Supply Chain Sustainability: A Model to Assess the Maturity Level
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Research Methodology
Case Study
4. Results
4.1. Scope
4.2. Design
- Why the model needs to be developed
- How will it be applied
- Who needs to be involved
- What can be achieved
4.3. Populate
- What needs to be measured
- How can it be measured
4.4. The Rationale for Improving the Maturity Model
4.5. Maturity Model Proposal
4.6. Test of the Proposed Maturity Model
4.6.1. Application of the Maturity Model
4.6.2. Presentation of the Results from the Validation of the Maturity Model
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
References
- Chaabane, A.; Ramudhin, A.; Paquet, M. Design of sustainable supply chains under the emission trading scheme. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; Xie, L.; Chu, Z. Developing sustainable supply chain management: The interplay of institutional pressures and sustainability capabilities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 254–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynds, E.J.; Brandt, V.; Burek, S.; Jager, W.; Knox, P.; Parker, J.P.; Schwartz, L.; Taylor, J.; Zietlow, M. A maturity model for sustainability in new product development. Res. Technol. Manag. 2014, 57, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, A.; Pfleger, R. Business transformation towards sustainability. Bus. Res. 2014, 7, 313–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hepper, E.L.; Souza, O.T.; Petrini, M.C.; Silva, C.E.L. Proposição de um modelo de maturidade para sustentabilidade corporativa. Acta Sci. Hum. Soc. 2017, 9, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R. Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply chains: Review and sustainability supply chain management framework. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 19, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Rio, M.; Allais, R.; Zwolinski, P.; Carrillo, T.R.; Roucoules, L.; Mercier-Laurent, E.; Buclet, N. Toward a systemic navigation framework to integrate sustainable development into the company. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 54, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negri, M.; Cagno, E.; Colicchia, C.; Sarkis, J. Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2858–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correia, E.; Azevedo, S.G.; Carvalho, H. Proposal of a framework to construct a supply chain sustainability maturity model. In Proceedings of the 5th International EurOMA Sustainable Operations And Supply Chains Forum, Kassel, Germany, 4–6 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Aguiar, M.F.; Jugend, D. Circular product design maturity matrix: A guideline to evaluate new product development in light of the circular economy transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 365, 132732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klimko, G. Knowledge management and maturity models: Building common understanding. In Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Knowledge Management, Bled, Slovenia, 8–9 November 2001; pp. 269–278. [Google Scholar]
- Cuenca, L.; Boza, A.; Alemany, M.M.E.; Trienekens, J.J.M. Structural elements of coordination mechanisms in collaborative planning processes and their assessment through maturity models: Application to a ceramic tile company. Comput Ind. 2013, 66, 898–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correia, E.; Carvalho, H.; Azevedo, S.G.; Govindan, K. Maturity Models in Supply Chain Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röglinger, M.; Pöppelbuß, J.; Becker, J. Maturity models in business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2012, 18, 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moultrie, J.; Sutcliffe, L.; Maier, A. A maturity grid assessment tool for environmentally conscious design in the medical device industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 122, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos-Neto, J.B.S.; Costa, A.P.C.S. Enterprise maturity models: A systematic literature review. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2019, 13, 719–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chardine-Baumann, E.; Botta-Genoulaz, V. A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2014, 76, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassini, E.; Surti, C.; Searcy, A. Literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. Int J Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, M.A.; Kersten, W. Sustainability performance assessment framework: A cross-industry multiple case study. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 27, 496–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.; van Erck, R. Assessing the Sustainability Performances of Industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendler, R. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2012, 54, 1317–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pigosso, D.C.A.; Rozenfeld, H.; McAloone, T.C. Eco-design maturity model: A management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amini, M.; Bienstock, C.C. Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, D.A.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Gomes, C.F.S.; Zotes, L.P.; França, S.L.B.; Souza, G.V.P.S.; Santos, S.S.C. Proposal for a maturity model in sustainability in the supply chain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano, R. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1838–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebetruth, T. Sustainability in performance measurement and management systems for supply chains. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 192–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavan, R.O.; Ferreira-Marco, A.; Stefanelli, N.O.; Leal, G.C.L. Maturity models in SSCM: A systematic review aimed at consolidating models and outlining possibilities for future research. Benchmarking 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okongwu, U.; Morimoto, R.; Lauras, M. The maturity of supply chain sustainability disclosure from a continuous improvement perspective. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2013, 62, 827–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srai, J.S.; Alinaghian, L.S.; Kirkwood, D.A. Understanding sustainable supply network capabilities of multinationals: A capability maturity model approach. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2013, 227, 595–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudnicka, A. How to manage sustainable supply chain? The issue of maturity. LogForum 2016, 12, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babin, R.; Nicholson, B. How green is my outsourcer? Measuring sustainability in global IT outsourcing. Strateg. Outsourcing Int. J. 2011, 4, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Golinska, P.; Kuebler, F. The method for assessment of the sustainability maturity in remanufacturing companies. In Proceedings of the 21st CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering (CIR LCE), Trondheim, Norway, 18–20 June 2014; Volume 15, pp. 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasrado, L.A.; Vatrapu, R.; Andersen, K.N. Maturity models development in IS research: A literature review. In IRIS Selected Papers of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia; IRIS: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, H.S.; Anumba, C.J.; Carrillo, P.M.; Al-Ghassani, A.M. STEPS: A knowledge management maturity roadmap for corporate sustainability. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2006, 12, 793–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standing, C.; Jackson, P. An approach to sustainability for information systems. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2007, 9, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edgeman, R.; Eskildsen, J. Modeling and assessing sustainable enterprise excellence. Bus Strategy Environ. 2014, 23, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurnia, S.; Rahim, M.M.; Samson, D.; Singh, P. Sustainable supply chain management capability maturity: Framework development and initial evaluation. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems in Tel Aviv, ECIS 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Reefke, H.; Ahmed, M.D.; Sundaram, D. Sustainable supply chain management—Decision making and support: The SSCM maturity model and system. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2014, 15, 1S–12S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouvinhas, R.P.; Reyes, T.; Naveiro, R.M.; Perry, N.; Filho, E.R. A proposed framework of sustainable self-evaluation maturity within companies: An exploratory study. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2016, 10, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verrier, B.; Rose, B.; Caillaud, E. Lean and Green strategy: The Lean and Green House and maturity deployment model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 116, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machado, C.G.; Lima, E.P.; Costa, S.E.G.; Angelis, J.J.; Mattioda, R.A. Framing maturity based on sustainable operations management principles. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 190, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramanian, J.A.; Campos, J.K.; Wateau, E. A maturity model for sustainable supply chain practices in the consumer goods industry. In Proceedings of the 4th International EurOMA Sustainable Operations and Supply Chains Forum (SOSCF), Milan, Italy, 27–28 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Xavier, A.; Reyes, T.; Aoussat, A.; Luiz, L.; Souza, L. Eco-innovation maturity model: A framework to support the evolution of eco-innovation integration in companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, Y.; Hidayatno, A.; Suzianti, A.; Hartono, M.; Susanto, H. A corporate sustainability maturity model for readiness assessment: A three-step development strategy. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2021, 70, 1162–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bruin, T.; Freeze, R.; Kaulkarni, U.; Rosemann, M. Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Sydney, Australia, 30 November–2 December 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mettler, T. A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in Information Systems. 2009. Available online: https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/214531 (accessed on 7 May 2020).
- Becker, J.; Knackstedt, R.; Pöppelbuß, J. Developing Maturity Models for IT Management—A Procedure Model and its Application. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2009, 1, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Noor, K.B.M. Case study: A strategic research methodology. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2008, 5, 1602–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marco-Ferreira, A.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Relacionando níveis de maturidade em gestão ambiental e a adoção de práticas de Green Supply Chain Management: Convergência teórica e estudo de múltiplos casos. Gest. Prod. 2019, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pöppelbuß, J.; Röglinger, M. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity and its demonstration in business process management. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Helsinki, Finland, 9–11 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Salah, D.; Paige, R.; Cairns, P. An evaluation template for expert review of maturity models. In International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 318–321. [Google Scholar]
- Baxter, P.; Jack, S. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qual. Rep. 2008, 13, 544–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correia, E.; Garrido, S.; Carvalho, H. Online sustainability information disclosure of mould companies. Corp. Commun. 2021, 26, 557–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEFAMOL. Molde, 123, January 2022. Available online: https://www.cefamol.pt/index.php?id=85&idn=510 (accessed on 5 May 2022).
- PBA (Portuguese Business Association). 2019. Available online: http://www.aeportugal.pt/Aplicacoes/SectoresEmpresariais/Top100.asp?IDSector518 (accessed on 10 June 2019).
- Schoch, K.W. Case study research. In The Scholar-Practitioner’s Guide to Research Design, 1st ed.; Burkholder, G.J., Cox, K.A., Crawford, L.M., Eds.; Sage Publications: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2016; pp. 227–241. [Google Scholar]
- Voss, C.; Tsikriktsis, N.; Frohlich, M. Case research in operations management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. 2002, 2, 195–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paz, F.J.; Kipper, L.M.; Frozza, R. Desenvolvimento de uma ferramenta para avaliação da maturidade para a sustentabilidade organizacional: Uma proposição teórico-metodológica. Tecno-Lógica 2015, 19, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xavier, A.F. Proposta de um Modelo de Maturidade para Avaliação das Práticas de Eco-Inovação nas Organizações: ECO-MI. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2017. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, P.; Gregory, M. The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability. In Proceedings of the Engineering Management Conference, Cambridge, UK, 18–20 August 2002; pp. 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yimam, A.H. Project Management Maturity in the Construction Industry of Developing Countries (The Case of Ethiopian Contractors). Master’s Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Göçer, A.; Vural, C.A.; Halldorsson, A.; Fawcett, S.E. Sustainability Myopia: How A Lack of Visibility Stunts Sustainability Maturity. In Proceedings of the 5th International EurOMA Sustainable Operations And Supply Chains Forum, Kassel, Germany, 4–6 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mani, V.; Agrawal, R.; Sharma, V. Social sustainability practices in the supply chain of Indian manufacturing industries. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2015, 1, 211–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; Shi, D.; Li, X. Governance of sustainable supply chains in the fast fashion industry. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumgartner, R.J. Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 21, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaosman, H.; Morales-Alonso, G.; Brun, A. From a systematic literature review to a classification framework: Sustainability integration in fashion operations. Sustainability 2016, 9, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sancha, C.; Gimenez, C.; Sierra, V. Achieving a socially responsible supply chain through assessment and collaboration. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1934–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.D.; Vereecke, A. Social Issues in Supply Chains: Capabilities Link Responsibility, Risk (Opportunity), and Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallstedt, S.; Ny, H.; Robert, K.H.; Broman, G. An approach to assessing sustainability integration in strategic decision systems for product development. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Looy, A.V.; Backer, M.D.; Poels, G. A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2014, 8, 188–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asah-Kissiedu, M.; Manu, P.; Booth, C.A.; Mahamadu, A.-M.; Agyekum, K. An Integrated Safety, Health and Environmental Management Capability Maturity Model for Construction Organisations: A Case Study in Ghana. Buildings 2021, 11, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, C.R.; Easton, P.L. Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Formentini, M.; Taticchi, P. Corporate sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 112, 1920–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Touboulic, A.; Walker, H. Theories in sustainable supply chain management: A structured literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 16–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckle, P.; Thomas, J. Deconstructing project management: A gender analysis of project management guidelines. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckle, P. Maturity models for systems thinking. Systems 2018, 6, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.K.; Webber, M.D. Supply-chain management: Logistics catches up with strategy. In Logistics: The Strategic Issues; Christopher, M., Ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- La Londe, B. Supply chain management: Myth of reality? Supply Chain Manag. Rev. 1997, 1, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, D.F. Competing through Supply Chain Management; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Lambert, D.M.; Cooper, M.C.; Pagh, J.D. Supply chain management: Implementation issues and research opportunities. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 1998, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drucker, P. Management’s new paradigms. Forbes Magazine, 5 October 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Gripsrud, G.; Jahre, M.; Persson, G. Supply chain management—Back to the future? Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. 2006, 8, 643–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reefke, H.; Sundaram, D. Sustainable supply chain management: Decision models for transformation and maturity. Decis Support Syst. 2018, 113, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. Assessing sustainability in the supply chain: A triple bottom line approach. Appl. Math. Model. 2015, 39, 2882–2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarhan, A.; Turetken, O.; Reijers, H.A. Business process maturity models: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2016, 75, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meza-Ruiz, I.D.; Rocha-Lona, L.; del Rocío Soto-Flores, M.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, V.; Lopez-Torres, G.C. Measuring business sustainability maturity-levels and best practices. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Yang, J.; Qu, S.; Wang, L.; Shishime, T.; Bao, C. Sustainable Production: Practices and Determinant Factors of Green Supply Chain Management of Chinese Companies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tachizawa, E.M.; Gimenez, C.; Sierra, V. Green supply chain management approaches: Drivers and performance implications. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2015, 35, 1546–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Authors | Unit of Analysis | Scope—Sustainability Focus | Maturity Levels (Number/Descriptors) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scope | Elements/Characteristics Considered | |||
Robinson et al. [35] | Process—knowledge management | Scope—TBL approach | Not Applicable | 5/Start-up, Take-off, Expansion, Progressive, Sustainability |
Standing and Jackson [36] | Process—information system management | Scope—TBL approach | Not Applicable | 6/Non-existent, Initial/ad hoc, Repeatable but intuitive, Defined process, Managed and measurable, Optimised |
Babin and Nicholson [32] | Company—IT outsourcing providers | Scope—Environmental sustainability | Three capabilities (Understand and adopt global sustainability standards. Anticipate and respond to stakeholder sustainability requests. Embed and develop sustainability capabilities within the organization) | 3/Mature leaders, Aspirant, Early stage |
Pigosso et al. [23] | Process Eco-design | Scope—Environmental sustainability | 8 elements resulting from 5 capabilities (Deployment of eco-design practices: incomplete, ad hoc, formalized, controlled, improved) and 3 dimensions for eco-design implementation (Implementation paths, Company widening for implementation, Knowledge level on eco-design) | 5/Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 |
Okongwu et al. [29] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | 8 areas (Use of standards, Performance management; Pollution management; Relationship management of suppliers, customers and society, Employee management; Profitability management; Economic value distribution management | 4/Primeval, Initial, Intermediate, Advanced, Word Class |
Srai et al. [30] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | 5 clusters of capabilities (Sustainable Supply Network strategic design, Network connectivity, Network efficiency, Network process development and reporting, Network product and service enhancement) | 5/Not applicable |
Edgeman and Eskildsen [37] | Company | Scope—TBL approach | 6 areas (Strategy and governance, Process implementation and execution, Financial results and refinement, Sustainability results and improvement, Innovation results, Human capital results and refinement) | 5/Very low maturity, Low maturity, Moderate maturity, High maturity, Very high maturity |
Golinska and Kuebler [33] | Company—remanufacturing companies | Scope—TBL approach | 3 dimensions (Economic, Ecological and Social performance) subdivided into 15 key areas | 5/Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4 |
Hynds et al. [4] | Process—new product development (NPD) | Scope—Environmental sustainability | 2 dimensions (Strategy and Design Tools) | 4/Beginning, Improving, Succeeding, Leading |
Kurnia et al. [38] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | 6 capabilities (Sustainable data collection, Sustainability reporting, Sustainability benchmarking, Sustainability training, Sustainability risk analysis, Sustainability governance) | 4/Unaware, Unprepared, Committed, Advanced |
Reefke et al. [39] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | Not Applicable | 6/Un-aware and Non-compliant, Ad-hoc and Compliance Basic, Defined and Compliance, Linked and Exceeds Compliance, Integrated and Proactive, Extended and Sustainability Leadership |
Gouvinhas et al. [40] | Company—companies from various sectors | Scope—TBL approach | 12 different categories of indicators (company’s strategic vision, company’s values, company’s general policy, top management commitment, company relationship with stakeholders, company’s purchasing policy, company’s economic indicator performance, company’s environmental indicator performance, company’s social indicator performance, environmental communication, legislation, standards and company’s “green” marketing procedures) | 6/Complete immature companies, Immature companies, Initial mature companies, Mature companies, Maturated and teaching companies, Integrated companies |
Rudnicka [31] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | 6 drivers (knowledge, impact, social risk, environmental risk, cooperation, communication) | 5/Starting, Aware, Aspiring, Sustainable business leaders, Masters of sustainability |
Verrier et al. [41] | Process – production | Scope—Environmental sustainability | Not Applicable | 5/Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively managed, Optimizing |
Machado et al. [42] | Process –operations management | Scope—TBL approach | 17 capabilities (Occupational Health and Safety Management, Social Accountability, Sustainability Business Case, LCA, D4S, Reverse Logistics, Closed Loop Supply Chain, Lean and green process, Eco-efficiency strategies, Cleaner Production, Quality and Environmental Management System, Sustainable Purchasing, Suppliers Development Program, Stakeholder engagement, Information System, Sustainable Marketing) | 5/Compliance and conformity, Operations’ eco-efficiency, sustainability management system, network and stakeholder’s integration, sustainable operations’ integration |
Subramanian et al. [43] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | 6 groups of capabilities (Supplier– Buyer Relationship, Governance, Production, Distribution, Waste, Customer Relationship) | 4/Stage 0, Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 |
Xavier et al. [44] | Process – Eco-innovation | Scope—Environmental sustainability | 4 dimensions (Resources, Culture, Structure, Strategy) | 5/Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 |
Santos et al. [25] | Network | Scope—TBL approach | 4 dimensions subdivided in 14 subdimensions: Environment dimension; Social dimension; Economic dimension; Cross dimension. | 5/Nonexistent; Aware; Intermediate; Advanced; Sustainable |
Sari et al. [45] | Company | Scope—TBL approach | 65 domains (SC driver (external); SC driver (internal); SC strategy; SC action; SC performance) subdivided in 29 subdomains/indicators | 3/Level 1—Initial; Level 2- Managed; Level 3—Optimised |
Companies | General Characterization |
---|---|
Company 1 | It manufactures compression and plastic injection moulds, with a capacity of up to 120 tons, for the automotive industry. Nevertheless, it tries to preserve the markets of other sectors, namely electronics/telecommunications and housewares. It employs 248 workers and has a turnover of EUR 29.8 million. |
Company 2 | It makes plastic injection moulds for the automotive sectors, appliances, and housewares, exporting almost all its production. Its focus is moulds of medium and large dimensions (up to 60 tons). It employs 126 workers and has a turnover of EUR 8.5 million. |
Company 3 | It makes moulds with a capacity of up to 20 tons, producing die-casting moulds for the automotive, appliances and packaging sectors. This company employs 69 workers and has a turnover of EUR 7.7 million. |
Company 4 | It makes high-precision moulds for parts of various industries such as automotive, aeronautics, medical/pharmaceutical, electrical and electronics. The company produces moulds of multiple types: thermoplastic injection, die casting, rotary injection, two-component injection, compression, and transfer sandwich. The company additionally injects plastic parts. It employs 73 workers and has a turnover of EUR 4.3 million. |
Company 5 | It manufactures compression and plastic injection moulds for the automotive, appliance, and packaging industries. It employs 68 workers and has a turnover of EUR 5.6 million. |
Authors | Unit of Analysis | Sustainability Focus | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process | Company | Network | TBL Approach | Env. Sustain. | |
Robinson et al. [35]; Standing and Jackson [36]; Machado et al. [42]; Subramanian et al. [43] | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Babin and Nicholson [32] | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Pigosso et al. [23]; Hynds et al. [4]; Verrier et al. [41]; Xavier et al. [44] | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Okongwu et al. [29]; Srai et al. [30]; Kurnia et al. [38]; Rudnicka [31]; Reefke et al. [39]; Santos et al. [25] | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Edgeman and Eskildsen [37]; Golinska and Kuebler [33]; Gouvinhas et al. [40]; Sari et al. [45] | ✓ | ✓ |
AREAS AND SUB-AREAS | Evol. Level |
---|---|
AREA: SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE | |
Practice: Corporate environmental governance | |
Sub-practices: | |
Consideration of environmental issues in some functional areas | 1 |
Data collection on environmental aspects | 2 |
Environmental compliance and auditing programs in all departments | 3 |
Commitment to GSCM from senior and middle-level managers | 3 |
Obtaining ISO 14001 certification | 4 |
(…) | |
AREA: PRODUCT AND PROCESS LEVEL | |
Practice: Green purchasing | |
Sub-practices: | |
Materials that should not be used in products and should not be used in purchases are identified | 1 |
Compliance with environmental legislation, such as external purchasing directives | 1 |
Suppliers are selected using environmental criteria | 2 |
Providing design specifications to suppliers that include environmental requirements for purchased items | 3 |
Purchase of efficient materials/products in terms of energy/water consumption and non-polluting, toxic, or dangerous | 3 |
(…) | |
AREA: CUSTOMER AND SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT | |
Practice: Social supplier management practices | |
Sub-practices: | |
Ensuring that suppliers obtain OHSAS 18,001 certification or other health and safety management system certifications such as SA 8000 | 3 |
Perform audit procedures for suppliers’ internal management system related to social issues (e.g., related to health and safety, appropriate labor working conditions) | 3 |
Guidance and support to suppliers helping them to improve their social performance | 4 |
Develop new product/process with suppliers that reduce health risks for consumers | 5 |
(…) | |
AREA: STAKEHOLDER FOCUS (NOT CONSIDERING CUSTOMERS AND SUPPLIERS) | |
Practice: Stakeholder focus (environmental issues) | |
Sub-practices: | |
(…) | |
Development of its initiative of programs for society related to environmental protection | 3 |
Collaboration with universities and research institutions in the development of new environmental technologies or more environmentally friendly products | 4 |
Innovative partnerships (e.g., NGOs and community groups) related to projects focused on environmental protection) | 5 |
Area Maturity Level * | Company 1 | Company 2 | Company 3 | Company 4 | Company 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stakeholder focus | Level 4 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 1 |
Customer and supplier management | Level 3 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
Product and process level | Level 3 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 1 |
Sustainability governance | Level 3 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 1 | Level 1 |
Company maturity level ** | Level 3 Moderate | Level 1 Very low | Level 1 Very low | Level 1 Very low | Level 1 Very low |
Implemented practices with IL≥3 (N./%) *** | L1: 22/100% L2: 26/96% L3: 30/94% L4: 19/66% L 5: 18/72% | L1: 21/95% L2: 11/41% L3: 12/38% L4: 7/22% L5: 15/47% | L1: 21/95% L2: 5/19% L3: 7/22% L4: 8/28% L5: 5/20% | L1: 20/91% L2: 16/59% L3: 18/56% L4: 14/48% L5: 6/24%) | L1: 22/100% L2: 13/48% L3: 15/47% L4: 12/41% L5: 4/16% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Correia, E.; Garrido-Azevedo, S.; Carvalho, H. Supply Chain Sustainability: A Model to Assess the Maturity Level. Systems 2023, 11, 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020098
Correia E, Garrido-Azevedo S, Carvalho H. Supply Chain Sustainability: A Model to Assess the Maturity Level. Systems. 2023; 11(2):98. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020098
Chicago/Turabian StyleCorreia, Elisabete, Susana Garrido-Azevedo, and Helena Carvalho. 2023. "Supply Chain Sustainability: A Model to Assess the Maturity Level" Systems 11, no. 2: 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020098