reframed their sole focus on economic performance to
3
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306
include environmental concerns (Chin et al., 2015). For example, the
worldwide construction business produces one-third of the greenhouse gas
emissions and in response to this timber is being introduced to construction
sites for its distinct environmental friendly features (Zubizarreta et al.,
2019). The Guardian (2015) found that privately-owned organizations
could lose around USD 4.2 trillion to the effects of climate change by 2100
if global temperatures warm by more than two degrees Celsius. To mitigate
this risk, governments and non-government organizations have taken steps
to encourage companies to enhance environmental sustainability in their
supply chains. These efforts have included the introduction of regulations
and legislation, including through the International Organization for
Standardization (for example, International Standard 14,001), as well as
raising awareness of the economic and social effects of poor environmental
management (Chiarini, 2012; José and Jabbour, 2013a; Ferreira et al.,
2016). The political conditions of different countries also influence en-
vironmental sustainability to some extent (Bartolacci et al., 2019; Gallego
et al., 2019; Khosravi et al., 2019).
Kremer et al. (2016) described 12 different tools (mathematical
models, guidelines, metrics, and methods) to measure the environ-
mental sustainability of different companies at regular intervals. One
obstacle to the introduction of environmental sustainability measures in
supply chains is balancing the economic interests of stakeholders, in-
cluding companies, suppliers, and consumers (Lin and Tseng, 2016).
Suppliers are the foundation of supply chain systems; therefore, sup-
plier selection is an important feature of environmentally sustainable
supply chains (Rezaei et al., 2016). Studies have found that many
suppliers lack knowledge of sound environmental management prac-
tices (Chiarini, 2012). Supply chain networks reflect internal relation-
ships that include associated products, processes, companies, firms, and
even root level suppliers (Acquaye et al., 2017a; Acquaye et al., 2017b).
This adds to the challenge of ensuring environmental viability across
the entire system. Previous research has described methodological
frameworks to measure environmental performance in supply chains. In
our study, we have worked with an efficient and straightforward
method named BWM, which is described in later sections.
As stated earlier, this research proposes indicators for environ-
mental management. The indicators measure features that influence
environmental sustainability in industries. During the systematic lit-
erature review process, the following points were considered for the
identification of enablers for supply chain environmental sustainability:
(1) Keywords including ‘environmental sustainability driver/indicator/
criteria/element’, ‘environmental sustainability’, and ‘sustainable
supply chain’ were used to search scholarly databases.
(2) The scholarly databases, ScienceDirect, Emerald, and Scopus, were
used. From those databases, we collected those articles and papers
that were written in English, had been peer-reviewed, and related
to our research topic.
(3) From the selected peer-reviewed articles, the most important 13
indicators of environmental sustainability were selected and fina-
lized for environmental aspects of supply chains in the context of
emerging economies.
By following these steps, the present study proposed a list of in-
dicators (see Table 1) from the literature that has applications in many
industries and countries to assess environmental sustainability.
2.3. Best worst method
One of the greatest barriers to measuring environmental perfor-
mance is its inherent multi-criteria nature. This makes it difficult for
decision-makers (Wan Ahmad et al., 2017) to identify relativity among
the criteria. In 2015, Jafar Rezaei proposed the BWM approach to
MCDM. Other MCDM methods include fuzzy preference programming,
analytic hierarchy process, analytic network process, and simple multi-
attribute rating technique. These methods use the pairwise comparison
S.A. Suhi, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

Table 1
Environmental sustainability criteria from the literature.
Key indicators Brief description References

Waste management Vast amounts of industrial waste (solid, liquid, or gaseous) are produced in
various industries continuously, with negative environmental effects.
Reuse and recycle Reusing and recycling involve using the raw material of rejected products
again to help reduce waste.
Renewable energy usage Although all energy sources have an impact on nature and life, renewable
energy sources such as solar, hydropower, biomass, geothermal, and others
may reduce pollution to some extent.
Resource utilization Make proper use of all available resources (e.g., fuel, raw material, and space).
Energy sources and fuel residuals The usual sources of energy, such as coal, oil, and natural gas produce
residuals. Excessive use of these energy sources can cause environmental
damage and health problems.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emission Excretion of CFCs contributes to acid rain and ozone layer depletion.
Carbon footprint (CO2, CO emissions) Discharge of carbon contents is responsible for global warming.
Land pollution Land is polluted by chemicals from industrial waste. This can lead to loss of
fertility among local human populations.
Air pollution Industrial emissions of CO, CO2, and CFCs cause air pollution.
Water pollution Liquid and solid industrial waste pollute oceans, rivers, lakes, and other bodies
of water contributing to the death of aquatic wildlife.
ISO 14001 certification An international system that certifies whether companies oblige to standards
across measures including environmental regulations.
Government regulations Governments can introduce regulations that require industries to adhere to
policies and procedures that protect the environment.
Use of hazardous materials (lead, arsenic, Toxic elements such as lead, arsenic and other harmful chemicals can cause
and harmful chemicals) damage to natural environments and human health.
Tippayawong et al. (2015), Acquaye et al.
(2017a)
Kremer et al. (2016), Golpîra et al. (2017)
Cucchiella and D'Adamo (2013), Chin et al.
(2015), Viglia et al. (2016), Saavedra M. et al.
(2018)
Pimenta and Ball (2015), Chen and Chen (2017)
Kremer et al. (2016), Dong and Hauschild (2017)
Wan Omar et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2015), Ding
et al. (2016), Aljazzar et al. (2018)
Blanco et al. (2016), Kremer et al. (2016), Chen
and Chen (2017)
Schiefer et al. (2015, 2016), Dong and Hauschild
(2017), Mapar et al. (2017)
Viglia et al. (2016), Song et al. (2017)
Miao et al. (2015), Aivazidou et al. (2016),
Acquaye et al. (2017b)
Wiengarten et al. (2013), Pimenta and Ball
(2015), Arimura et al. (2016), Ferreira et al.
(2016)
Ding et al. (2016), Jaehn (2016), Wan Ahmad
et al. (2017)
Ding et al. (2015), Wan Ahmad et al. (2017)

technique to determine the most influential factor by calculating the
relative weight of each criterion. The MCDM method named Multi-
criteria multi-Period Outranking Method (MUPOM) that includes multi-
period evaluations is used in the sustainable development context (Frini
and Ben, 2019). However, this does not consider the uncertainty con-
text or involve stakeholders and experts. Rezaei (2015) suggests that
BWM techniques can be used to solve multi-criteria problems more
efficiently and reliably. BWM requires fewer comparison data; there-
fore, it does not require complete pairwise comparison matrices, and
thus is less complicated, saves time, and is easy to implement compared
to other MCDM methods. According to Rezaei et al. (2016), BWM can
generate a single solution for a fully consistent comparison system
consisting of two or three criteria. For a non-consistent system, BWM
can find multiple optimal solutions. Considering its special features,
researchers have started using BWM in industrial applications as out-
lined in Table 2.
BWM is an efficient MCDM method for evaluating environmental
performance in supply chains. Despite this, it has not been implemented
widely in industrial settings. The present study contributes to the lit-
erature using BWM to outline indicators to measure environmental
performance in SCM. In addition, this study addresses the gaps in the
existing literature on environmental sustainability.
2.4. Environmental sustainability in Bangladesh
Bangladesh has undergone significant social, economic, and en-
vironmental changes in recent decades. Bangladesh has depended on its
agricultural sector for much of its modern history (Sabiha et al., 2016).
In response to natural resource degradation and to keep pace with
changes in the global economy, Bangladesh today is home to large
numbers of ready-made garment (RMG) factories, together with small-
to-medium industries and companies. These developments have af-
fected environmental conditions in Bangladesh. RMG exports con-
tributed approximately 82% of Bangladesh's total foreign remittances in
2010 (Ahmed et al., 2014). Bangladesh's leather sector (including three
subsectors: tannery, footwear, and leather goods) is the country's
second most valuable sector (Moktadir et al., 2017a, 2017b). In addi-
tion, the current market size of the poly processing industry in Ban-
gladesh is approximately USD 1 billion; USD 714 million of this is used
in Bangladesh, with the rest exported to the global market (Bangladesh
Plastic Goods Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BPGMEA)
Report, 2016).
These figures highlight the scale of recent industrialization in
Bangladesh. SCM is vital to Bangladeshi industries at every stage of
production and distribution, and involves suppliers, retailers,

Table 2
Industrial applications of the best worst method (BWM).
Serial Authors Contributions

1. Rezaei et al. (2015) Used BWM to segment suppliers in a supplier development model.
2. Rezaei et al. (2016) Examined conventional and environmental indicators and used BWM to evaluate supplier selection processes.
3. Rezaei et al. (2016) Used interval analysis and introduced linear BWM for multi-optimal solutions.
4. Salimi and Rezaei (2016) Used BWM to incorporate university–industry projects and measure efficiency.
5. Rezaei et al. (2017) Used BWM to identify the best configuration regarding the key performance indicators in selected outstations.
6. Badri Ahmadi et al. (2017) Used BWM to identify social sustainability criteria and specify their relative importance in manufacturing industries.
7. van de Kaa et al. (2017) Used BWM to determine factors that affected the success of conversion technologies in the biomass industry in the Netherlands.
8. Gupta (2017) Used BWM to select the best airline based on service quality parameters.
9. Wan Ahmad et al. (2017) Used BWM to identify the most and least important external forces to sustainable SCM in the oil and gas industries.
10. Salimi and Rezaei (2018) Used BWM to measure research and development performances of small-to-medium-sized enterprises in the Netherlands.
11. Moktadir et al. (2018) Used BWM to assess the challenges to Industry 4.0 implementation in the leather industry in Bangladesh
12. Kheybari et al. (2019) Used BWM for identifying the best location to produce bioethanol

4
S.A. Suhi, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

distributors, workers, and management (Basak et al., 2014). The dis-
posal of vast quantities of industrial pollutants created in Bangladeshi
supply chain systems is damaging the country's natural environment. In
addition, industrial greenhouse gas emissions range from 0.5 to 15 tons
per capita in cities in South Asia, including Bangladesh (Shams et al.,
2017). Thus, to achieve environmental sustainability in their business
models, industries require tools to measure environmental performance
against suitable indicators. Moreover, organizations undertaking de-
velopment projects also require effective tools to assess their environ-
mental impact (Hasan et al., 2018). Bangladesh is a developing country
and its industries have inadequate knowledge for measuring environ-
mental sustainability in their supply chains. The objective of the present
study was to outline a framework that Bangladeshi industrial managers
can use to establish environmental sustainability in their supply chains.
This study proposed an efficient and easy-to-use method (BWM) for
relative comparison of criteria to identify the best (most important) and
worst (least important) indicators for maintaining environmental sus-
tainability. One benefit of BWM is that future researchers can use this
method to rank industries based on their environmental sustainability
performance. The next section outlines our application of BWM in
Bangladeshi industries.
3. Methodology
We used BWM to determine the most and least important indicators
for maintaining environmental sustainability in supply chains. Uptake
of BWM has been minimal in the field of SCM, despite its efficiency
compared to other MCDM methods. The time required to complete the
questionnaire for BWM is much less than that for similar MCDM
methods. Moreover, BWM is more efficient than other methods for
analyzing problems with multiple criteria (Rezaei, 2015; Rezaei, 2016).
Fig. 1 outlines the step-by-step model we used to conduct a BWM
analysis for this research.
We completed the following steps in our BWM analysis:
Step 1: Selecting a group of decision-making criteria {c1, c2, … cn}
An appropriate set of decision-making criteria was selected based on
the opinions of experts consulted for this research.
Step 2: Selecting the best (e.g., the most important) and the worst
(e.g., the least important) criteria from the main selected group of
criteria {c1, c2, … cn}
The most and least important indicators were selected during this
step. This was not a quantitative step—rather, it involved selection by
the experts consulted for this research.
Step 3: Compute pairwise comparison between the best criterion
and the other criteria
A number from 1 to 9 was assigned to show the significance of the
best indicator over other indicators (e.g., 1 means indicator a is equally
important to indicator b; 9 means indicator a is much more important than
indicator b). This generated the best-to-others vector that is:
AB = (aB1, aB2,…, aBn ),
where, aBj expresses the significance of the most important criterion B

Literature review on performance indicators of environmental sustainability in supply chains

Determine the suitable indicators from the literature in the context of Bangladesh

Select a range of respondents (industrial managers and academic experts) covering all corresponding areas

Form a survey questionnaire for the respondents

Deliver the questionnaire to the respondents to identify whether the indicators are appropriate or not

Record the responses

Create another questionnaire with the indicators selected by the respondents

This questionnaire includes selection of the best and the worst indicators and pairwise comparison matrices
with necessary instructions

Make analysis and necessary computations for BWM based on responses from experts consulted for
this research

Check the consistency ratio for determining the reliability of the calculation process

Find the best and the worst indicators from the relative weights and rank them accordingly

Interpret the results and perform a sensitivity analysis

Discuss managerial implications and provide recommendations for future research

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of proposed model.

5
S.A. Suhi, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

over criterion j, and thus aBB = 1. 3.1. Implementation of the best worst method (BWM)
Step 4: Compute pairwise comparisons between the other criteria
and the worst criterion 3.1.1. Specification of decision criteria
Similarly, a value from 1 to 9 was assigned to show the significance Initially, we identified the decision-making criteria from our review
of all other criteria over the worst criterion (e.g., 1 means indicator a is of the existing literature as outlined in Table 1. A questionnaire-based
equally important to input b; 9 means indicator a is much more important survey was conducted via HTML to select the most appropriate in-
than indicator b). This generates the worst-to-others vector, that is: dicators in the context of Bangladesh. We created a web-based form
(Questionnaire 1) containing questions that included indicators iden-
A W = (a 1W ,a 2W ,…,a nW )T ,
tified from the relevant literature. Questionnaire 1 was sent to targeted
where, ajW expresses the significance of criterion j over the worst industrial managers and academic experts. Respondents were asked
criterion W and aWW = 1. whether the indicators were suitable or not for BWM in the context of
Step 5: Calculating the optimal weights (w1⁎, w2⁎, …, wn⁎) Bangladesh (see Appendix A). We selected five types of industries:
This aimed to prompt the optimal weights of the selected indicators. garments, pharmaceutical products, poly processing, leather, and
For the ideal condition (that is, a fully consistent system) |wB – aBj wj| footwear. Academic experts were chosen from respected universities
and | wj- ajwww| should be equal to zero. We had to minimize the who had experience in industrial research.
maximum absolute differences to get closer to the ideal condition {| wB Industries from each sector were selected for data collection. The
– aBj wj|, | wj- ajwww|}, which creates the following model, selection process was performed using a purposive sampling technique
rather than a statistical sampling technique (Eisenhardt, 1989). The
min maxj {| wB – aBj wj |,| wj ajw ww |}
industries were chosen from the large and experienced industries of
subject to, Bangladesh. The companies in the industries selected for analysis have
an important influence on Bangladesh's natural environment as well as
wj = 1 its economy. To identify potential research participants among in-
dustrial managers, we searched company websites, as well as Facebook
J and LinkedIn profiles. The industrial managers were sampled from
these companies based on a combination of their accessibility and their
wj 0 for all j (1)
knowledge on the subject, and whether they were interested in con-
Eq. (1) can be transferred into the following linear programming tributing to the study. Our survey link was emailed to > 40 industrial
problem managers and 10 academic experts. Each industrial manager and aca-
L
demic expert had > 10 years of experience in relevant fields. Re-
min spondents who wanted to participate in the study shared their views
subject to, and information and we received feedback from 34 of the 50 experts
after several email reminders, as shown in Table 3. Through this survey
wB – aBj wj L for all j process, eight indicators (see Table 4) were selected from our 13 initial
indicators (see Table 1). The survey questionnaires appear in Appendix
wj ajw ww L for all j (2) A.
By solving Eq. (2) we obtained the optimal weights wn⁎) (w1⁎, w2⁎,…,
L⁎ L⁎
and ξ that is the consistency ratio. The value of ξ defines the con- 3.1.2. Selecting the best and worst criteria
sistency level of the opinions of the decision-makers. Values close to Survey respondents were asked to select the criteria they considered
zero indicate high levels of consistency and more reliable comparisons. best (most important) and worst (least important) in the context of
Very large values indicate problems in prediction or calculation, which Bangladesh from the selected list of indicators. To complete steps 2–4,
should be checked again. respondents were provided with Questionnaire 2 (see Appendix A). The

Table 3
Selected industry and role of respondents (industrial managers and academic experts).
Types of industry Role of respondents (experts) Number of respondents Percentage of respondents Region
(experts) (%)

Garments Production Management 7 20.59 Gazipur, Tejgaon, Dhaka and Banitola, Ctg.
Logistics Department
Supply Chain Management
Leather Operations Management 6 17.65 Savar, Uttara, Dhaka and Khulna
Production Department
Logistics Department
Supply Chain Management
Poly processing Production Management 6 17.65 Gazipur, Narayan ganj, Dhaka
Engineering Department
Logistics Department
Supply Chain Management
Research and Development Department
Footwear Production Management 5 14.70 Uttara, Tongi, Dhaka
Logistics Department
Supply Chain Management
Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Management and Purchase 6 17.65 Tejgaon, Savar, Dhaka
Central Product Management
Human Resources Department
Engineering Department
Research and Development Department
Academic experts Industrial and Production Engineering 4 11.76 Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Department Technology

6
S.A. Suhi, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

Table 4 Table 6
Selected environmental indicators for application purpose. Scaling of the best criterion over other criteria by expert 18 (best-to-others
pairwise comparison vectors).
Selected key indicators Identification codes
Most important criterion EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8
Waste management EC1
Renewable energy usage EC2 Waste management (EC1) 1 5 2 6 9 5 3 5
Resource utilization EC3
Carbon footprint (CO2 and CO emissions) EC4
ISO 14001 certification EC5
Land pollution EC6
Table 7
Reuse and recycle EC7 Scaling of other criteria over the worst criterion by expert 18 (others-to-worst
Use of hazardous materials (lead, arsenic, and harmful EC8 pairwise comparison vectors).
chemicals)
Other criteria Least important criterion: ISO 14001 certification (EC5)

EC1 9
selection is listed in Table 5, which indicates that EC1 was selected as EC2 3
the most important or best indicator for maintaining environmental EC3 5
EC4 6
sustainability in supply chains by experts 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18,
EC5 1
22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, and 33. EC6 4
EC7 7
3.1.3. Selecting the best criterion preference over other criteria EC8 5
Experts were asked to compare the best criterion over the other
criteria using a scale of 1–9. For example, Table 6 shows the compar-
ison vector of the best criterion over other criteria constructed by expert Table 8
18. Optimal weights of the criteria based on the scaling of expert 18.
Key indicators Weights ξL⁎
3.1.4. Selecting the other criteria preference over the worst criterion
EC1 0.3208 0.0875
Using a scale of 1–9, experts were asked to rank the other criteria
EC2 0.0817
over the worst criterion. Table 7 shows the scaling of expert 18 from the EC3 0.2041
selected 34 respondents, which is indicative of the scaling process. EC4 0.0680
EC5 0.0259
EC6 0.0817
3.1.5. Calculating the optimal weights
EC7 0.1361
In this step, the optimal weights of the selected indicators for each EC8 0.0817
expert were obtained using Eq. (2) by fulfilling all the established
constraints. For example, the BWM model for expert 18 is demonstrated
below: function for expert 18 are shown in Table 8.
min, L Similarly, other BWM models for remaining experts were developed
using Eq. (2) and the optimal weights of each indicator for the re-
Subject to, maining experts were calculated and obtained via MATLAB. Table 9
|wEC1 1wEC1| L ; |w 5wEC 2| L; shows the final optimal weights of the indicators, which are the simple
EC1
L; |w L; average (arithmetic mean) of the optimal weights obtained from 34
|wEC1 2wEC 3| 6 w |
L ; |w
EC1 EC 4
L;
experts scaling. This analysis showed a highly consistent value of ξL⁎ for
|wEC1 9wEC5| EC1 5 wEC 6 | each simulation that was close to zero, indicating a reliable and effi-
|wEC1 3wEC 7| L ; |w 5wEC8| L;
EC1 cient system.
|wEC1 9wEC5| L ; |w 3 w | L;
EC 2 EC 5
|wEC 3 5wEC5| L; |w 6 w | L;
EC 4 EC 5
|wEC5 1wEC5| L ; |wEC6 4wEC5| L ; 4. Sensitivity analysis
|wEC 7 7wEC5| L ; |w 5wEC5| L;
EC 8
We employed an efficient MCDM tool—that is, BWM—to analyze
wEC1 + wEC 2 + wEC 3 + wEC 4 + wEC5 + wEC 6 + wEC 7 + wEC 8 = 1
the indicators of environmental sustainability. In addition, we per-
wEC1, wEC 2, wEC3, wEC 4, wEC5, wEC 6, wEC 7, wEC 8 0
formed a sensitivity analysis to ensure the robustness of our results.
The BWM model was then solved using MATLAB. The optimal Researchers have advocated sensitivity analyses to check for bias in
weights of environmental sustainability indicators and objective research results. Sensitivity analysis is performed by changing the

Table 5
Best and worst criteria identified by experts.
Key indicators Determined as best by the experts Determined as worst by the experts

Waste management (EC1) 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, –
31, 33
Renewable energy usage (EC2) 7 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 25, 29, 30
Resource utilization (EC3) 1, 16, 34 7
Carbon footprint (CO2 and CO emissions) (EC4) 32 33
ISO 14001 certification (EC5) 27 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31,
32, 34
Land pollution (EC6) 3 2
Reuse and recycle (EC7) 4, 6, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 29 –
Use of hazardous materials (lead, arsenic, and harmful chemicals) 28 12, 19, 27
(EC8)

7
S.A. Suhi, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

Table 9 Table 11
Final optimal weights of the selected criteria. Ranking of environmental sustainability indicators during sensitivity analysis.
Key indicators Optimal weights Key indicators Normal 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Waste management (EC1) 0.3326 EC1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Renewable energy usage (EC2) 0.0680 EC2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Resource utilization (EC3) 0.1359 EC3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Carbon footprint (CO2 and CO emissions) (EC4) 0.0680 EC4 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6
ISO 14001 certification (EC5) 0.0286 EC5 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8
Land pollution (EC6) 0.0815 EC6 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
Reuse and recycle (EC7) 0.2039 EC7 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Use of hazardous materials (lead, arsenic, and harmful 0.0815 EC8 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4
chemicals) (EC8)
Consistency ratio, ξL⁎ 0.0751
order in the context of Bangladesh.
b) The BWM was used to identify the most and least important criteria
weight of the top-ranked criterion and noting changes in the weights of in this study.
other criteria(Mangla et al., 2015; Prakash and Barua, 2015, 2016). c) BWM analysis was undertaken by compiling data from industry
This testing helps filter out major changes during the variation of the managers and academic experts in Bangladesh for pairwise com-
top-ranked indicator's weight. Table 10 shows the changing weights of parison. By performing BWM calculations on this data, we obtained
the other indicators while changing the weight of waste management the required weighted averages for different criteria.
(EC1) from 0.1 to 0.9. At a weight of 0.1 to 0.2, the top-ranked indicator d) According to the calculations of BWM, waste management (EC1)
changed rank to fifth and then second. In contrast, the lowest-ranked obtained the highest relative weight and was the best indicator,
indicator did not change position. At a weight of 0.6, the lowest-ranked whereas ISO 14001 certification (EC5) was the worst indicator as it
indicator (EC5) changed position only once and it remained the same in possessed the lowest relative weight.
the rest of the runs.
Sensitivity analysis did not significantly change the ranking of the Table 9 shows the optimal weights of the environmental indicators
other indicators. Table 11 shows the ranking of environmental sus- generated by applying the BWM. The indicator with the highest weight
tainability indicators during different sensitivity analysis runs. The value was the most important indicator assessed, whereas the lowest
variation in weights and ranking of selected indicators are illustrated in weighted indicator was the least important. In our analysis, waste
Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Moreover, the normal weights and ranks of management (EC1) was the most important indicator, as it had the
the criteria are shown in both figures. From Fig. 2, the weight of EC1 highest weight of 0.3326. ISO 14001 certification (EC5) was the least
changed from 0.1 to 0.9 in nine subsequent runs of sensitivity testing. important indicator, with a weight of 0.0286. Therefore, waste man-
The corresponding weight of other indicators during each respective agement should be the primary concern of organizations pursuing en-
run is shown in the Fig. 2. Therefore, the weights of the various criteria vironmental sustainability in their supply chain systems in Bangladesh
changed significantly with the change in weight of the top-ranked in- or in other small developing countries. As stated earlier, the garment
dicator. Conversely, Fig. 3 shows that the ranking of indicators did not industry is one of the largest and most valuable in Bangladesh. En-
change greatly during the test. The outermost line in Fig. 3 shows the vironmental sustainability could be enhanced in Bangladeshi supply
rank of EC5 for the changing weights of EC1. The line became concave chains by reducing the huge amounts of waste produced by the coun-
at the weight of 0.6, where the rank of EC5 was 6 and the other lines try's garments industry, with small manufacturing companies and tan-
expressed the same significance. The trend in both figures is relatable neries in Bangladesh producing waste that is toxic to both humans and
because the other weights changed together with the change in the the natural environment.
weight of EC1. Therefore, the ranking of the indicators did not change Reuse and recycle (EC7) and resource utilization (EC3) were the
significantly, which is a characteristic of a consistent system. Therefore, next most important indicators, with weights of 0.2039 and 0.1359,
the sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model we have proposed, respectively. Therefore, after implementing sustainable waste man-
including its results, was consistent. agement systems, companies should focus on making their byproducts
and excess products reusable and recyclable. Optimization of limited
5. Analysis of findings resources can help maintain environmental sustainability as well as
economic prosperity. ISO certification was found to be the least im-
Summary of the present study and findings: portant indicator of the Bangladeshi supply chains' environmental
performance. One explanation for this finding is that ISO certification is
a) The identification of indicators of environmental sustainability in not well known in Bangladeshi industries. In addition, it is difficult to
supply chains and the organization of these in the best to worst

Table 10
Weights of environmental sustainability indicators during sensitivity analysis.
Key indicators Normal Values of preference weights for selected key indicators

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

EC1 0.3326 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000
EC2 0.0680 0.0917 0.0815 0.0713 0.0611 0.0509 0.0408 0.0306 0.0204 0.0102
EC3 0.1359 0.1833 0.1629 0.1425 0.1222 0.1018 0.0815 0.0611 0.0407 0.0204
EC4 0.0680 0.0917 0.0815 0.0713 0.0611 0.0509 0.0408 0.0306 0.0204 0.0102
EC5 0.0286 0.0386 0.0343 0.0300 0.0257 0.0214 0.0171 0.0129 0.0086 0.0043
EC6 0.0815 0.1099 0.0977 0.0855 0.0733 0.0611 0.0488 0.0366 0.0244 0.0122
EC7 0.2039 0.2750 0.2444 0.2139 0.1833 0.1528 0.1222 0.0917 0.0611 0.0306
EC8 0.0815 0.1099 0.0977 0.0855 0.0733 0.0611 0.0488 0.0366 0.0244 0.0122
Total 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

8
S.A. Suhi, et al.
Fig. 2. Weights of environmental sustainability indicators during sensitivity analysis.
maintain ISO standards at each level of the supply chain in Bangladesh,
in part due to a lack of knowledge among suppliers.
However, we predict that the most highly ranked indicators have
more potential to improve environmental sustainability in Bangladesh.
Table 9 shows that land pollution (EC6) and use of hazardous materials
(lead, arsenic, and harmful chemicals) (EC8) received weights of
0.0815. Carbon footprint (EC4) and renewable energy usage (EC2) had
weights of 0.0680, making them the fourth and fifth highest ranked
indicators, respectively. Therefore, companies should address these
indicators as part of their environmental management processes.
Carbon footprint received less weighting in the calculation than one
might expect given the focus by governments and international orga-
nizations on reducing carbon emissions. This is because Bangladesh has
minimal heavy metal manufacturing or chemical industries, which are
the main emitters of carbon pollutants.
The present study laid the groundwork for future researchers to
analyze environmental sustainability in supply chains in developing
countries such as Bangladesh. Previous studies on this topic have used
different methods to analyze other countries and reached different
findings than those of our analysis. Ding et al. (2015) suggested that
government policies are an important driver of sustainability, as these
create pressure on business. Carbon emissions were assessed as an im-
portant indicator of environmental sustainability in supply chains in an
analysis on metal industries in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa) countries (Acquaye et al., 2017b). This previous study
proposed a model to measure environmental performance in supply
Fig. 3. Ranking of environmental sustainability indicators during sensitivity analysis.
9
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306
chains. BRICS countries are more industrially developed than Bangla-
desh; therefore, their supply chains must focus on other parameters
rather than waste management. Using an analytical multi-regional
input-output model, Acquaye et al. (2017a) examined water footprints
in electrical industries as a significant indicator of environmental per-
formance. Thus, indicators of environmental sustainability in supply
chains vary from industry to industry, country to country, and region to
region. In the present study, we have outlined an efficient, cost-effec-
tive, and structured method to measure environmental performance in
supply chains.
6. Model implications
6.1. Research implications
The present study has some significant research implications. The
model used in this study illustrates a detailed step-by-step method
based on BWM to identify and rank environmental criteria in SCM.
Based on this model, the study sought to identify indicators of en-
vironmental sustainability in supply chains and organize them in order
from best to worst in the context of Bangladesh. BWM analysis was
undertaken by compiling data from industry managers and academic
experts in Bangladesh for pairwise comparison. By performing BWM
calculations on this data, we obtained the required weighted averages
(arithmetic mean) for different criteria.
The results from the present study will contribute to the literature
S.A. Suhi, et al.
regarding environmental sustainability. Moreover, the research was
undertaken based on an emerging economy, which can be insightful for
other countries that have the same economic pattern. In the case of
developing newer technologies for reducing environmental impact of
supply chain activities, companies can utilize the present study to un-
derstand the importance of different criteria.
The challenge of the industrialized era is to continue industrializa-
tion while mitigating its environmental impact. Bangladesh is a devel-
oping nation that is trying to improve its economic status through in-
dustrialization, which makes environmental sustainability in supply
chains an issue of great importance to Bangladesh. Our study identified
waste management as the most important environmental criterion in
the context of Bangladeshi supply chains. Waste management can be
implemented by reusing and refining pollutants into other products of
economic value. Our study identified ISO 14001 certification as the
least important criterion.
The results of the present study can create great value for other
emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, Oman, and so on. The
criteria we have identified in this analysis are also applicable for these
countries; however, the relative weights obtained from the BWM may
vary from region to region. For example, USAID reports that carbon
emissions are a major problem in China and are increasing in Brazil and
India (Change, 2012). According to (Jose and Jabbour, 2010; José
et al., 2012; Vivas et al., 2019), criteria for environmental sustainability
in SCM include CO2 emissions, hazardous wastes, ISO 14001 certifica-
tion, and renewable energy sources, which were based on the scenario
of Brazil. The quality of air, soil, and water; embedded carbon; resource
consumption; reuse, recycle and recovery of materials; use of hazardous
materials; renewable energy source; and ISO certification are some of
the environmental criteria for SCM in Indian industries (Li and
Mathiyazhagan, 2017; Das, 2018). The consumption of toxic sub-
stances, solid waste, and waste water play a vital role in sustainable
SCM in China (Lu et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018). From the above-
mentioned examples, different emerging economies other than Ban-
gladesh have similar types of environmental indicators for their re-
spective SCM. Thus, the findings and outcomes of the present study will
contribute to the sustainability analysis of SCM in other emerging
countries together with Bangladesh.
6.2. Managerial implications
The present study outlined an approach for industry managers to
Appendix A
A.1. Questionnaire 1
Q.1 Which type of company/department are you working at?
Q.2 What is your designation and experience/role in your company/university?
Q.3 Are the listed indicators suitable for environmental sustainability assessment in the context of Bangladesh?
If the indicator is suitable for environmental sustainability assessment in the context of Bangladesh please write Yes. If the indicator is not
relevant please write No. Further, please mention your recommendation about any additional indicator, if necessary.
Table A1
Key indicators for taking responses from respondents (experts).
Key indicators
Waste management
Renewable energy usage
Resource utilization
Water pollution
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emission
Energy sources and fuel residuals
Carbon footprint (CO2, CO emission)
ISO 14001 certification
Government regulations
10
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306
establish environmental sustainability measures in their supply chain.
To date, there exists no analysis on this topic in the context of
Bangladeshi supply chains. Our analysis allowed industry managers to
determine which criteria require immediate attention. The present
study has practical implications for Bangladeshi industries in particular.
Moreover, insights from this study allowed the ranking of industries in
order by their environmental sustainability performance in supply
chains. To assess this performance, the most and least considered cri-
teria can be selected as outlined in the present study. Our analysis drew
on data from industries in Bangladesh including the garments sector,
small manufacturing industries, production factories, and tanneries.
This study holds importance for other emerging economies, with in-
dustrial managers being able to follow the steps suggested in the pre-
sent study to assess the environmental sustainability across their supply
chains in their country.
7. Conclusions, limitations, and scope for future works
The objective of the present study was to establish a model based on
Bangladesh that was insightful for other emerging economies. As
Bangladesh is developing in the industrial sector, the results from the
present study will provide industrial managers and future researchers
with some basic information. We suggest that future research on this
topic focus on specific regions to allow for precise analysis. However,
findings from the present study can be treated as fundamental for the
purposes of future research. Industries can be ranked by measures of
environmental sustainability using BWM. In turn, this analysis may
encourage industries to improve their environmental practices to in-
crease their rank.
The present study has some limitations. One limitation is that the
results cannot be applied to all industries and regions of Bangladesh as
the weights of the criteria will vary depending on regions and cir-
cumstances. In addition, the weighting of criteria might change in re-
sponse to economic or other developments in Bangladesh. However, the
present study can help emerging industries ensure environmental sus-
tainability in their supply chains. Environmental performance is a
source of competitive advantage in today's market. As consumers and
governments continue to focus on environmental sustainability, the
present study provides important insights for future studies by re-
searchers and industry managers.
Response (Yes/No)
(continued on next page)
S.A. Suhi, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306

Table A1 (continued)

Key indicators Response (Yes/No)

Air pollution
Reuse and recycle
Use of hazardous materials (Lead, arsenic, and harmful chemicals)
Land pollution
If you have any other suggestion please mention in the box beside.

A.2. Questionnaire 2

Q.4 Please select the best (e.g. the most important) and the worst (e.g. the least important) indicator from the main group of indicators.

Write best/worst beside the corresponding boxes of your selected indicators. Please select only one indicator as best and another one as worst.

Table A2
Selection of best and worst indicator.

Key indicators Selected as the best indicator Selected as the worst indicator

Waste management (EC1)

Renewable energy usage (EC2)
Resource utilization (EC3)
Carbon footprint (CO2, CO emission) (EC4)
ISO 14001 certification (EC5)
Land pollution (EC6)
Reuse and recycle (EC7)
Use of hazardous materials (Lead, arsenic, and harmful chemicals) (EC8)

Q.5 Please fill in the following comparison vector.

A numerical value from 1 to 9 should be assigned to indicate the significance of the best indicator over the other indicators (e.g. 1 means indicator
a is equitably significant to input b; 9 means input a is immensely more significant than indicator b).

Table A3
Scaling of the best indicator over the other indicators (best-to-others pairwise comparison vectors).

Most important indicator EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8

XX (the one according to your selection)

Q.6 Please fill in the following comparison vector.

Note: Similarly, a numerical value from 1 to 9 should be assigned to indicate the significance of all other criteria over the worst criterion (e.g. 1
means indicator a is equitably significant to input b; 9 means input a is immensely more significant than indicator b).

Table A4
Scaling of other indicators over the worst indicator (others-to-worst pairwise comparison vectors).

Other indicators Least important criterion- XX (The one according to your selection)

EC1
EC2
EC3
EC4
EC5
EC6
EC7
EC8

References
Acquaye, A., Feng, K., et al., 2017a. Measuring the environmental sustainability perfor-
mance of global supply chains: a multi-regional input-output analysis for carbon,
sulphur oxide and water footprints. J. Environ. Manag. 187, 571–585. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.059. Elsevier Ltd.
Acquaye, A., Ibn-Mohammed, T., et al., 2017b. A quantitative model for environmentally
sustainable supply chain performance measurement. Eur. J. Oper. Res. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.057. Elsevier B.V.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2013. A comparative literature analysis of de fi nitions for green and
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 329–341. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.018. Elsevier Ltd.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2015. Assessing sustainability in the supply chain: a triple bottom line
approach. Appl. Math. Model. 39 (10–11), 2882–2896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apm.2014.10.055. Elsevier Inc.
Ahmed, F.Z., Greenleaf, A., Sacks, A., 2014. The paradox of export growth in areas of
weak governance: the case of the ready made garment sector in Bangladesh. World
Dev. 56, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.001. Elsevier Ltd.
Aivazidou, E., et al., 2016. The emerging role of water footprint in supply chain man-
agement: a critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical decision-making frame-
work. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.

11
S.A. Suhi, et al.
210. Elsevier Ltd.
Aljazzar, S.M., Gurtu, A., Jaber, M.Y., 2018. Delay-in-payments – a strategy to reduce
carbon emissions from supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 636–644. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.177. Elsevier Ltd.
Ansari, Z.N., Kant, R., 2017. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2524–2543. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023.
Arimura, T.H., et al., 2016. The effect of ISO 14001 on environmental performance: re-
solving equivocal findings. J. Environ. Manag. 166, 556–566. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.032. Elsevier Ltd.
Azevedo, B.D., et al., 2019. Urban solid waste management in developing countries from
the sustainable supply chain management perspective: a case study of Brazil's largest
slum. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.162. Elsevier Ltd.
Badri Ahmadi, H., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Rezaei, J., 2017. Assessing the social sustainability of
supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126 (May), 99–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020. Elsevier.
Bartolacci, F., et al., 2019. An economic efficiency indicator for assessing income op-
portunities in sustainable waste management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 78
(2018), 106279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.05.001. Elsevier.
Basak, A., et al., 2014. Supply chain management in garments industry. Global J. Manag.
Bus. Res. 14 (11), 22–28.
Beatriz, A., Sousa, L. De, et al., 2014a. Quality management, environmental management
maturity, green supply chain practices and green performance of Brazilian companies
with ISO 14001 certification: direct and indirect effects. Transp. Res. E 67, 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.03.005. Elsevier Ltd.
Beatriz, A., Jabbour, C., et al., 2014b. Mixed methodology to analyze the relationship
between maturity of environmental management and the adoption of green supply
chain management in Brazil. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2014.02.004. Elsevier B.V.
Blanco, C., Caro, F., Corbett, C.J., 2016. The state of supply chain carbon footprinting:
analysis of CDP disclosures by US firms. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1189–1197. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.132. Elsevier Ltd.
Bocken, N., Morgan, D., Evans, S., 2013. Understanding environmental performance
variation in manufacturing companies. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 62 (8),
856–870. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2013-0042.
BPGMEA report, 2016. http://bpgmea.org.bd/v2/index.php/bpgmea Access Date: 20-01-
2019.
Brandenburg, M., Rebs, T., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling
perspective. Ann. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1853-1.
Carter, C.R., Jennings, M.M., 2002. Social responsibility and supply chain relationships.
Transp. Res. E 38, 37–52.
Carter, C.R., et al., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09600030810882816.
Carter, C.R., Easton, P.L., Carter, C.R., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management:
evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09600031111101420.
Change, C., 2012. Clean Resilient Growth. (January).
Chen, J.X., Chen, J., 2017. Supply chain carbon footprinting and responsibility allocation
under emission regulations. J. Environ. Manag. 188, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.006. Elsevier Ltd.
Chiarini, A., 2012. Designing an environmental sustainable supply chain through ISO
14001 standard. Manag. Environ. Qual. 24 (1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14777831311291113.
Chin, T.A., Tat, H.H., Sulaiman, Z., 2015. Green supply chain management, environ-
mental collaboration and sustainability performance. Proc. CIRP 26, 695–699.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.035. Elsevier B.V.
Cucchiella, F., D'Adamo, I., 2013. Issue on supply chain of renewable energy. Energy
Convers. Manag. 76, 774–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.081.
Elsevier Ltd.
Das, D., 2018. Faculty of management studies. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.08.250. Elsevier Ltd.
Ding, H., et al., 2015. Pricing strategy of environmental sustainable supply chain with
internalizing externalities. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170, 563–575. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijpe.2015.05.016. Elsevier.
Ding, H., et al., 2016. Collaborative mechanism of a sustainable supply chain with en-
vironmental constraints and carbon caps. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181, 191–207. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.004. Elsevier.
Dong, Y., Hauschild, M.Z., 2017. Indicators for environmental sustainability. Procedia
CIRP 61, 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.173. The Author(s).
Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14
(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.
Ferreira, L.M.D.F., Silva, C., Azevedo, S.G., 2016. An environmental balanced scorecard
for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmark. Int. J.
23 (6), 1398–1422. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2013-0087.
Frini, A., Ben, S., 2019. MUPOM: a multi-criteria multi-period outranking method for
decision-making in sustainable development context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 76
(May 2017), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.11.002. Elsevier.
Gallego, J., Azcárate, J., Kørnøv, L., 2019. Strategic Environmental Assessment for de-
velopment programs and sustainability transition in the Colombian post-con fl ict
context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 74 (October 2018), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2018.10.002.
Genovese, A., et al., 2018. Assessing redundancies in environmental performance mea-
sures for supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1290–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.05.186. Elsevier Ltd.
Golpîra, H., et al., 2017. Robust bi-level optimization for green opportunistic supply chain
12
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306
network design problem against uncertainty and environmental risk. Comput. Ind.
Eng. 107, 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.029. Elsevier Ltd.
Goodland, R., Bank, T.W., 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 1–24.
Goodland, R., et al., 2013. Environmental sustainability: universal and non-negotiable.
Ecological Applications 6 (4), 1002–1017.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2013. Analysing green supply chain
management practices in Brazil’s electrical/electronics industry using interpretive
structural modelling. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207233.2013.798494. June.
Gregoris, E., et al., 2018. Multi-criteria ranking of chemicals for toxicological impact
assessments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 73 (March), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eiar.2018.08.001.
Gupta, H., 2017. Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst
method and VIKOR. J. Air Transp. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.
2017.06.001. Elsevier Ltd.
Hasan, A., Nahiduzzaman, K., Aldosary, A.S., 2018. Public participation in EIA: a com-
parative study of the projects run by government and non-governmental organiza-
tions. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 72 (May), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.
2018.05.001.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., Searcy, C., 2012. A literature review and a case study of sustainable
supply chains with a focus on metrics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 69–82. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.042.
Hou, G., Wang, Y., Xin, B., 2019. A coordinated strategy for sustainable supply chain
management with product sustainability, environmental effect. J. Clean. Prod.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.096. Elsevier B.V.
Ivanov, D., 2017. Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: a
simulation study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 7543 (June), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2017.1343507. Taylor & Francis.
Jaehn, F., 2016. Sustainable operations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253 (2), 243–264. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.046. Elsevier B.V.
Jose, C., Jabbour, C., 2010. Non-linear pathways of corporate environmental manage-
ment: a survey of ISO 14001-certi fi ed companies in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (12),
1222–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.012. Elsevier Ltd.
José, C., Jabbour, C., 2013a. Environmental training and environmental management
maturity of Brazilian companies with ISO14001: empirical evidence. J. Clean. Prod.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.039. Elsevier Ltd.
José, C., Jabbour, C., 2013b. Environmental training in organisations: from a literature
review to a framework for future research. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 144–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.017. Elsevier B.V.
José, C., et al., 2012. Environmental management in Brazil: is it a completely competitive
priority? J. Clean. Prod. 21 (1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.
003. Elsevier Ltd.
Kannan, D., et al., 2013. Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: using Fuzzy
TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. Eur. J. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.023. Elsevier B.V.
Kheybari, S., Kazemi, M., Rezaei, J., 2019. Bioethanol facility location selection using
best-worst method. Appl. Energy 242 (November 2018), 612–623. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.054.
Khosravi, F., Jha-thakur, U., Fischer, T.B., 2019. Evaluation of the environmental impact
assessment system in Iran. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 74 (October 2018), 63–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.005. Elsevier.
Koberg, E., Longoni, A., 2019. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain man-
agement in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1084–1098. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.033. Elsevier Ltd.
Kremer, G.E., et al., 2016. Directions for instilling economic and environmental sus-
tainability across product supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2066–2078. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.076. Elsevier Ltd.
Kusi-Sarpong, S., Sarkis, J., Wang, X., 2016. Assessing green supply chain practices in the
Ghanaian mining industry: a framework and evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181,
325–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.002.
Kusi-Sarpong, S., Gupta, H., Sarkis, J., 2018. A supply chain sustainability innovation
framework and evaluation methodology. Int. J. Prod. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1518607.
Li, Y., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2017. Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the in-
fluential indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto compo-
nents manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
11.120. Elsevier Ltd.
Lin, Y.-H., Tseng, M.-L., 2016. Assessing the competitive priorities within sustainable
supply chain management under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2133–2144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.012. Elsevier Ltd.
Liu, H., et al., 2015. Carbon emissions embodied in demand-supply chains in China.
Energy Econ. 50, 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.006. Elsevier
B.V.
Lo, H.W., et al., 2018. An integrated model for solving problems in green supplier se-
lection and order allocation. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.04.105. Elsevier B.V.
Lu, Y., et al., 2018. Dual institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain practice and
performance outcome. Sustainability 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093247.
Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Barua, M.K., 2015. Risk analysis in green supply chain using
fuzzy AHP approach: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104, 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001. Elsevier B.V.
Manning, L., 2016. Food fraud: policy and food chain. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 10 (2), 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2016.07.001. Elsevier Ltd.
Mapar, M., et al., 2017. Sustainability indicators for municipalities of megacities: in-
tegrating health, safety and environmental performance’. Ecol. Indic. 83 (October
S.A. Suhi, et al.
2016), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.012. Elsevier.
Miao, X., et al., 2015. The latent causal chain of industrial water pollution in China.
Environ. Pollut. 196, 473–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.11.010.
Elsevier Ltd.
Mitra, S., 2014. A framework for research on green supply chain management. Supply
Chain Forum 15 (1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2014.11517332.
Moktadir, A., et al., 2017a. Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular
economy: a perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063. Elsevier B.V.
Moktadir, M.A., et al., 2017b. Productivity improvement by work study technique: a case
on leather products industry of Bangladesh. Ind. Eng. Manag. 6 (6), 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.4172/2169-0316.1000207.
Moktadir, M.A., et al., 2018. Assessing challenges for implementing industry 4.0: im-
plications for process safety and environmental protection. Process. Saf. Environ.
Prot. 117, 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.020.
Munny, A.A., et al., 2019. Enablers of social sustainability in the supply chain: an example
of footwear industry from an emerging economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.07.003. Elsevier B.V.
Murphy, P.R., et al., 2002. Socially responsible logistics: an exploratory study. Transp. J.
41 (4), 23–35.
Nations, U, 1987. Our Common Future.
Parajuli, R., Thoma, G., Matlock, M.D., 2019. Environmental sustainability of fruit and
vegetable production supply chains in the face of climate change: a review. Sci. Total
Environ. 650, 2863–2879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.019. Elsevier
B.V.
Pimenta, H.C.D., Ball, P.D., 2015. Analysis of environmental sustainability practices
across upstream supply chain management. Procedia CIRP 26, 677–682. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.036. Elsevier B.V.
Pires Ribeiro, J., Barbosa-Povoa, A., 2017. Supply chain resilience: definitions and
quantitative modelling approaches – a literature review. Comput. Ind. Eng. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.006.
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 environ-
ment. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001. The
Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2016. A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection
of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 7 (March), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.04.001. Elsevier B.V.
Rajeev, A., et al., 2017. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: a lit-
erature review. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2017.05.026. Elsevier Ltd.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
Rezaei, J., 2016. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a
linear model. Omega 64, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
Elsevier.
Rezaei, J., Wang, J., Tavasszy, L., 2015. Linking supplier development to supplier seg-
mentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (23), 9152–9164. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.073. Elsevier Ltd.
Rezaei, J., et al., 2016. A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and
environmental criteria using the best worst method. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 577–588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.125. Elsevier Ltd.
Rezaei, J., Hemmes, A., Tavasszy, L., 2017. Multi-criteria decision-making for complex
bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight. J. Air Transp. Manag.
61, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.02.006. Elsevier Ltd.
Saavedra M., M.R., de O. Fontes, C.H., M. Freires, F.G., 2018. Sustainable and renewable
energy supply chain: a system dynamics overview. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 82
(March 2017), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.033. Elsevier Ltd.
Sabiha, N.E., et al., 2016. Measuring environmental sustainability in agriculture: a
composite environmental impact index approach. J. Environ. Manag. 166, 84–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.003. Elsevier Ltd.
Salimi, N., Rezaei, J., 2016. Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects
13
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 79 (2019) 106306
using best worst method. Scientometrics 109 (3), 1911–1938. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11192-016-2121-0. Springer Netherlands.
Salimi, N., Rezaei, J., 2018. Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method.
Eval. Program Plan. 66, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.
002. Elsevier Ltd.
Scavarda, A., et al., 2019. Full length article A proposed healthcare supply chain man-
agement framework in the emerging economies with the sustainable lenses: the
theory, the practice, and the policy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141 (May 2018),
418–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.027. Elsevier.
Schiefer, J., Lair, G.J., Blum, W.E.H., 2015. Indicators for the definition of land quality as
a basis for the sustainable intensification of agricultural production. Int. Soil Water
Conserv. Res. 3 (1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2015.03.003.
Schiefer, J., Lair, G.J., Blum, W.E.H., 2016. Potential and limits of land and soil for
sustainable intensification of European agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 230,
283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.021. Elsevier B.V.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.
Shams, S., et al., 2017. Sustainable waste management policy in Bangladesh for reduction
of greenhouse gases. Sustain. Cities Soc. 33, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.
2017.05.008. Elsevier B.V.
Song, W., Xu, Z., Liu, H.C., 2017. Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for
solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated approach. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
79 (December 2016), 1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.081.
Elsevier Ltd.
Tippayawong, K.Y., Tiwaratreewit, T., Sopadang, A., 2015. Positive influence of green
supply chain operations on thai electronic firms’ financial performance. Procedia
Eng. 118, 683–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.503. Elsevier B.V.
van de Kaa, G., Kamp, L., Rezaei, J., 2017. Selection of biomass thermochemical con-
version technology in the Netherlands: a best worst method approach. J. Clean. Prod.
166, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.052. Elsevier B.V.
Viglia, S., et al., 2016. Indicators of environmental loading and sustainability of urban
systems. An emergy-based environmental footprint. Ecol. Indic. (June 2016), 0–1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.060. Elsevier.
Vivas, R.D.C., et al., 2019. Integrated method combining analytical and mathematical
models for the evaluation and optimization of sustainable supply chains: a Brazilian
case study. Comput. Ind. Eng. (xxxx), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.
044. Elsevier.
Wan Ahmad, W.N.K., et al., 2017. Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sus-
tainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method. J. Clean. Prod. 153,
242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.166. Elsevier B.V.
Wan Omar, W.M.S., et al., 2014. Assessment of the embodied carbon in precast concrete
wall panels using a hybrid life cycle assessment approach in Malaysia. Sustain. Cities
Soc. 10, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.06.002. Elsevier B.V.
Wang, H., et al., 2018. An Integrated MCDM Approach Considering Demands-Matching
for Reverse Logistics. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.131.
Wiengarten, F., Pagell, M., Fynes, B., 2013. ISO 14000 certification and investments in
environmental supply chain management practices: Identifying differences in moti-
vation and adoption levels between Western European and North American compa-
nies. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.021.
Elsevier Ltd.
Wu, J., Zhang, X., Lu, J., 2018. Empirical research on influencing factors of sustainable
supply chain management—evidence from Beijing, China. Sustainability. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10051595.
Zhou, Z., Cheng, S., Hua, B., 2000. Supply chain optimization of continuous process in-
dustries with sustainability considerations. Comput. Chem. Eng. 24, 1151–1158
Warehotls i W3house.
Zubizarreta, M., et al., 2019. Modeling the environmental sustainability of timber
structures: a case study. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 78 (July), 106286. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106286. Elsevier.