Resources, Conservation and Recycling: Deepak Mathivathanan, Devika Kannan, A. Noorul Haq

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Full length article
Sustainable supply chain management practices in Indian automotive

industry: A multi-stakeholder view
Deepak Mathivathanan a,b , Devika Kannan a,∗ , A. Noorul Haq b
a
Center for Engineering Operations Management, Department of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M , Denmark
b
Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: As one of the largest manufacturing sectors, the automotive industry has a deep impact on the society and
Received 28 June 2016 environment. Automotive products provide mobility to millions and create jobs, but also threaten the
Received in revised form 5 January 2017 environment. Consumer pressure, government regulations, and stakeholder demands for a competitive
Accepted 5 January 2017
edge have forced the automotive industry to consider their environmental and social impacts in addi-
Available online 24 February 2017
tion to their economic status. These pressures have led many automotive industry businesses to adopt
Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) practices. Specific practices that are adopted into the tra-
Keywords:
ditional supply chain and that help an industry shift towards a sustainable supply chain are called SSCM
Sustainable supply chain management
Automotive industries
practices. Firms have difficulty identifying the most useful practices and learning how these practices
Emerging economies impact each other. Unfortunately, no existing research has studied the interrelated influences among
Sustainable supply chain management these practices in the automotive industry, nor from an Indian perspective. The current study aims to
practices give a better understanding of the interrelated influences among SSCM practices with a particular look
Inter influences at the automotive industry. Our research presents views from multiple stakeholders, including manage-
rial, environmental, societal, and governmental associations. We propose a framework model, using the
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory method, to evaluate automotive industry SSCM prac-
tices specifically situated in the emerging economy of India. Through a questionnaire survey with the
above-mentioned stakeholders, we find interinfluences and the prominence of the identified practices. A
prominence causal relationship diagram is obtained depicting the cause groups and the effect groups of
the practices. The differences and similarities between individual perspectives and combined stakeholder
perspectives are identified. The results reveal that management commitment towards sustainability and
incorporating the triple bottom line approach in strategic decision making are the most influential prac-
tices for implementing the sustainable supply chain management. This study provides a foundation for
industrial managers to understand the inter influences among the practices and increases the probability
of successful implementation of SSCM practices within the automotive industry.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction tal globalization policies have forced many automotive firms to

shift towards using specific practices to help incorporate sustain-
The automotive industry plays a key role in the day to day ability (Govindan et al., 2015a; Zhu et al., 2007). These practices,
activity of human life, not only by providing mobility but also by termed SSCM practices (Jayaraman et al., 2007; Linton et al., 2007;
the enormous impact of the industry on economic, environmen- Carter and Rogers, 2008), help to reverse the well-known adverse
tal, and social activities throughout the globe (Xia et al., 2015). As effects of the industry, and the use of environmentally-friendly and
arguably the largest manufacturing sector worldwide, the industry socially beneficial practices may help to improve the profitability
faces high profile environmental challenges; they are held respon- of the business. According to a report by the World Commission
sible for deteriorating air quality, contributing to global warming, on Environment and Development (WCED) by Brundtland (1987),
and for ineffectively handling end of life automobiles (Orsato and sustainability is defined as “development that meets the needs of
Wells, 2007). These environmental challenges and governmen- the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.” Sustainability creates balance between
the economic, social, and environmental aims of organizations
∗ Corresponding author (Authorship listing follows an alphabetical order). (Székely and Knirsch, 2005). Evidence indicates that to achieve
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kannan). sustainable performance, some practices in the traditional sup-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.003
0921-3449/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305 285
ply chain must be incorporated (Govindan et al., 2016d; Gimenez

Identification of existing SSCM practices
and Tachizawa, 2012; Taticchi et al., 2013). Thus, the benefits of through literature survey
SSCM practices are well understood, but the challenges associated
with their implementation and understandings are not as clearly
identified especially in developing nations such as India (Epstein,
2008). Questionnaire to identify the prominence and inter
Since inception, the automotive industry has been a major con- influences of SSCM practices
tributor to the Indian economy. The AMP 2026 report by Auto Tech
Review (Automotive Mission Plan 2016–2026 − A Curtain Raiser,
2015) estimated that automotive sectors will contribute more
than 12% of the overall GDP of the country. Automotive industries Management Government Societal
also face environmental and societal pressures from customers, Perspective Perspective Perspective
employees, and partners due to globalization (Zhu et al., 2007).
In the present scenario, Indian automotive industries are at peak
pressure to shift towards SSCM, due to continuous globalization Applying DEMATEL Method to the analyze SSCM practices
pressures, rules and regulations framed by the government, and on three different perspectives and combined perspectives
from daily increases in societal awareness and standards. Hence,
Indian industries now consider the social and environmental issues
more vital than ever (Kannan et al., 2016), and they face difficulty in
Comparison of results obtained on three different
identifying the prominent SSCM practices for improving their sus-
perspectives and combined perspectives
tainable performance (Thanki et al., 2016). The increasing need for
firms to adopt sustainability practices in order to achieve competi-
tive advantages and, at the same time, not to compromise aspects of
sustainability is the need of the hour (Smith and Ball, 2012). Indian Conclusion on prominent SSCM practices and the relationship
automotive industries are also experiencing challenges in terms of among the SSCM practices in the Indian automotive industries
global competition; well-known global giants seek to claim some
of the local market. Indian industries understand that following Fig. 1. Proposed research framework for identifying the prominent SSCM practices
in Indian automotive industries.
the concepts of sustainability will not only help them to thrive in
this healthy competition, but also may provide a competitive edge
(Bouzon et al., 2016). Although the implementation of practices has first, to identify the various SSCM practices followed in automotive
been studied from different perspectives, no work has been done sectors by review of previous literatures from peer reviewed arti-
to find the prominent practices and the inter influences among cles. We analyze practices from multiple stakeholder perspectives.
the practices in a leading sector such as the automotive industry Next we apply DEMATEL, a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
in an emerging economy like India. Once the prominent practices tool to evaluate the inter influences and prominences between the
and their mutual influences with the other common practices are identified practices, and we include responses from governmental,
identified, the shift to SSCM is made easier and much effective. By management, and socially conscious staff. Fig. 1 shows the pro-
Pareto 80/20 principle, it is believed that roughly 80% of the effects posed framework for analyzing the SSCM practices in an Indian
are only based on 20% of causes. Concentrating on the prominent automotive industry.
practices first will automatically increase the chances for success- The remaining paper is structured as follows. Section 2 sum-
ful adoption of SSCM (Diabat and Govindan 2011). By identifying marizes the literature study. It also establishes the research gap
the inter influences between the practices one can develop a suit- addressed in the current study, followed by the problem descrip-
able mapping for thorough implementation of all the practices. tion. An application of the proposed DEMATEL-based framework
Of late the multi-stake holder strategy has gained much impor- is described in Section 3, and we discuss the results obtained from
tance in the field of sustainability since the strategy is cohesion multiple stakeholder perspectives in Section 4. Our conclusions and
of resources, market-based perspectives and ethical values, which the managerial implications, along with limitations of the present
in concurrence with the SSCM strategy. Hence, there is a need to study and future scope, are presented in Section 5 and Section 6
investigate SSCM practices in these industries from a multi stake- respectively.
holder perspective. For any firm, the three main stakeholders are
(1) the government who pose the standards, rules and regulations, 2. Literature review
(2) the society on whose demand the goods are produced and who
comprise the end consumers of the products, and (3) the inter- This literature review section is divided into three subsections.
nal stakeholders and managers who decide what is done within In the first sub section, we provide a brief understanding of what a
the organization. The views of all three categories of stakeholders SSCM is by trying to point out some of its various widely accepted
are considered in the current study. Although their views may dif- definitions from previous publications. This will provide a brief
fer, the main motto of sustainability is a common function among introduction to what SSCM is and how it is understood by the aca-
them for assessing the real situation. Hence, the prominent prac- demicians and the industrialists over the years. The next subsection
tices based on their views are to be found for better understanding gives an outline of the various investigations published in reference
and easier implementation of SSCM. to the SSCM practices in accordance with automotive industries.
The research questions we pursue include what are the SSCM This provides the base for identifying the research gap for the cur-
practices that can be identified and incorporated in automotive rent study which is explained in the third sub section.
firms to achieve sustainable performance?, what are the categories
to which they belong?, and what are the inter influences and promi- 2.1. Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
nence among these practices? Identifying and categorizing these
practices to build a framework model is just like building a theory SSCM is an area of research which has seen remarkable growth
towards sustainable supply chain management; proper evalua- over the last few years, evidenced by a dramatic increase in the
tion of the model is necessary (Wacker, 2004). This work intends, number of publications in this field (Seuring and Müller, 2008).
286 D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305
More than 300 research articles were published in the last 15 enhance ecological health, follow ethical standards to further social
years or so on the topics of green and sustainable supply chain justice, and improve economic vitality; and (2) they must prioritize
management (Seuring, 2013). Initial efforts focused on improv- the environment first, society second, and economics third.”
ing economic aspects of the supply chain, followed by introducing Over the last few years there is a steady growth in the number of
green/environmental practices into the supply chains, and result- research studies carried out in the area of SSCM (Beske and Seuring,
ing in an evolution of green supply chain management (Sarkis, 2014). Carter and Rogers (2008) proposed a framework summariz-
2003; Govindan et al., 2015c). According to Srivastava (2007), green ing SSCM practices and the pre-requisites for implementing those
supply chain management is “integrating environmental thinking practices through case studies. Walker and Preuss (2008) identi-
into supply chain management, including product design, material fied different barriers to the practice of sustainability. Researchers
sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes, delivery of the investigated the affordability of SSCM practices and found that a
final products to the consumers, and end-of-life management of firm’s lack of proper managerial time is a bigger factor than the
the product after its useful life.” Thus, green supply chains mainly lack of financial resources. Svensson (2007) classified supply chains
focus on greening the supply chain and the associated benefits as first, second, and nth -order supply chains based on the prac-
of doing so (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). The concept of globalization tices implemented. Pagell and Wu (2009) constructed a case study
and the evolution of corporate social responsibilities fueled the model categorizing SSCM practices to discover the uniqueness
inclusion of social aspects into the more typical environmental con- of companies following SSCM practices in achieving competitive
cerns of supply chains (Govindan et al., 2014b). When supply chain advantage. Vachon and Klassen (2008) classified the upstream and
management equally incorporates the three pillars of sustainabil- downstream collaboration activities among the supply chain part-
ity – economy, environment, and society – the term Sustainable ners using SSCM practices. Gold et al. (2010) proposed that when
Supply Chain Management (SSCM) is used (Elkington, 1998). Fur- striving for sustainability, a firm and its supply chain should both
ther, Seuring and Müller (2008) define SSCM as “the management possess all the requisite internal resources to implement SSCM
of material, information and capital flows as well as coopera- practices. Ageron et al. (2012) proposed a conceptual model for
tion among companies along the supply chain while taking goals SSCM explaining the reasons, characteristics, and barriers for adop-
from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e. eco- tion of SSCM through SSCM practices. Beske (2012) constructed a
nomic, environmental and social, into account which are derived framework integrating SSCM practices and dynamic capabilities by
from customer and stakeholder requirements.”Various other def- a critical analysis of literature. Morali and Searcy (2013) focused
initions are found for SSCM in the previous literature and we on SSCM practices followed in Canadian industries and addressed
highlight a few below. Lerberg Jorgensen and Steen Knudsen (2006) the challenges faced during its implementation for achieving sus-
defined SSCM as a “means by which companies manage their social tainability. Zailani et al. (2012) investigated the positive outcomes
responsibilities across dislocated production processes spanning achieved by implementing SSCM practices on a firm’s economic and
organizational and geographical boundaries.” Carter and Rogers social performance through a factor analysis based on survey data
(2008) defined SSCM based on the triple bottom line approach, risk obtained from over 400 manufacturing firms in Malaysia. Glover
management, transparency, strategy, and culture as “the strate- et al. (2014) examined the extent of SSCM practices implemented in
gic, transparent integration and achievement of an organization’s the food industry based on Institutional Theory. Pressures that force
social, environmental, and economic goals in the systemic coordi- the firms to adopt sustainable practices in their business strategies
nation of key inter-organizational business processes for improving were also investigated. Govindan et al. (2014a) analyzed the impact
the long-term economic performance of the individual company of SSCM practices using a three-dimensional deductive research
and its supply chains.”Broadly, SSCM is one that adds sustainabil- based approach; they considered the three dimensions of sustain-
ity to the existing SCM processes; it is a balanced and integrated ability through lean, resilient, and green supply chain management
consideration of the social, environmental, and economic impacts paradigms. Beske et al. (2014) critically analyzed SSCM practices
of business (Font et al., 2008). Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010) associated with the food industry and summarized how the prac-
gave a pictorial representation of “House of Sustainable Supply tices allow companies to gain control over their supply chain and
Chain Management” that depicts the three dimensions of sustain- to achieve a competitive advantage. Jia et al. (2015a) analyzed
ability as the pillars of SSCM which keep the house in balance. and identified dominant SSCM practices in the mining and min-
Wittstruck and Teuteberg (2012) stated that SSCM is nothing but eral industries using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). Wu
the inclusion of environmental and social aspects into one’s tradi- et al. (2016) proposed a comprehensive and quantitative method
tional supply chain management. The conversion of a traditional to understand the concept of SSCM and to assess its performance.
economy-based supply chain management into SSCM involves the Dubey et al. (2016) highlighted alternative methods research for
adoption of certain practices (Linton et al., 2007). Many definitions SSCM by providing a conceptual framework that explores SSCM
and explanations for SSCM co-exist in previous literature; the pri- drivers and their relationships. Esfahbodi et al. (2016a) address the
mary concurrences in SSCM research are the SSCM practices. trade-offs between environmental and cost performance in SSCM
especially in emerging economies. Ahmad et al. (2016a) reviewed
2.2. SSCM practices corporate sustainability reporting practices in accordance to SSCM
in the oil and gas industry. Ahmad et al. (2016b) focused on the
How does one transform an existing supply chain into a sus- challenges in relation to the SSCM practices in industries. Esfahbodi
tainable one? How do firms attain a competitive edge over their et al. (2016b) summarized the role of governance in the adop-
competitors without compromising the environmental and societal tion of SSCM practices and investigated the performance gains of
aspects? How do firms achieve a high degree of social and envi- an organization with regard to both environment and economy.
ronmental performance? What is the best way for a firm to deal Hussain et al. (2016) provided a comprehensive framework on sus-
with potentially catastrophic changes in market trends introduced tainability measurement with a practical approach for measuring
by foreign investors? Automotive industries in India face all these and implementing SSCM practices in Arab countries.
questions due to modernization, globalization, and increased envi- It is thus clear that many researchers have focused on the need
ronmental awareness (Govindan et al., 2016a; Zailani et al., 2017). for implementation of SSCM in firms, the benefits of adopting SSCM
The answer to all these questions is the recommendation to adopt practices, and the impact of those practices on a firm’s perfor-
SSCM practices. SSCM practices, according to Markman and Krause mance (Jia et al., 2015c; Luthra et al., 2017). Firms generally realize
(2016), are “a function of two inseparable principles: (1) they must the importance of shifting from traditional supply chains to SSCM
Table 1
List of Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices in automotive industries.
Sl.No. Practices Explanation Sources
Management category
1 Triple bottom-line approach (P1) Equal importance to all three dimensions of Beske et al. (2014); Beske and Seuring (2014); Dyllick and
sustainability in strategic decision making Hockerts (2002); Zubir et al. (2012); Gimenez and Tachizawa
(2012); Koplin et al. (2007); Linton et al. (2007); Matos and
Hall (2007); Nikolaou et al. (2013); Pagell and Wu (2009);
Seuring and Müller (2008); Zailani et al. (2012)
2 Supply Chain orientation (P2) Considering the sustainability aspects in whole Beske and Seuring (2014); Beske et al. (2014); Carter and Liane
supply chain for decision making Easton (2011), Pagell and Wu (2009); Sarkis (2001); Seuring
and Müller (2008)
3 Reverse logistics, using Product recovery reuse, recycle and remanufacturing Brandenburg et al. (2014); Carter and Rogers (2008); Guide
techniques (P3) (2000); Inderfurth et al. (2001); Lin (2013); Nagalingam et al.
(2013)
4 Management commitment (P4) Commitment to SSCM from top and middle Jia et al. (2015a); Rostamzadeh et al. (2015); Shaharudin et al.
level managers (2015)
Supplier category
5 Environmental purchasing (P5) Purchasing greener raw materials Carter et al. (2000); Miemczyk et al. (2012); Walton and
Handfield (1998); Zhu et al. (2013)
6 Standards and Certifications (P6) Adhering to environmental and social Beske and Seuring (2014); Diabat et al. (2014); Giunipero et al.
standards of the society (2012); Jia et al. (2015a); Handfield et al. (2005); Walton et al.
(1998)
7 Auditing suppliers (P7) ensuring that sustainability standards are met Igarashi et al. (2013); Jia et al. (2015a,b,c); Handfield et al.
in every order (2005)
8 Green packaging (P8) Minimum use of resources along with Carter and Liane Easton (2011); El-Berishy et al. (2013); Faccio
renewable raw materials used for packaging et al. (2014); Gupta and Kumar (2013); Jia et al. (2015a,b,c);
Govindasamy (2010); Winkler (2011); Zailani et al. (2012)
Collaboration category
9 Long term relationships (P9) Collaborative development of products and Ashby et al. (2012); Beske and Seuring (2014); Beske et al.
processes through long term relationships (2014); Gold et al. (2010); Miemczyk et al. (2012); Pagell and
with the supply chain partners Wu (2009); Ziggers and Trienekens (1999)
10 Collaborating with suppliers (P10) to produce environment friendly products Attaran and Attaran (2007); Carter and Rogers (2008);
Sacaluga and Froján (2014)
11 SC Partner Development (P11) cooperation between suppliers and Bidault et al. (1998); Fossas-Olalla et al. (2010); Gold et al.
manufacturers in product development (2010); Ziggers and Trienekens (1999)
relationship
12 Joint development (P12) Improving sustainable performance through Beske and Seuring (2014); Beske et al. (2014); Chen and
collaboration Paulraj (2004); Burgess et al. (2006)
13 Logistical integration (P13) direct involvement of a company with its Beske and Seuring (2014); Beske et al. (2014); Skjoett-Larsen
suppliers and customers in planning and et al. (2003); Vachon and Klassen (2008)
forecasting
14 Technological integration (P14) Collaboration to enhance sustainability Beske and Seuring (2014); Beske et al. (2014); Croom et al.
performance (2000); Power (2005)
Design category
15 Design of products to reduce waste and Cost effective design produced by minimum Ashby et al. (2012); Zubir et al. (2012); Govindan et al. (2013);
costs (P15) use of resources Hasan (2013); Li et al. (2014); Guang Shi et al. (2012); Xia et al.
(2015)
16 Redesigning processes for emissions Minimization of emission of harmful gases and Ji et al. (2014); Renukappa et al. (2013); Handfield et al. (2005);
reduction (P16) waste produced during production Sacaluga and Froján (2014); Walton and Handfield (1998)
17 Innovation (P17) Use of technology for increasing efficiency by Beske and Seuring (2014); Carter and Rogers (2008); Zubir
interpreting shared knowledge on buyer et al. (2012); Matos and Hall (2007); Svensson (2007)
behaviors and social trends
Internal practices category
18 Life Cycle Analysis/Assessment (P18) technique to assess environmental impacts Beske and Seuring (2014); Beske et al. (2014); Brandenburg
associated with all the stages of a product’s life et al. (2014); Egilmez et al. (2014); Gold et al. (2010); Ji et al.
from cradle to grave (2014); Matos and Hall (2007); Singh et al. (2014); Srivastava
(2007)
19 Effective use of by-products (P19) Use of the secondary products efficiently Bansal and McKnight (2009); Carter and Rogers (2008);
Edgeman (2013), Fiksel (2003); Moors (2006); Pagell and Wu
(2009); Zhang et al. (2013)
20 Enhanced Communication (P20) More transparent communication brings Beske and Seuring (2014); Matos and Hall (2007)
visibility and effectiveness in SSCM
21 Use of cleaner process technology (P21) process involved in production is made Dubey et al. (2016); Zubir et al. (2012); Sangwan and Mittal
pollution and waste free (2016); Seuring and Müller (2008)
Society Category
22 Cooperation with customers (P22) for eco design and green packaging Bidault et al. (1998); Fossas-Olalla et al. (2010)
23 Environmental awareness training (P23) Train management, employee and the Igarashi et al. (2013); Jia et al. (2015a); Lozano (2013); Wei
community about sustainable environmental et al. (2007)
practices.
24 Measurement and reward systems linked Encouraging employees by proving incentives Koplin et al. (2007); Pagell and Wu (2009)
to sustainability (P24)
25 Worker safety and human rights (P25) Implementing and following the safety aspects Carter and Rogers (2008); Kleindorfer et al. (2005)
and laws of the governments regarding
employment
Table 2
Initial Direct Relation Matrix − Management perspective.(For interpretation of the references to colour in the Table legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
Pracce P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25
P1 0 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2
P2 2 0 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3
P3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 2
P4 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 3 3
P5 2 2 2 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 2
P6 3 2 2 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
P7 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
P8 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
P9 2 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 2 0
P10 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
P11 2 2 3 0 2 2 3 2 3 3 0 3 4 4 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 0
P12 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
P13 0 2 3 2 3 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
P14 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 0 2 2
P15 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 3 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
P16 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 3 2 3 3 3
P17 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0
P18 2 1 3 0 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0
P19 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
P20 0 3 2 0 0 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3
P21 0 0 2 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 2
P22 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P23 2 0 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 3
P24 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 0 3
P25 2 2 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 2 3 2 2 0 0
Table 3
Initial Direct Relation Matrix − Government perspective.(For interpretation of the references to colour in the Table legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
P1 0 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2
P2 2 0 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3
P3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 2
P4 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 3 3
P5 2 2 2 0 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 2
P6 3 3 2 3 3 0 3 3 2 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
P7 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
P8 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
P9 2 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 2 0
P10 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
P11 2 2 3 0 2 2 3 2 3 3 0 3 4 4 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 0
P12 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
P13 0 2 3 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
P14 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 0 2 2
P15 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 3 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
P16 0 2 0 0 2 3 3 3 2 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 2 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3
P17 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0
P18 2 1 3 0 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0
P19 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P20 0 3 2 0 0 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3
P21 0 3 2 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 3
P22 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P23 2 0 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 3
P24 2 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 0 3
P25 2 2 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 2 3 2 2 0 0
by adopting SSCM practices and they understand the advantages the nation’s GDP and economy. The sector has begun to address the
gained by doing so. Industries have initiated various activities for need for improving environmental and the social performances by
implementing SSCM (Dehghanian et al., 2011). In a country like orienting themselves towards SSCM practices. Because these prac-
India, the automotive sector is one of the biggest contributors to tices are correlated with one another, it is important to inspect
Table 4
Initial Direct Relation Matrix − Societal perspective.(For interpretation of the references to colour in the Table legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
P1 0 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
P2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
P3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 2
P4 3 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
P5 2 2 2 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 2
P6 3 2 2 3 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
P7 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
P8 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
P9 2 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 2 0
P10 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0
P11 2 2 3 0 2 2 3 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 0
P12 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
P13 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
P14 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 2 2 2 2 3 0 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2
P15 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 3 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
P16 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 3 2 3 3 3
P17 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0
P18 2 1 3 0 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0
P19 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
P20 0 3 2 0 0 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3
P21 0 0 2 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 2 2
P22 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P23 2 0 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 3
P24 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 2 0 3
P25 2 3 0 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 0
the inter influences (Govindan and Chaudhuri, 2016; Govindan providing the prominence and influential relationship between
and Jepsen, 2016). There is no existing literature which analyses SSCM practices and by evaluating them from multiple stakeholder
the inter influences between SSCM practices in an Indian automo- perspectives. We utilized a questionnaire survey with respon-
tive industry context with multiple stakeholder perspectives. The dents from South India who are industrial experts, academicians,
present study focuses on these voids by seeking a judicial plan for social activists, and environmental scientists. The highlights of the
successful implementation of SSCM practices; we determine the research are as follows:
practices that must be concentrated on in order to achieve com-
petitive advantages through a multi stakeholder approach based • Identifying the SSCM practices through literature survey of pre-
MCDM technique. The study intends to identify the common SSCM vious publications
practices followed in automotive sector through a literature sur- • Proposing a framework to analyze SSCM practices in an Indian
vey and to understand the prominence relationship among the automotive sector on a multi stakeholder perspective using
practices using DEMATEL method. The following Table 1. DEMATEL tool
Step 3: To find the Total Relation Matrix Eq. (4) is used and the • Validating prominent SSCM practices identified from the study
resulting matrices for each case are shown in detail in Tables 8–10 through feedback from experts, industrial managers, and existing
shows the list of 25 SSCM practices along with their explanations literature
identified from the existing literature. Keywords such as SSCM;
SSCM practices; best practices; sustainable supply chain man- 3. Methodology
agement; sustainable supply chain management practices; supply
chain practices were used as data inputs in the scopus based search The first step is to identify the common SSCM practices through
to identify these practices. The inter influences are analyzed from a literature review. The next step is to analyze SSCM practices
three perspectives; namely management; government; and soci- from multi stakeholder perspectives using DEMATEL. The ques-
etal stakeholders; they are the integral and core elements of any tionnaire was directed to multiple stakeholders of the automotive
decision making in the industries. Including these stakeholders industry, and responses were collected from e-mail conversations,
helps one to understand the commonalities and differences in their telephonic enquiries, and direct meetings. From the stakeholders’
views and provides a multi-dimensional approach to address the replies, an initial relationship matrix was constructed to evaluate
current study. the SSCM practices with the DEMATEL tool. Here, we analyze the
SSCM practices for each stakeholder group individually to find the
2.3. Research gap similarities and differences in the views of each group. Finally, to
identify the mandatory practices from the full list, we provide a
It is observed from the above literature study that SSCM prac- comparison between the combined stakeholder perspectives and
tices play an important role in helping firms to achieve competitive the individual perspectives from the results obtained.
advantages. Previous research has identified the various SSCM The solution methodology we apply to identify the prominences
practices, explored their impact on the firm’s performance, and and the inter influences among the SSCM practices is DEMATEL,
provided necessary validating proofs of their advantages. But from a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) tool. This tool analy-
an automotive industry perspective, specifically from an Indian ses the inter influences among complex criteria (Jia et al., 2015b;
scenario, the prominence and influences of each SSCM practice Govindan et al., 2015b) by simplifying problems; it provides a map
have not been explored. This paper seeks to bridge the gap by of the interrelationships based on the opinions of the respondents
290
Table 5
D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

Normalized Relation Matrix − Management perspective.
Practice P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25
P1 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034
P2 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.017 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.051
P3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034
P4 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051
P5 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034
P6 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051
P7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034
P8 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051
P9 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.000
P10 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000
P11 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.068 0.068 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.017 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.000
P12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P13 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P14 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.000 0.034 0.034
P15 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P16 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051
P17 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P18 0.034 0.017 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000
P19 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.017 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P20 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051
P21 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.034
P22 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P23 0.034 0.000 0.051 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051
P24 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.000 0.051
P25 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.034 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.051 0.034 0.000 0.034 0.051 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000
Table 6

Normalized Relation Matrix − Government perspective.
P1 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.032
P2 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.016 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.048
P3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.032
P4 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048
P5 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032
P6 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
P7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032
P8 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048
P9 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.000
P10 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000
P11 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.065 0.065 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.016 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.000
P12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P13 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P14 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.000 0.032 0.032
P15 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P16 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
P17 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P18 0.032 0.016 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000
P19 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.016 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P20 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
P21 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.048
P22 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P23 0.032 0.000 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048
P24 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.048
P25 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.032 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.048 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.048 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000
291
292
Table 7

Normalized Relation Matrix − Societal perspective.
P1 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.018 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035
P2 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.018 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053
P3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.035
P4 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035
P5 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035
P6 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053
P7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035
P8 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053
P9 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.000
P10 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000
P11 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.018 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.000
P12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P13 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P14 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.035
P15 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P16 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053
P17 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P18 0.035 0.018 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000
P19 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.018 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P20 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053
P21 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035
P22 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
P23 0.035 0.000 0.053 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.053
P24 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.000 0.053
P25 0.035 0.053 0.000 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.035 0.035 0.053 0.000
Table 8

Total Relation Matrix − Management perspective.
P1 0.033 0.069 0.116 0.056 0.091 0.118 0.113 0.104 0.073 0.081 0.094 0.060 0.078 0.100 0.091 0.096 0.097 0.101 0.094 0.085 0.101 0.107 0.100 0.077 0.088
P2 0.065 0.036 0.099 0.041 0.089 0.116 0.113 0.087 0.090 0.098 0.095 0.093 0.078 0.099 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.099 0.092 0.086 0.098 0.108 0.083 0.075 0.101
P3 0.020 0.023 0.049 0.015 0.034 0.073 0.040 0.034 0.059 0.064 0.062 0.030 0.081 0.093 0.040 0.043 0.095 0.092 0.090 0.084 0.043 0.087 0.082 0.061 0.064
P4 0.086 0.091 0.122 0.028 0.114 0.126 0.105 0.095 0.096 0.106 0.102 0.100 0.102 0.124 0.110 0.116 0.072 0.074 0.068 0.093 0.122 0.102 0.107 0.100 0.112
P5 0.052 0.052 0.067 0.013 0.033 0.090 0.086 0.080 0.022 0.058 0.024 0.020 0.020 0.036 0.033 0.037 0.032 0.073 0.082 0.060 0.086 0.033 0.030 0.023 0.066
P6 0.085 0.072 0.104 0.072 0.113 0.076 0.118 0.110 0.072 0.082 0.079 0.045 0.046 0.104 0.115 0.120 0.102 0.125 0.117 0.085 0.126 0.111 0.105 0.096 0.110
P7 0.017 0.018 0.028 0.011 0.072 0.077 0.030 0.025 0.051 0.055 0.053 0.051 0.019 0.026 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.074 0.024 0.057 0.027 0.025 0.023 0.017 0.053
P8 0.047 0.016 0.024 0.009 0.059 0.062 0.026 0.024 0.012 0.015 0.015 0.012 0.011 0.056 0.058 0.061 0.026 0.063 0.028 0.018 0.081 0.023 0.022 0.017 0.072
P9 0.054 0.057 0.099 0.050 0.037 0.046 0.076 0.069 0.036 0.090 0.087 0.087 0.090 0.098 0.037 0.039 0.047 0.042 0.037 0.091 0.039 0.094 0.068 0.065 0.038
P10 0.009 0.012 0.057 0.008 0.016 0.021 0.053 0.050 0.051 0.021 0.052 0.051 0.053 0.057 0.015 0.016 0.023 0.019 0.016 0.055 0.016 0.071 0.016 0.015 0.017
P11 0.061 0.066 0.117 0.023 0.086 0.098 0.112 0.085 0.091 0.100 0.048 0.095 0.113 0.132 0.088 0.091 0.112 0.083 0.093 0.104 0.094 0.107 0.095 0.075 0.053
P12 0.013 0.017 0.029 0.043 0.021 0.057 0.059 0.020 0.055 0.058 0.057 0.023 0.056 0.061 0.022 0.023 0.056 0.023 0.020 0.059 0.022 0.026 0.020 0.019 0.020
P13 0.018 0.053 0.082 0.045 0.075 0.066 0.066 0.027 0.059 0.064 0.061 0.058 0.027 0.034 0.023 0.025 0.028 0.029 0.026 0.064 0.027 0.031 0.026 0.023 0.027
P14 0.016 0.022 0.077 0.012 0.032 0.040 0.039 0.032 0.056 0.062 0.060 0.060 0.063 0.043 0.070 0.073 0.093 0.090 0.088 0.081 0.073 0.086 0.032 0.058 0.061
P15 0.017 0.050 0.034 0.009 0.081 0.069 0.068 0.062 0.018 0.023 0.053 0.019 0.018 0.067 0.035 0.069 0.080 0.074 0.086 0.026 0.090 0.027 0.025 0.021 0.029
P16 0.021 0.053 0.040 0.015 0.073 0.079 0.073 0.068 0.019 0.026 0.023 0.056 0.022 0.073 0.074 0.045 0.076 0.083 0.077 0.029 0.099 0.066 0.079 0.075 0.086
P17 0.011 0.018 0.082 0.008 0.028 0.034 0.034 0.026 0.019 0.038 0.039 0.037 0.054 0.069 0.081 0.082 0.035 0.085 0.084 0.073 0.083 0.029 0.027 0.022 0.025
P18 0.052 0.037 0.088 0.013 0.089 0.080 0.091 0.069 0.020 0.025 0.025 0.022 0.022 0.043 0.090 0.091 0.088 0.051 0.095 0.029 0.097 0.031 0.080 0.027 0.037
P19 0.011 0.013 0.057 0.007 0.026 0.061 0.059 0.022 0.013 0.016 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.076 0.076 0.078 0.044 0.082 0.032 0.019 0.080 0.023 0.022 0.018 0.023
P20 0.027 0.079 0.091 0.022 0.048 0.089 0.101 0.077 0.087 0.094 0.091 0.092 0.093 0.107 0.080 0.085 0.108 0.058 0.051 0.050 0.056 0.101 0.091 0.086 0.095
P21 0.022 0.022 0.072 0.013 0.090 0.096 0.089 0.085 0.019 0.025 0.023 0.021 0.020 0.089 0.090 0.093 0.045 0.101 0.095 0.028 0.051 0.083 0.064 0.059 0.071
P22 0.004 0.003 0.059 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.055 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.059 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.011 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.008
P23 0.062 0.032 0.105 0.053 0.105 0.114 0.105 0.095 0.031 0.040 0.037 0.066 0.067 0.107 0.106 0.111 0.106 0.118 0.110 0.045 0.117 0.048 0.045 0.086 0.101
P24 0.019 0.022 0.077 0.015 0.072 0.078 0.043 0.037 0.021 0.058 0.025 0.056 0.057 0.076 0.090 0.094 0.095 0.099 0.096 0.032 0.099 0.084 0.065 0.026 0.083
P25 0.054 0.056 0.040 0.047 0.069 0.090 0.040 0.037 0.021 0.026 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.038 0.039 0.090 0.086 0.074 0.039 0.060 0.092 0.067 0.066 0.029 0.036
293
294
Table 9

Total Relation Matrix − Government perspective.
P1 0.032 0.072 0.089 0.055 0.081 0.107 0.104 0.096 0.070 0.076 0.090 0.069 0.071 0.093 0.085 0.083 0.087 0.090 0.084 0.077 0.086 0.098 0.091 0.069 0.081
P2 0.062 0.041 0.089 0.040 0.079 0.105 0.104 0.080 0.086 0.092 0.091 0.085 0.072 0.092 0.082 0.082 0.087 0.089 0.082 0.079 0.084 0.100 0.075 0.068 0.094
P3 0.019 0.025 0.043 0.016 0.028 0.066 0.036 0.030 0.055 0.060 0.058 0.026 0.075 0.087 0.037 0.035 0.087 0.084 0.082 0.078 0.034 0.081 0.075 0.056 0.059
P4 0.082 0.095 0.110 0.029 0.102 0.114 0.096 0.088 0.092 0.099 0.098 0.076 0.093 0.116 0.103 0.103 0.063 0.065 0.059 0.084 0.107 0.094 0.097 0.092 0.104
P5 0.048 0.052 0.059 0.011 0.027 0.065 0.078 0.072 0.019 0.053 0.022 0.017 0.017 0.031 0.029 0.028 0.027 0.065 0.073 0.054 0.074 0.028 0.024 0.019 0.059
P6 0.084 0.095 0.098 0.072 0.106 0.071 0.113 0.106 0.074 0.096 0.096 0.044 0.045 0.118 0.111 0.109 0.097 0.117 0.110 0.082 0.114 0.109 0.099 0.091 0.106
P7 0.015 0.019 0.024 0.011 0.066 0.070 0.026 0.022 0.048 0.052 0.050 0.046 0.017 0.024 0.020 0.020 0.022 0.068 0.020 0.052 0.022 0.022 0.020 0.015 0.049
P8 0.045 0.019 0.020 0.009 0.055 0.057 0.024 0.022 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.011 0.010 0.054 0.054 0.055 0.023 0.058 0.025 0.016 0.074 0.022 0.020 0.015 0.069
P9 0.050 0.057 0.087 0.048 0.029 0.038 0.067 0.062 0.031 0.081 0.064 0.062 0.080 0.088 0.032 0.031 0.038 0.035 0.031 0.081 0.031 0.085 0.060 0.058 0.033
P10 0.008 0.012 0.052 0.007 0.013 0.018 0.049 0.046 0.048 0.018 0.048 0.047 0.049 0.052 0.014 0.014 0.020 0.017 0.014 0.051 0.013 0.066 0.014 0.013 0.015
P11 0.058 0.069 0.105 0.024 0.076 0.088 0.103 0.078 0.087 0.093 0.046 0.087 0.105 0.123 0.082 0.079 0.102 0.073 0.083 0.095 0.081 0.099 0.087 0.069 0.047
P12 0.012 0.017 0.025 0.041 0.017 0.052 0.054 0.018 0.051 0.054 0.053 0.019 0.052 0.057 0.020 0.020 0.051 0.020 0.018 0.055 0.019 0.023 0.017 0.016 0.018
P13 0.015 0.051 0.074 0.043 0.052 0.058 0.059 0.022 0.055 0.059 0.056 0.052 0.024 0.030 0.021 0.020 0.024 0.023 0.021 0.058 0.021 0.027 0.022 0.020 0.023
P14 0.016 0.026 0.070 0.013 0.027 0.036 0.035 0.029 0.055 0.058 0.058 0.055 0.058 0.040 0.066 0.065 0.086 0.082 0.080 0.076 0.063 0.080 0.028 0.053 0.057
P15 0.016 0.052 0.029 0.009 0.074 0.063 0.063 0.057 0.018 0.021 0.052 0.017 0.016 0.063 0.032 0.061 0.074 0.067 0.079 0.023 0.079 0.025 0.022 0.019 0.027
P16 0.028 0.065 0.046 0.021 0.075 0.097 0.093 0.088 0.058 0.034 0.063 0.060 0.029 0.096 0.093 0.046 0.080 0.085 0.079 0.036 0.097 0.088 0.081 0.077 0.089
P17 0.011 0.021 0.075 0.008 0.024 0.031 0.031 0.024 0.020 0.036 0.038 0.034 0.051 0.065 0.077 0.074 0.031 0.078 0.077 0.068 0.073 0.027 0.024 0.020 0.023
P18 0.049 0.039 0.080 0.012 0.080 0.071 0.084 0.063 0.019 0.023 0.025 0.019 0.019 0.039 0.082 0.064 0.079 0.043 0.086 0.026 0.083 0.028 0.073 0.023 0.033
P19 0.009 0.013 0.049 0.006 0.018 0.051 0.050 0.016 0.012 0.013 0.016 0.011 0.011 0.067 0.067 0.049 0.037 0.070 0.023 0.015 0.021 0.017 0.015 0.013 0.016
P20 0.027 0.082 0.083 0.024 0.043 0.084 0.096 0.073 0.084 0.089 0.089 0.085 0.087 0.103 0.092 0.092 0.101 0.053 0.047 0.045 0.049 0.096 0.085 0.081 0.090
P21 0.025 0.076 0.071 0.017 0.088 0.094 0.089 0.085 0.025 0.029 0.029 0.024 0.022 0.090 0.089 0.088 0.045 0.098 0.091 0.030 0.046 0.084 0.064 0.058 0.087
P22 0.004 0.003 0.055 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.052 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.008 0.008 0.055 0.011 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.007
P23 0.059 0.038 0.095 0.053 0.094 0.103 0.096 0.088 0.030 0.037 0.037 0.060 0.062 0.100 0.097 0.081 0.096 0.106 0.099 0.040 0.101 0.043 0.039 0.078 0.093
P24 0.058 0.083 0.083 0.068 0.076 0.086 0.052 0.045 0.032 0.067 0.038 0.062 0.063 0.084 0.096 0.095 0.097 0.100 0.097 0.039 0.098 0.092 0.070 0.033 0.090
P25 0.051 0.058 0.035 0.045 0.063 0.084 0.037 0.034 0.022 0.025 0.026 0.021 0.021 0.037 0.037 0.081 0.080 0.067 0.035 0.056 0.083 0.063 0.061 0.026 0.033
Table 10

Total Relation Matrix − Societal perspective.
P1 0.035 0.073 0.103 0.058 0.096 0.126 0.102 0.115 0.074 0.082 0.079 0.061 0.080 0.103 0.101 0.102 0.100 0.106 0.100 0.087 0.106 0.110 0.091 0.085 0.092
P2 0.069 0.040 0.104 0.043 0.096 0.111 0.104 0.099 0.093 0.085 0.098 0.097 0.084 0.106 0.101 0.102 0.102 0.106 0.101 0.091 0.106 0.095 0.092 0.087 0.107
P3 0.023 0.028 0.056 0.018 0.041 0.086 0.049 0.046 0.063 0.069 0.067 0.034 0.089 0.101 0.051 0.052 0.103 0.102 0.099 0.091 0.051 0.094 0.093 0.072 0.072
P4 0.083 0.071 0.094 0.024 0.107 0.104 0.096 0.094 0.073 0.080 0.077 0.076 0.078 0.096 0.091 0.092 0.060 0.064 0.059 0.084 0.096 0.091 0.085 0.082 0.088
P5 0.056 0.057 0.072 0.014 0.039 0.098 0.093 0.089 0.025 0.061 0.027 0.023 0.023 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.037 0.081 0.091 0.064 0.094 0.036 0.035 0.031 0.071
P6 0.091 0.079 0.112 0.076 0.125 0.089 0.129 0.111 0.076 0.086 0.083 0.049 0.051 0.113 0.130 0.132 0.111 0.137 0.130 0.093 0.137 0.119 0.117 0.110 0.119
P7 0.019 0.021 0.032 0.013 0.078 0.084 0.036 0.030 0.055 0.059 0.056 0.054 0.022 0.030 0.028 0.029 0.029 0.080 0.029 0.061 0.031 0.028 0.027 0.023 0.058
P8 0.051 0.020 0.028 0.011 0.067 0.071 0.033 0.033 0.014 0.017 0.016 0.014 0.015 0.062 0.067 0.069 0.030 0.070 0.035 0.021 0.088 0.027 0.028 0.025 0.079
P9 0.058 0.062 0.105 0.053 0.042 0.057 0.083 0.081 0.039 0.095 0.092 0.092 0.097 0.106 0.045 0.046 0.052 0.049 0.043 0.097 0.045 0.100 0.077 0.073 0.043
P10 0.011 0.014 0.062 0.009 0.019 0.028 0.058 0.058 0.055 0.023 0.056 0.055 0.058 0.061 0.020 0.020 0.026 0.023 0.019 0.059 0.020 0.076 0.021 0.019 0.020
P11 0.066 0.072 0.123 0.026 0.093 0.111 0.120 0.099 0.096 0.104 0.051 0.100 0.104 0.124 0.099 0.100 0.102 0.090 0.100 0.109 0.102 0.113 0.108 0.086 0.059
P12 0.016 0.020 0.035 0.047 0.026 0.067 0.066 0.028 0.060 0.063 0.062 0.027 0.079 0.084 0.028 0.029 0.062 0.029 0.025 0.066 0.028 0.031 0.027 0.025 0.024
P13 0.018 0.054 0.066 0.047 0.060 0.068 0.068 0.029 0.061 0.064 0.062 0.060 0.028 0.034 0.026 0.026 0.028 0.029 0.027 0.066 0.027 0.031 0.028 0.025 0.027
P14 0.031 0.037 0.118 0.024 0.060 0.123 0.066 0.111 0.070 0.078 0.076 0.076 0.097 0.070 0.118 0.119 0.120 0.122 0.101 0.100 0.105 0.108 0.107 0.101 0.088
P15 0.020 0.054 0.039 0.010 0.088 0.079 0.074 0.071 0.020 0.025 0.056 0.022 0.022 0.073 0.042 0.077 0.086 0.081 0.094 0.029 0.098 0.031 0.032 0.028 0.034
P16 0.025 0.059 0.047 0.017 0.083 0.092 0.083 0.081 0.023 0.029 0.027 0.061 0.028 0.082 0.087 0.055 0.084 0.093 0.088 0.034 0.109 0.072 0.090 0.087 0.094
P17 0.014 0.021 0.088 0.010 0.033 0.043 0.040 0.034 0.022 0.042 0.042 0.040 0.060 0.075 0.090 0.090 0.039 0.092 0.091 0.078 0.090 0.033 0.034 0.029 0.030
P18 0.056 0.041 0.094 0.014 0.097 0.089 0.098 0.077 0.022 0.028 0.027 0.024 0.026 0.048 0.099 0.100 0.094 0.058 0.104 0.033 0.106 0.035 0.087 0.034 0.042
P19 0.013 0.016 0.064 0.008 0.032 0.071 0.065 0.030 0.015 0.018 0.019 0.017 0.017 0.082 0.085 0.086 0.050 0.090 0.037 0.022 0.087 0.027 0.030 0.025 0.027
P20 0.032 0.087 0.100 0.026 0.057 0.105 0.113 0.093 0.093 0.101 0.098 0.100 0.102 0.118 0.095 0.097 0.117 0.068 0.062 0.057 0.065 0.109 0.104 0.101 0.104
P21 0.026 0.027 0.081 0.015 0.100 0.110 0.100 0.099 0.022 0.029 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.098 0.103 0.104 0.052 0.112 0.105 0.034 0.060 0.090 0.075 0.070 0.079
P22 0.005 0.004 0.062 0.002 0.007 0.011 0.006 0.059 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.009 0.013 0.011 0.011 0.062 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.009
P23 0.067 0.038 0.114 0.057 0.117 0.131 0.117 0.112 0.035 0.044 0.041 0.071 0.075 0.117 0.121 0.123 0.116 0.130 0.124 0.051 0.129 0.055 0.056 0.101 0.110
P24 0.023 0.028 0.085 0.017 0.081 0.091 0.052 0.049 0.024 0.064 0.029 0.061 0.064 0.085 0.104 0.105 0.104 0.109 0.107 0.037 0.109 0.092 0.075 0.037 0.091
P25 0.064 0.084 0.057 0.053 0.108 0.117 0.093 0.090 0.029 0.037 0.034 0.034 0.033 0.058 0.096 0.113 0.107 0.100 0.096 0.074 0.118 0.082 0.082 0.094 0.054
295
(Zhu et al., 2011). The DEMATEL method was first developed by the effect that criterion i donates to the system. Criterion i with positive
Science and Human Affairs Program of the Battelle Memorial Insti- D-R values will go to the cause group and when (D-R) is negative,
tute of Geneva; it was designed in 1973 by Fontela and Gabusto criterion i goes to the effect group.
study the complex and interlinked group of problems (Tzeng et al., Step 5: Obtain Causal and Effect Diagram
2007; Wu and Lee, 2007). DEMATEL provides a structural model A causal and effect diagram is obtained by means of plotting the
depicting the relationships between criteria under consideration. (D + R, D-R) values of all the criteria. Thus the procedure for DEMA-
The method divides criteria into two groups − cause and effect − TEL has been explained and the subsequent section deals with the
and visualizes the causal relationships through relationship matri- application of this procedure to the identified problem.
ces and diagraphs (Falatoonitoosi et al., 2013). The present aim
is to explore the prominent SSCM practices in automotive indus- 3.1. Application of the proposed framework
tries. This objective has to be established while considering that a)
these practices are not independent of each other and b) that the 3.1.1. Questionnaire development and data collection
elements of sustainability are not mutually exclusive (Carter and The SSCM practices as a whole were collected from the literature
Rogers, 2008). Hence, techniques such as Analytic Hierarchy Pro- review and we identified that these practices can be categorized
cess can be eliminated because it assumes that the elements are under specific groups on the basis of commonality in their ori-
independent of each other. The prominent practice is to be found entations and functions. The six major categories identified for
from a group of practices, while keeping in mind that they are not the classification are management, supplier, collaboration, design,
independent of each other. For this purpose, we find DEMATEL as internal, and society. Through discussions with industrial experts
an apt tool for the analysis done in the current study. The proce- at managerial levels in the automotive sector, we validated the
dural steps of this method are adopted from Tseng (2009) and are categorization of SSCM practices under these six major groups.
described below. A total tally of 50 experienced personnel from the automotive
Step 1: Finding the Initial Direct Relation (Average) matrix, “A” industries from Tamilnadu, Southern India were contacted through
The experts provide their opinion regarding the influences of the e-mails and face to face meetings to arrive at the conclusion of
practices in terms of numbers based on a 0–4 scalewith ‘0 referring which practices fall under which category. These people are experts
to no influence, ‘1’ to low influence, ‘2’ to medium influence, and in the automotive field and have experience levels of more than
‘3 and ‘4 to high and very high influence, respectively. 10–15 years. From various automotive industries, the respondents
If there are N number of experts and ‘n’ number of criteria con- belonged to different departments, including product support tech-
sidered, then each expert fills a matrix Wk = [wij ]nxn , k = 1 to N, then nology, product manufacturing, Research and Design. We received
the average matrix is calculated as, responses from 33 units and, from these responses, we arrived
with the categorization. The variations in responses created some
A = [aij ]nxn = ( Wk )/N (1) havoc in the categorization process, but with further face to face
personal meetings with the experts, all differences in the opin-
The matrix, A is also called the Initial Direct Relation Matrix,
ions were sorted out and we formulated the final classification and
where, aij is denoted as the degree to which the criterion, ‘i’ affects
explanations through consensus, shown in Table 1.
the criterion. Hence, the Initial Direct Relation matrix indicates the
Once we came up with the final list, a DEMATEL based ques-
initial direct effect each criterion exerts on and receives from other
tionnaire was prepared for the proposed 25 practices. In order to
criteria.
reach multi stakeholder perspectives, we contacted experts in all
Step 2: Obtaining the Normalized Relation Matrix, “X”
three groups in and around Tamilnadu, India, including industrial
The Initial Direct Relation matrix is normalized using a value, S,
managers, government officials, and societal and environmental
which is calculated as follows.
activists. A total of 88 individuals comprising all three stakeholder
S = max{max aij (j = 1, ., n), max aij (i = 1, ., n)} (2) groups were contacted. Some neglected the survey due to busy
work schedules and lack of interest. Finally, we had a sum of 65 units
Normalizedmatrix, X = A/S (3) who responded to our survey. The SSCM practices were explained
All the elements of the normalized matrix lie between 0 and 1. to them and they were asked to rate the influence of practices by
Step 3: Obtaining the Total Relation Matrix, “M” pair-wise comparisons based on the 0–4 scale mentioned above.
The Total Relation Matrix is calculated from the Normalized
Relation Matrix as follows, 3.1.2. Application of DEMATEL
The raw data is obtained from the three stakeholder groups in
M = X(I−X)−1 (4) the form of relation matrices and DEMATEL method is applied as
follows.
where“I” is an identity matrix of order, nxn.
Step 1: Individual responses are combined accordingly into
Step 4: Obtaining the sum of rows and columns
three stakeholder groups (management, government, and soci-
D denotes the sum of the rows of the Total Relation Matrix.
etal/environmental) using Eq. (1). The above par value for each
D = mij ,j = 1, ., n (5) single cell in the matrix is considered to obtain the Initial Direct
Relation matrix for each of the three perspectives and is shown
R denotes the sum of columns of the Total Relation Matrix. below in Tables 2–4.

R = mij , i = 1, ., n (6) Step 2: The Normalized value, S is calculated using Eq. (2), and
the Initial Direct Relation matrix, A is divided throughout by S to
Di shows the net effects, both direct and indirect, given by criterion obtain the Normalized Relation Matrix, X, using Eq. (3).The Normal-
i to the other criteria j = 1, 2, . . ., n. The total effects, direct and ized Relation Matrix for each of the three stakeholder perspectives
indirect, received by criterion j from the other criteria i = 1, 2, . . .,n is shown in Tables 5–7.
is represented by Rj . Step 4: The sums of rows and columns of the Total Relation
As a result, while i = j the sum (D + R) that is called “Prominence” Matrix are obtained using Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) and are shown in
depicts the degree of influence role of criterion ‘i’ in system. The Tables 11–13. The sums of the row values calculate the sum of
index that shows the total effects both given and received by crite- influence given and are denoted as D. The sums of column val-
rion i. The difference, (D-R) that is called “Relation” depicts the net ues give the sum of influence received and are denoted as R. A
Table 11 Table 12
Sum of influences given and received for each criterion − Management Perspec- Sum of influences given and received for each criterion − Government Perspec-
tive.(For interpretation of the references to colour in the Table legend, the reader is tive.(For interpretation of the references to colour in the Table legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.) referred to the web version of this article.)
Pracce D sum R sum D+R D-R Pracce D sum R sum D+R D-R
P1 2.2252 0.8743 3.0995 1.3509 P1 2.0371 0.8827 2.9198 1.1544
P2 2.2184 0.9877 3.2060 1.2307 P2 2.0397 1.1807 3.2204 0.8590
P3 1.4594 1.8145 3.2739 -0.3551 P3 1.3315 1.6466 2.9781 -0.3150
P4 2.4738 0.6288 3.1026 1.8450 P4 2.2593 0.6837 2.9430 1.5756
P5 1.2063 1.5618 2.7681 -0.3555 P5 1.0503 1.4012 2.4516 -0.3509
P6 2.3883 1.8661 4.2543 0.5222 P6 2.3622 1.7163 4.0785 0.6459
P7 0.9040 1.7429 2.6469 -0.8388 P7 0.8212 1.6441 2.4653 -0.8229
P8 0.8579 1.4731 2.3310 -0.6152 P8 0.8014 1.3953 2.1967 -0.5938
P9 1.5725 1.0954 2.6679 0.4771 P9 1.3592 1.1077 2.4668 0.2515
P10 0.7908 1.3298 2.1205 -0.5390 P10 0.7170 1.2860 2.0030 -0.5691
P11 2.2222 1.2529 3.4751 0.9694 P11 2.0415 1.2635 3.3051 0.7780
P12 0.8784 1.1954 2.0738 -0.3169 P12 0.7975 1.0902 1.8878 -0.2927
P13 1.0646 1.2350 2.2996 -0.1704 P13 0.9300 1.1550 2.0850 -0.2251
P14 1.4192 1.8186 3.2377 -0.3994 P14 1.3121 1.7581 3.0702 -0.4460
P15 1.1482 1.5814 2.7295 -0.4332 P15 1.0577 1.5256 2.5833 -0.4679
P16 1.4291 1.7032 3.1323 -0.2741 P16 1.7017 1.4831 3.1848 0.2187
P17 1.1206 1.7265 2.8471 -0.6059 P17 1.0380 1.5888 2.6268 -0.5508
P18 1.3915 1.8234 3.2149 -0.4318 P18 1.2401 1.6631 2.9032 -0.4231
P19 0.9014 1.6502 2.5516 -0.7488 P19 0.6823 1.5042 2.1865 -0.8219
P20 1.9579 1.4224 3.3803 0.5355 P20 1.8832 1.3221 3.2054 0.5611
P21 1.4650 1.8306 3.2956 -0.3655 P21 1.5413 1.5612 3.1026 -0.0199
P22 0.3274 1.5766 1.9040 -1.2493 P22 0.2986 1.5007 1.7993 -1.2021
P23 2.0122 1.3778 3.3900 0.6344 P23 1.8245 1.2685 3.0930 0.5560
P24 1.5185 1.1753 2.6938 0.3432 P24 1.8039 1.0842 2.8881 0.7197
P25 1.2684 1.4778 2.7461 -0.2094 P25 1.1806 1.3992 2.5798 -0.2186
threshold value is set for the elements of Total Relation Matrix in Table 13
order to find the relevant Causal Diagram. The value is taken as Sum of influences given and received for each criterion − Societal Perspective.(For
interpretation of the references to colour in the Table legend, the reader is referred
the (Mean + Standard Deviation) of the Total Relation Matrix. In the to the web version of this article.)
present case, the threshold values are calculated in each case and
the values higher than this in the Total Relation Matrix were con- Pracce D sum R sum D+R D-R
sidered for further analysis of the relationships between practices. P1 2.2664 0.9719 3.2383 1.2946
These values for each perspective are highlighted and shown in P2 2.3188 1.1050 3.4238 1.2139
Total Relation Matrix (Tables 8–10). P3 1.6530 1.9414 3.5945 -0.2884
Step 5: The final step is to obtain the Causal Diagram which is P4 2.0469 0.6950 2.7419 1.3519
an X-Y plot with D + R values representing the prominences taking P5 1.3416 1.7507 3.0923 -0.4090
the x-axis and D-R values representing the relations taking the y- P6 2.6042 2.1606 4.7648 0.4436
P7 1.0126 1.9446 2.9571 -0.9320
axis. By plotting D + R and D-R values in the plot we analyze the
P8 0.9911 1.8198 2.8109 -0.8287
SSCM practices. Tables 11–13 show the D + R and D-R values for
P9 1.7306 1.1639 2.8945 0.5666
each perspective and Figs. 2–4 show the graphical plot, the Causal
P10 0.8889 1.3901 2.2789 -0.5012
Diagram with the degree of prominences and relations. The com-
P11 2.3530 1.3077 3.6607 1.0453
bined results including all three perspectives are represented in
P12 1.0538 1.2797 2.3336 -0.2259
Table 14 and Fig. 5 respectively. P13 1.0600 1.3660 2.4260 -0.3060
P14 2.2272 1.9786 4.2058 0.2485
4. Results and discussions P15 1.2850 1.8773 3.1623 -0.5923
P16 1.6263 1.9218 3.5481 -0.2954
This section reveals the results obtained by using the DEMA- P17 1.2612 1.8712 3.1324 -0.6100
TEL method. The prominence and relations of the corresponding P18 1.5341 2.0354 3.5695 -0.5013
practices are summarized based on Tables 11–13 involving the indi- P19 1.0320 1.8768 2.9088 -0.8448
vidual perspectives. The combined perspective, the average of the P20 2.2065 1.5502 3.7567 0.6564
results obtained of all the individual perspectives, is presented in P21 1.6688 2.0196 3.6884 -0.3508
Table 14. The positive D-R values highlighted in each of the above P22 0.3634 1.6931 2.0565 -1.3296
Tables 11–14 indicate that the practices associated with these val- P23 2.2535 1.6097 3.8632 0.6438
ues are the prominent ones. The values in the tables represent the P24 1.7227 1.4551 3.1778 0.2676
P25 1.9055 1.6223 3.5278 0.2832
horizontal axis point’s values (D + R, the prominence values) and
the vertical axis point’s values (D-R, the relation values) for each of
the practices, and are the base values on which the diagraphs are
obtained. These diagraphs shown in Figs. 2–5 offer a pictorial repre- an interrelationship diagram or Impact Relationship Map because
sentation of the causal and effect relationship among the practices. it depicts the factors and presents the inter influences. The crite-
One can easily identify the prominent practices based on the cause ria having positive D-R values fall under the cause group and the
and effect groups explained in the diagraphs. It is also described as rest form the effect group. The relation between these practices is
Fig. 2. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Management perspective.
depicted by means of arrows. The arrows in the figure represent the 4.1. Multi stakeholder perspective −Similarities and differences
relationship between two practices. The tail of the arrow is gener-
ally at the practice that exerts influence on the other practice; the Prominent practices with high influential effects over the other
head of the arrow is at the practice that is the net receiver of the practices, as found in each category of perspectives, are summa-
influence. The elements in the cause group are the influencing cri- rized in Table 15 below. This table shows the most influential
teria and those in the effect group are the influenced criteria. In the practices in each perspective and the combined results. It can be
following sections we discuss the results under two subsections: seen that practices P1, P2, P4, P6, P9, P11, P20, P23, and P24 fall
(1) the similarities and differences from the multi stakeholder per- in the cause group for all perspectives. In each of the perspec-
spectives, and (2) a comparison of individual results with combined tives,(P4), commitment from the management towards SSCM, gets
perspective results. the highest priority, proving that management commitment to
move forward from old traditional systems and practices is the
first sign of change. Other practices cannot be followed voluntar-
ily without the commitment from the management. The second
Fig. 3. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Government perspective.
item in the list of prioritized practices is (P1), the triple bottom uncommon practices noted. Those specific practices are high-
line approach. The triple bottom line approach ensures that equal lighted in Table 15. The uncommon practices that fall in the causal
importance is given to all three dimensions of sustainability (social, group are (P16), Redesigning processes for emissions reduction-
environmental, and economic) in all strategic decisions to be made activities, which ranked as a higher priority in the governmental
by the company, thereby incorporating sustainability into the foun- perspective, and (P14) and (P25), technological integration and
dation of the organization. Practice (P2), supply chain orientation, worker safety and human rights, which earned higher priority in
scores third in the list. All these three top prioritized practices the societal perspective. These are the practices which failed to
are management-oriented practices. The other common influential make the cut to the influential list in the combined perspective;
practices are P6, P9, P11, P20, P23, and P24. The common practices apparently these practices did not catch the attention of manage-
which fall under the effect group make a slightly longer list. Those ment or government respondents as vital to the shift to SSCM. This
in the effect group are P3, P5, P7, P8, P10, P12, P13, P15, P17, P18, result suggests that management and government stakeholders
P19, and P21. These practices are technically the antecedents of the may prioritize economic benefits over human rights.
causal practices.
The causal group of practices in each perspective features the
same practices as in the other perspectives, but there are a few
Fig. 4. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Societal perspective.
4.2. Comparison of individual perspectives with the combined one of the leading producers of automobiles tries to move towards
stakeholder perspectives SSCM from their own initiative to attain a competitive edge over
other firms. Whereas compliance with mandatory practices, such
Combined stakeholder perspectives are nothing but the aver- as regulations and certifications imposed by the government and by
age of the responses obtained from individual perspectives. From human rights, provides motivation to adopt SSCM practices, ulti-
the combined perspective, practices P1, P2, P4, P6, P9, P11, P20, mately internal practices imposed by the management hold the
P23,and P24 form the nine elements of the cause group that are key to change. Practices such as employing the triple bottom line
similar to the individual perspectives. The most influential practice approach and incorporating supply chain considerations through-
is (P1), commitment from management towards sustainable devel- out all decision making aspects play a pivotal role in influencing the
opment, and the least influential practice is (P22), cooperation with other practices. Hence, these are mandatory practices which are
customers, which coincides among all three perspectives. prerequisites for the successful implementation of other practices.
From this study we infer that although pressures from exter-
nal stakeholders exert influence, change has to come from within
the organization to adopt SSCM practices. In a country like India,
Table 14
Sum of influences given and received for each criterion − Combined Perspective.
Practice D sum R sum D+R D-R
P1 2.2223 0.9584 3.1807 1.2639

P2 2.2798 1.1475 3.4272 1.1323
P3 1.5265 1.8846 3.4111 −0.3581
P4 2.4155 0.6861 3.1017 1.7294
P5 1.2942 1.6252 2.9194 −0.3309
P6 2.5155 1.9623 4.4777 0.5532
P7 0.9442 1.8160 2.7602 −0.8718
P8 0.9097 1.5875 2.4973 −0.6778
P9 1.6092 1.1514 2.7607 0.4578
P10 0.8214 1.3761 2.1975 −0.5547
P11 2.2378 1.3134 3.5512 0.9244
P12 0.9292 1.2338 2.1629 −0.3046
P13 1.0701 1.2740 2.3441 −0.2039
P14 1.6146 1.9132 3.5278 −0.2987
P15 1.2168 1.6890 2.9058 −0.4723
P16 1.6151 1.7622 3.3774 −0.1471
P17 1.1760 1.7821 2.9582 −0.6061
P18 1.4439 1.9155 3.3594 −0.4716
P19 0.9101 1.7097 2.6198 −0.7997
P20 2.0716 1.4707 3.5423 0.6010
P21 1.5982 1.8741 3.4722 −0.2759
P22 0.3405 1.6414 1.9820 −1.3009
P23 2.1151 1.4484 3.5635 0.6667
P24 1.7109 1.2651 2.9760 0.4458
P25 1.4506 1.5510 3.0016 −0.1004
Table 15 which they may gain a competitive advantage over other firms.
Prominent SSCM practices under each perspective.(For interpretation of the refer-
But concentrating effectively on all SSCM practices is practically
ences to colour in the Table legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.) impossible. Hence, it is important to find the most prominent SSCM
practices, especially those that positively influence other prac-
Combined Management Government Societal tices. The prominence and the influences of the 25 practices were
perspective perspective perspective perspective studied using DEMATEL from multi stakeholder perspectives. The
P1 P1 P1 P1 multi stakeholder collaboration is a majorly incorporated element
P2 P2 P2 P2 across the globe and, hence, more attention is based on collab-
P4 P4 P4 P4 oration between the various stakeholders for sustained success
P6 P6 P6 P6 (McComb et al., 2016). Due to the complexity of the data and
P9 P9 P9 P9 due to the availability of only qualitative data, experts from rel-
P11 P11 P11 P11 evant fields in south India were targeted and their opinions were
P20 P20 P16 P14
collected through questionnaire surveys. This study explored the
P23 P23 P20 P20
views of management, government, and societal stakeholders on
P24 P24 P23 P23
SSCM implementation. Although the stakeholders have a difference
P24 P24
in their preferences towards practices, the top practices ranked
P25
in each perspective were the same. The study revealed that for
automotive sectors of India, management commitment, including
supply chain orientation and the triple bottom line approach in
5. Conclusion
all aspects of the supply chain, are the most prominent practices.
These three factors act as driving forces for the remaining prac-
SSCM practices are implemented by automotive industries in
tices to improve sustainability of the firm. By improving the cause
order to achieve sustainability. While stringent policies and govern-
group, the effect group will also be easily improved (Falatoonitoosi
ment regulations of developed nations easily allow firms to adopt
et al., 2013). Hence, these prominent practices should be focused
SSCM practices, industries in an emerging nation like India strug-
upon and maintained accordingly for better implementation of
gle to do the same. They find it difficult to identify the prominent
other practices and for sustainability. All the top practices identified
practices that have high influence over other practices to adopt
are management-related practices in each of the three stakeholder
SSCM. Once those prominent practices are identified and effec-
perspectives and also in the combined perspectives. This finding
tively implemented, they act as enablers for many other practices;
reveals that in emerging nations such as India, the internal commit-
the firm can then follow all the necessary SSCM practices. DEMA-
ment from the management (P4) plays a larger role in identifying
TEL, a well-known MCDM technique, suits this kind of problems
the way forward towards sustainability than governmental rules
where there are inter relationships within the criteria (Jia et al.,
and regulations. The study was mainly focused on the extreme
2015b). This method classifies the relationships between criteria
case, considering the private sectors where management is com-
as influencing and being influenced. DEMATEL is a novel approach
pletely responsible for the firm’s action of implementing the rules
used both to form and to analyze the cause and effect relationship
and regulations proposed by the government, but our results are
between criteria (Yang et al., 2008) and/or to infer the inter rela-
also applicable for general public automotive sectors. In a coun-
tionship among criteria considered (Lin and Tzeng, 2009). From
try like India, the majority of the automotive sectors are owned by
the results obtained from our analysis, we present the follow-
private organizations, and hence it is evident that the results of the
ing conclusions. 25 SSCM practices followed in the automotive
current study can be applied generally to all Indian automotive sec-
industries were identified from the existing literature; all prac-
tices aid the firm in achieving a sustainable supply chain through
Fig. 5. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Combined perspective.
tors. The managerial implications, limitations, and future scope of the implications is identifying the categories under which the prac-
the study are discussed in the following section. tices fall. Once the categories are identified, it helps the managers
to easily identify the performance-based practices which should
be emphasized. DEMATEL, a method to study the relationships
6. Managerial implications among the practices, helps the managers to understand the cause
and effect type of relationships among the SSCM practices. Through
The current study includes managerial level implications by this study, the inter influences between practices for implementa-
exploring dominant SSCM practices in automotive industries in an tion of SSCM are explored, which will help industrial managers to
Indian scenario; it also provides a scientific approach that identi- effectively implement SSCM by concentrating on the most effective
fies and evaluates the inter influences among the SSCM practices. practices. The multi stakeholder view helps to identify what each
The outcome of the study helps managers of automotive industries stakeholder emphasizes, and the collective analysis of all stake-
to identify, prioritize, and adopt appropriate practices for the shift holders’ views provides an in-depth understanding of their views
towards SSCM. The current work classified 25 SSCM practices into while still respecting their varied importance. This study can help as
six main categories and provided insights on their nature. One of a valuable tool to provide useful interpretational information both
for researchers and practitioners and to provide a basis for compa- Brundtland, G.H., 1987. World commission on environment and development. Our
nies trying to introduce and implement SSCM through a wide range Common Future, 383.
Burgess, K., Singh, P.J., Koroglu, R., 2006. Supply chain management: a structured
of practices, especially in a country like India which faces domestic literature review and implications for future research. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
and international pressure in moving towards SSCM. The approach Manage. 26 (7), 703–729.
used in the study provides a kick- start guidance on the effective Carter, C.R., Liane Easton, P., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management:
evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 41 (1),
implementation of SSCM considering the relationships among the 46–62.
practices. Organizations can identify the set of influential practices Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain
and implement them first, and then, introduce the other practices management: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage.
38 (5), 360–387.
in a sequential, step-by-step basis, utilizing the causal and effect
Carter, C.R., Kale, R., Grimm, C.M., 2000. Environmental purchasing and firm
relationship for the best performance. performance: an empirical investigation. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp.
Rev. 36 (3), 219–228.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
7. Limitations and future scope constructs and measurements. J. Oper. Manage. 22 (2), 119–150.
Croom, S., Romano, P., Giannakis, M., 2000. Supply chain management: an
analytical framework for critical literature review. Eur. J. Purch. Supply
In the present study, the inter relationships between SSCM Manage. 6 (1), 67–83.
practices of automotive industries have been studied from multi Delhi, S.I.N., 2015. Automotive mission plan 2016–2026—a curtain raiser. Auto
stakeholder perspectives with the background of an emerging Tech Rev. 10 (4), 18–21.
Dehghanian, F., Mansoor, S., Nazari, M., 2011. A framework for integrated
economy, India. Future research may wish to pursue other emerg- assessment of sustainable supply chain management. Industrial Engineering
ing nations such as Brazil or China, who have not been considered and Engineering Management (IEEM), IEEE International Conference on (pp.
in the present study. This study is based on experts’ opinions. 279-283). IEEE (December).
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the
Its limitations may include that practical implementation has not implementation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
been focused upon, and that this study builds on empirical insights 55 (6), 659–667.
from the judgment of automotive industry experts. There may be Diabat, A., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2014. Analysis of enablers for
implementation of sustainable supply chain management—a textile case. J.
some scale of error in judgment. The other limitation is that the
Clean. Prod. 83, 391–403.
present study evaluates the importance of any practice based on its Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J., Shibin, K.T., Wamba, S.F.,
influence over the other practices. Practices which do not possess 2016. Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research
directions. J. Clean. Prod.
inter influences with other practices may also be vital practices,
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate
so incorporating a networking approach such as ANP and other sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 11 (2), 130–141.
advanced techniques can overcome such limitations (Govindan Edgeman, R., 2013. Sustainable enterprise excellence: towards a framework for
et al., 2016b,c; Hong et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2013). holistic data-analytics. Corp. Gov. 13 (5), 527–540.
Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., Bhutta, M.K.S., 2014. Supply chain
The present study is done on sustainability implementation in sustainability assessment of the US food manufacturing sectors: a life
automotive industries. Future studies may be extended to other cycle-based frontier approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 82, 8–20.
industries in general. The practices implemented in other industry El-Berishy, N., Rügge, I., Scholz-Reiter, B., 2013. The interrelation between
sustainability and green logistics. In Manage. Control Prod. Logist. 6
sectors may vary in importance and influence. Hence, other specific (September (1)), 527–531.
industry sectors, such as service, food etc., can be focused upon. Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line
Another extension could compare diverse scenarios by conducting of 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manage. 8 (1), 37–51.
Epstein, M.J., 2008. Making Sustainability Work. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield,
the same study in different countries, which may provide bet- UK.
ter insights into their organizational cultures. Because the present Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., Watson, G., 2016a. Sustainable supply chain management
study is based on experts’ opinions, research by conducting case in emerging economies: trade-offs between environmental and cost
performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
studies of the practices in relevant industries might be done. In
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., Watson, G., Zhang, T., 2016b. Governance pressures and
that case, real scenario influences can be studied and verified. performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management—an empirical
analysis of UK manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod., s1.
Faccio, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., Zanin, G., 2014. Sustainable SC through the
References complete reprocessing of end-of-life products by manufacturers: a traditional
versus social responsibility company perspective. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233 (2),
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., 2012. Sustainable supply management: 359–373.
an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 168–182. Falatoonitoosi, E., Leman, Z., Sorooshian, S., Salimi, M., 2013. Decision-making trial
Ahmad, W.N.K.W., Rezaei, J., Tavasszy, L.A., de Brito, M.P., 2016b. Commitment to and evaluation laboratory research journal of applied sciences. Eng. Technol. 5
and preparedness for sustainable supply chain management in the oil and gas (13), 3476–3480.
industry. J. Environ. Manage. 180, 202–213. Fiksel, J., 2003. Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37
Ashby, A., Leat, M., Hudson-Smith, M., 2012. Making connections: a review of (23), 5330–5339.
supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Manage.: Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., Kornilaki, M., 2008. Sustainable supply chain
Int. J. 17 (5), 497–516. management in tourism. Bus. Strategy Environ. 17 (4), 260–271.
Attaran, M., Attaran, S., 2007. Collaborative supply chain management: the most Fossas-Olalla, M., Lopez-Sanchez, J.I., Minguela-Rata, B., 2010. Cooperation with
promising practice for building efficient and sustainable supply chains. Bus. suppliers as a source of innovation. Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 4 (16), p.3491.
Process Manage. J. 13 (3), 390–404. Gimenez, C., Tachizawa, E.M., 2012. Extending sustainability to suppliers: a
Bansal, P., McKnight, B., 2009. Looking forward, pushing back and peering systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 17 (5), 531–543.
sideways: analyzing the sustainability of industrial symbiosis. J. Supply Chain Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Denslow, D., 2012. Purchasing and supply
Manage. 45 (4), 26–37. management sustainability: drivers and barriers. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 18
Beske, P., Seuring, S., 2014. Putting sustainability into supply chain management. (4), 258–269.
Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 19 (3), 322–331. Glover, J.L., Champion, D., Daniels, K.J., Dainty, A.J.D., 2014. An Institutional Theory
Beske, P., Land, A., Seuring, S., 2014. Sustainable supply chain management perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain. Int. J. Prod.
practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of Econ. 152, 102–111.
the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 131–143. Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and
Beske, P., 2012. Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management. inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 42 (4), 372–387. Environ. Manage. 17 (4), 230–245.
Bidault, F., Despres, C., Butler, C., 1998. The drivers of cooperation between buyers Govindan, K., Chaudhuri, A., 2016. Interrelationships of risks faced by third party
and suppliers for product innovation. Res. Policy 26 (7), 719–732. logistics service providers: a DEMATEL based approach. Transp. Res. Part E:
Bouzon, M., Govindan, K., Rodriguez, C.M.T., Campos, L.M., 2016. Identification and Logist. Transp. Rev. 90, 177–195.
analysis of reverse logistics barriers using fuzzy Delphi method and AHP. Govindan, K., Jepsen, M.B., 2016. ELECTRE: a comprehensive literature review on
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 108, 182–197. methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250 (1), 1–29.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J. measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line
Oper. Res. 233 (2), 299–312. approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345–354.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2014a. Impact of Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K., Garg, C.P., 2017. An integrated
supply chain management practices on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 85, framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains.
212–225. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1686–1698.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Shankar, K.M., 2014b. Evaluating the drivers of corporate Markman, G.D., Krause, D., 2016. Theory building surrounding sustainable supply
social responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: a chain management: assessing what we know, exploring where to go. J. Supply
multi-stakeholder perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 214–232. Chain Manage. 52 (2), 3–10.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2015a. Lean, green and Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:
resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: interpretive the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology.
structural modeling approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12 (1), 15–34. J. Oper. Manage. 25 (6), 1083–1102.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015b. Multi criteria decision McComb, E.J., Boyd, S., Boluk, K., 2016. Stakeholder collaboration: a means to the
making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature success of rural tourism destinations? A critical evaluation of the existence of
review. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 66–83. stakeholder collaboration within the Mournes, Northern Ireland. Tourism
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D., 2015c. Reverse logistics and closed-loop Hospital. Res. (p.1467358415583738).
supply chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res. Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T.E., Macquet, M., 2012. Sustainable purchasing and supply
240 (3), 603–626. management: a structured literature review of definitions and measures at the
Govindan, K., Shankar, K.M., Kannan, D., 2016a. Application of fuzzy analytic dyad, chain and network levels. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 17 (5), 478–496.
network process for barrier evaluation in automotive parts remanufacturing Moors, E.H., 2006. Technology strategies for sustainable metals production
towards cleaner production—a study in an Indian scenario. J. Clean. Prod. 114, systems: a case study of primary aluminium production in The Netherlands
199–213. and Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (12), 1121–1138.
Govindan, K., Shankar, K.M., Kannan, D., 2016b. Sustainable material selection for Morali, O., Searcy, C., 2013. A review of sustainable supply chain management
construction industry—a hybrid multi criteria decision making approach. practices in Canada. J. Bus. Ethics 117 (3), 635–658.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 1274–1288. Nagalingam, S.V., Kuik, S.S., Amer, Y., 2013. Performance measurement of product
Govindan, K., Shankar, M., Kannan, D., 2016c. Supplier selection based on corporate returns with recovery for sustainable manufacturing. Rob. Comput. Integr.
social responsibility practices. Int. J. Prod. Econ. Manuf. 29 (6), 473–483.
Govindan, K., Seuring, S., Zhu, Q., Azevedo, S.G., 2016d. Accelerating the transition Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social
towards sustainability dynamics into supply chain relationship management responsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach.
and governance structures. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1813–1823. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 173–184.
Govindasamy, V., 2010. Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) Practices: Orsato, R.J., Wells, P., 2007. The automobile industry & sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.
Antecedents and Outcomes on Sustainable Supply Chain Performance Doctoral 15 (11), 989–993.
Dissertation. USM. Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
Guang Shi, V., Lenny Koh, S.C., Baldwin, J., Cucchiella, F., 2012. Natural resource chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain
based green supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 17 (1), Manage. 45 (2), 37–56.
54–67. Power, D., 2005. Supply chain management integration and implementation: a
Guide, V.D.R., 2000. Production planning and control for remanufacturing: literature review. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 10 (4), 252–263.
industry practice and research needs. J. Oper. Manage. 18 (4), 467–483. Renukappa, S., Akintoye, A., Egbu, C., Goulding, J., 2013. Carbon emission reduction
Gupta, S., Kumar, V., 2013. Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for strategies in the UK industrial sectors: an empirical study. Int. J. Clim. Change
superior performance. J. World Bus. 48 (3), 311–320. Strategies Manage. 5 (3), 304–323.
Handfield, R., Sroufe, R., Walton, S., 2005. Integrating environmental management Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., Sabaghi, M., 2015. Application of fuzzy
and supply chain strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 14 (1), 1–19. VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecol. Indic.
Hasan, M., 2013. Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Operational 49, 188–203.
Performance. Sacaluga, A.M.M., Froján, J.E.P., 2014. Best practices in sustainable supply chain
Hong, X., Govindan, K., Xu, L., Du, P., 2017. Quantity and collection decisions in a management: a literature review. In: Managing Complexity. Springer
closed-loop supply chain with technology licensing. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 256 (3), International Publishing, pp. M209–M216.
820–829. Sarkis, J., 2001. Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental
Hussain, M., Khan, M., Al-Aomar, R., 2016. A framework for supply chain sustainability-Concerns for the new millennium. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 21
sustainability in service industry with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Renew. (5/6), 666–686.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 1301–1312. Sarkis, J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain
Igarashi, M., de Boer, L., Fet, A.M., 2013. What is required for greener supplier management. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (4), 397–409.
selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J. Purch. Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
Supply Manage. 19 (4), 247–263. for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
Inderfurth, K., De Kok, A.G., Flapper, S.D.P., 2001. Product recovery in stochastic Seuring, S., 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
remanufacturing systems with multiple reuse options. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 133 management. Decis. Support Syst. 54 (4), 1513–1520.
(1), 130–152. Shaharudin, M.R., Govindan, K., Zailani, S., Tan, K.C., 2015. Managing product
Jayaraman, V., Klassen, R., Linton, J.D., 2007. Supply chain management in a returns to achieve supply chain sustainability: an exploratory study and
sustainable environment. J. Oper. Manage. 25 (6), 1071–1074. research propositions. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 1–15.
Ji, G., Gunasekaran, A., Yang, G., 2014. Constructing sustainable supply chain under Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Diabat, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi
double environmental medium regulations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 211–219. criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply
Jia, P., Diabat, A., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2015a. Analyzing the SSCM practices in the chain with linguistic preferences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 170–179.
mining and mineral industry by ISM approach. Resour. Policy 46, 76–85. Singh, S., Olugu, E.U., Fallahpour, A., 2014. Fuzzy-based sustainable manufacturing
Jia, P., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., 2015b. Identification and evaluation of influential assessment model for SMEs. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 16 (5), 847–860.
criteria for the selection of an environmental shipping carrier using DEMATEL: Skjoett-Larsen, T., Thernøe, C., Andresen, C., 2003. Supply chain collaboration:
a case from India. Int. J. Ship. Transp. Logist. 7 (6), 719–741. theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Jia, P., Govindan, K., Choi, T.M., Rajendran, S., 2015c. Supplier selection problems in Manage. 33 (6), 531–549.
fashion business operations with sustainability considerations. Sustainability 7 Smith, L., Ball, P., 2012. Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through
(2), 1603–1619. modelling material, energy and waste flows. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 227–238.
Kannan, D., Govindan, K., Shankar, M., 2016. India: formalize recycling of electronic Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art
waste. Nature 530 (7590), 281. literature review. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 9 (1), 53–80.
Kleindorfer, R., Singhal, K., Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations Svensson, G., 2007. Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM):
management. Prod. Oper. Manage. 14 (4), 482–492. conceptual framework and empirical example. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 12
Koplin, J., Seuring, S., Mesterharm, M., 2007. Incorporating sustainability into (4), 262–266.
supply management in the automotive industry?the case of the Volkswagen Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., Pasqualino, R., 2013. Performance measurement of
AG. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (11), 1053–1062. sustainable supply chains: a literature review and a research agenda. Int. J.
Lerberg Jorgensen, A., Steen Knudsen, J., 2006. Sustainable competitiveness in Prod. Perform. Manage. 62 (8), 782–804.
global value chains: how do small Danish firms behave? Corp. Gov.: Int. J. Bus. Teuteberg, F., Wittstruck, D., 2010. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain
Soc. 6 (4), 449–462. management. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010, p.203.
Li, D., Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Manzini, R., 2014. Sustainable food supply chain Thanki, S., Govindan, K., Thakkar, J., 2016. An investigation on lean-green
management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 1–8. implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process
Lin, C.L., Tzeng, G.H., 2009. A value-created system of science (technology) park by (AHP) approach. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 284–298.
using DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (6), 9683–9697. Tseng, M.L., 2009. A causal and effect decision making model of service quality
Lin, R.J., 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (4),
management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 32–39. 7738–7748.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in
introduction. J. Oper. Manage. 25 (6), 1075–1082. e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis
Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of and DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028–1044.
European companies. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 57–65.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing Yang, Y.P.O., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.D., Tzeng, G.H., 2008. A novel hybrid MCDM model
performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int. J. Oper. Res. 5 (3),
111 (2), 299–315. 160–168.
Wacker, J.G., 2004. A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G., Premkumar, R., 2012. Sustainable supply
theory-building measurement instruments. J. Oper. Manage. 22 (6), 629–650. chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: a survey. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1),
Walker, H., Preuss, L., 2008. Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small 330–340.
businesses: public sector perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1600–1609. Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Shaharudin, M.R., Kuan, E.E.L., 2017. Barriers to product
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., 1998. The green supply chain: return management in automotive manufacturing firms in Malaysia. J. Clean.
integrating suppliers into environmental management processes. Int. J. Purch. Prod. 141, 22–40.
Mater. Manage. 34 (1), 2–11. Zhang, H., Calvo-Amodio, J., Haapala, K.R., 2013. A conceptual model for assisting
Wan Ahmad, W.N.K., de Brito, M.P., Tavasszy, L.A., 2016a. Sustainable supply chain sustainable manufacturing through system dynamics. J. Manuf. Syst. 32 (4),
management in the oil and gas industry: a review of corporate sustainability 543–549.
reporting practices. Benchmarking: Int. J. 23 (6). Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and
Wei, J., Zhao, Y., Xu, H., Yu, H., 2007. A framework for selecting indicators to assess performance among early adopters of green supply chain management
the sustainable development of the natural heritage site. J. Mountain Sci. 4 (4), practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manage. 22 (3),
321–330. 265–289.
Winkler, H., 2011. Closed-loop production systems—a sustainable supply chain Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures,
approach. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 4 (3), 243–246. practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean.
Wittstruck, D., Teuteberg, F., 2012. Understanding the success factors of sustainable Prod. 15 (11), 1041–1052.
supply chain management: empirical evidence from the electrics and Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2011. Barriers to environmentally-friendly clothing
electronics industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 19 (3), 141–158. production among Chinese apparel companies. Asian Bus. Manage. 10 (3),
Wu, W.W., Lee, Y.T., 2007. Developing global managers’ competencies using the 425–452.
fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (2), 499–507. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2013. Institutional-based antecedents and performance
Wu, K.J., Liao, C.J., Tseng, M., Chiu, K.K.S., 2016. Multi-attribute approach to outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices. J.
sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. Ind. Manage. Data Purch. Supply Manage. 19 (2), 106–117.
Syst. 116 (4), 777–800. Ziggers, G.W., Trienekens, J., 1999. Quality assurance in food and agribusiness
Xia, X., Govindan, K., Zhu, Q., 2015. Analyzing internal barriers for automotive parts supply chains: developing successful partnerships. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 60,
remanufacturers in China using grey-DEMATEL approach. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 271–279.
811–825. Zubir, A.F.M., Habidin, N.F., Conding, J., Jaya, N.A.S.L., Hashim, S., 2012. The
development of sustainable manufacturing practices and sustainable
performance in Malaysian automotive industry. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 3 (7),
130–138.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling: Deepak Mathivathanan, Devika Kannan, A. Noorul Haq

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources, Conservation and Recycling: Deepak Mathivathanan, Devika Kannan, A. Noorul Haq

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources, Conservation and Recycling: Deepak Mathivathanan, Devika Kannan, A. Noorul Haq

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Full length article

Sustainable supply chain management practices in Indian automotive

1. Introduction tal globalization policies have forced many automotive ﬁrms to

ply chain must be incorporated (Govindan et al., 2016d; Gimenez

Sl.No. Practices Explanation Sources

D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

D. Mathivathanan et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128 (2018) 284–305

Fig. 2. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Management perspective.

Fig. 3. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Government perspective.

Fig. 4. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Societal perspective.

Practice D sum R sum D+R D-R

P1 2.2223 0.9584 3.1807 1.2639

Fig. 5. Prominence and Relation between the SSCM practices—Combined perspective.

You might also like