An integrated approach to evaluating the production system in closed-loop supply chains

Abstract

The increasing demands for environmental resource protection and sustainable development have been forcing enterprises to put sustainable supply chain management on their agendas in recent years. At the same time, intense global competition requires organisations to adopt practices that enable them to provide high-quality products and services. In this paper, we consider the problem of comprehensively evaluating the production system in closed-loop supply chains. We first propose an evaluation framework that consists of economic evaluation, product quality evaluation and ecological evaluation modules. Based on mathematical probability theory and the dynamic characteristics of reverse supply chain logistics, we then focus on the evolution dynamics in the quality evaluation dimension, where the concept of product quality, which builds on the reliability and the time-utility value of a product, is proposed. The basic production evaluation model is then extended to incorporate different sustainable procurement strategies, which take into consideration the trade-offs among cost, environment and quality. An outline and corresponding flow chart of corporate procurement strategy optimisation are provided which allow the proposed evaluation model to be implemented in computer-aided decision-making, further providing decision support for production system and supply chain management. Simulation and case studies are presented to promote a better understanding of the model approach and its managerial implications. Results also suggest that quality characteristics of components and sustainable procurement strategies are two important factors that determine the final production performance and should be paid special attention in closed-loop supply chain practice.

A survey on sustainability in manufacturing organisations: dimensions and future insights

“…Indeed, technology was considered in some works to check whether it can deal with existing social and environmental threats. Among the papers analysed for the present study, other aspects like energy (Li et al 2016a), efficiency (Ruiz-Mercado, Gonzalez, and Smith 2014a), manufacturing (Harik et al 2015), quality (Lye, Lee, and Khoo 2001;Li 2013) and performance management (Joung et al 2013) were also observed. Nevertheless, the majority of the works were applying the traditional three aspects as social, environmental and economic with a distance from the other aspects ( Figure 2).…”

The support of Quality Management to sustainable development: a literature review

“…Further, an integrated management system is seen as one way to identify aspects of a QM system that could be supportive of sustainability in general. Aboulnaga, 1998;Bernardo et al, 2009Bernardo et al, , 2012de Oliveira, 2013;Fresner and Engelhardt, 2004;Jabbour, 2010;Jonker, 2000;Jørgensen et al, 2006;Karapetrovic and Casadesús, 2009;Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998;Kuei and Lu, 2013;Li, 2013;Matias and Coelho, 2002;Matias and Coelho, 2011;Pojasek, 2006;Pun and Hui, 2002;Rebelo et al, 2014;Rocha et al, 2007;Rodríguez-Ant on et al, 2012;Salomone, 2008;Santos et al, 2011;Seghezzi, 2001;Simon et al, 2011;Tarí and Molina-Azorín, 2010;To et al, 2012;Dale, 1998, 1999a,b;von Ahsen and Funck, 2001;Zeng et al, 2007;Zeng et al, 2011 II. QM as support to environmental management system implementation and to managing sustainability (22 articles)…”

The boomerang returns? Accounting for the impact of uncertainties on the dynamics of remanufacturing systems

“…As a result of this search, we identified 29 articles in the time interval 1994-2017 (November). These were the following (in chronological, and then alphabetical, order): Kumar, Vrat, and Sushil (1994), Tang and Naim (2004), Zanoni, Ferretti, and Tang (2006), Zhou and Disney (2006), , Pati, Vrat, and Kumar (2010), Ruebeck and Pfaffmann (2011), Adenso-Díaz et al (2012), Das and Dutta (2013), Jing et al (2013), Lehr, Thun, and Milling (2013), Li (2013), Turrisi, Bruccoleri, and Cannella (2013), Corum, Vayvay, and Bayraktar (2014), , , Shi, Sheng, and Xu (2015), Yuan and Zhang (2015), Cannella, Bruccoleri, and Framinan (2016), He, Yuan, and Zhang (2016), Liu et al (2016), Wei and Yuan (2016), Zhang and Yuan (2016), Dev, Shankar, and Choudhary (2017), Harris and Natarajarathinam (2017), Salviano and Andres (2017), Wang et al (2017), Zhang, Li, and Zhang (2017), and Zhou, Naim, and Disney (2017).…”

“…Second, we considered articles that do not provide any specific insight on closed-loop supply chain dynamics in the way we defined this concept in Section 1.1. This led in the deselection of a further seven articles to a reduced new 'clean' sample of 18: Kumar, Vrat, and Sushil (1994), Ruebeck and Pfaffmann (2011), Lehr, Thun, and Milling (2013), Li (2013), Shi, Sheng, and Xu (2015), Harris and Natarajarathinam (2017), Salviano and Andres (2017), and Wang et al (2017). These articles explored the dynamic response of closed-loop supply chains from other perspectives (see footnote 2).…”