Accepted Manuscript

Analysis of Enablers for implementation of sustainable supply chain management – A

textile case

Ali Diabat, Devika Kannan, K. Mathiyazhagan

PII: S0959-6526(14)00669-6
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.081
Reference: JCLP 4476

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 28 April 2014

Revised Date: 13 June 2014
Accepted Date: 13 June 2014

Please cite this article as: Diabat A, Kannan D, Mathiyazhagan K, Analysis of Enablers for
implementation of sustainable supply chain management – A textile case, Journal of Cleaner Production
(2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.081.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Analysis of Enablers for implementation of sustainable supply chain management – A
textile case

Ali Diabata Devika Kannanb* K. Mathiyazhaganc

a
Department of Engineering Systems and Management, Masdar Institute of Science and
Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
b
Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark

PT
c
Mechanical Engineering, ITM University, Gurgaon, India

*Corresponding author, email: mdevi89@rediffmail.com

Abstract

RI
Industries currently face pressure on environmental initiatives from both government regulations

SC
and global competition in addition to customer pressure. Hence, organizations are forced to implement
sustainable practices to improve their environmental performance over economic performance. The
Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) system is a concept which ensures environmentally

U
friendly practices in traditional supply chains. Industries in developing countries such as India face
AN
pressure from various perspectives to adopt SSCM in Traditional SCM. In this regard, the objective of
this study has been fixed to analyze the enablers for implementing SSCM into Indian industries. This
study is essential for Indian industries, and especially for textile industries, to market products in the
M

World Trade Organization and huge market opportunities. There are many enablers for adopting SSCM
into TSCM, but these enablers do not ensure similar impact in all industries and countries; in fact, where
D

SSCM is adopted the system varies according to culture and the country’s regulations. Hence, industries
essentially need to identify influential enablers to adopt SSCM. This study aims to identify influential
TE

enablers for SSCM by using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) from 13 recommended enablers in
five Indian textile units located in south India. ISM results reveal that five enablers dominate an
EP

industry’s practices, and those five enablers include Adoption of safety standards, Adoption of green
practices, Community economic welfare, Health and safety issues, and Employment stability. The result
of this study shows that safety perspective enablers provide additional motivation when compared to the
C

other enablers for SSCM adoption.

AC

Keywords: Sustainable Supply Chain Management; Enabler analysis; Interpretive Structural

Modelling

Research Highlights
• Influential enablers are identified using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM).
• Results reveals that five enablers dominate an industry’s practices
• safety perspective enabler is the most influencing enabler for SSCM adoption

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

Pagell and Shevchenko (2014) state that over the past two decades, the topic of
“sustainability” has received substantial attention in supply chain management and has been the
subject of much research. Current researchers and practitioners give special attention to

PT
environmental issues to achieve environmental and business needs (Caniato et al., 2012).
Businesses certainly do face new challenges and opportunities for adopting good environmental

RI
practices (Sezen and Turkkantos, 2013).. Globally, sustainability has unique issues related to
market competition, global limitations of energy, the availability of raw and virgin material,

SC
environmental protection crises, and increasing global population (Bajaj et al., 2013). In this
view, Hart and Milstein (2003) analyzed the global challenges associated with sustainable
development; they sought to identify the strategies and practices that contribute to a more

U
sustainable world while simultaneously driving shareholder values. According to Veleva and
AN
Ellenbecker’s (2009) statement, many industries started to adopt differing practices towards
sustainable development, which they defined as “the creation of goods and services using
M

processes and systems that are non-polluting, conserve energy and natural resources, are
economically viable, safe and healthy for employees, communities and consumers, socially and
D

creatively rewarding for all working people.” Sustainable development is one solution for
reducing waste by effective resource utilization. In this view, Sustainable Supply Chain
TE

Management (SSCM) is an activity that helps to ensure Sustainable Development (SD). Hart
and Milstein (2003) point out that a truly sustainable development enterprise is one that
EP

simultaneously achieves social, economic, and environmental benefits. These three

achievements are called the triple bottom line.
C

Kuik et al. (2010) demonstrate that traditional supply chains should develop into
AC

Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) regarding social, economic, and environmental
benefits. More specifically, SSCM can be defined as the “integration of social, economic, and
environmental practices within a global supply chain that provides green products, excellent
services and accurate information (Xie et al., 2013), sharing those benefits with all employees,
shareholders, business partners and the wider community” (Kuik et al., 2010). In India, the
concept of SSCM focuses on industries through integrating sustainability in supply chain
management. Aslan et al. (2012) said that many industries began to consider sustainable
development due to India’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SSCM implementation results in motivational activities called “enablers” which
industries must consider. Grzybowska (2012) defines an enabler as ‘‘one that enables another to
achieve an end’’ where the word “enable” means to make able; to give power, means,
competence, or ability. An enabler is considered a variable that motivates the attainment of
SSCM. But in practice, all enablers do not ensure a similar impact for sustainable adoption in
industries. Industries have to identify the best initial enabler to be considered for SSCM

PT
adoption. Only then can they adopt full-fledged sustainable practices in traditional activities
(Santos et al., 2013). For this reason, it is essential to analyse enablers for SSCM adoption to

RI
ensure an industry’s sustainable development. Many researchers have analysed enablers for
SSCM implementation from their country’s perspective. For instance, Faisal (2010) analysed 16

SC
enablers for SSCM adoption from a Qatar perspective; Hussain (2011) analysed 21 enablers for
SSCM from a Canadian perspective, and Walker and Jones (2012) investigated enablers and
barriers for SSCM from a United Kingdom perspective. Analysing enablers for SSCM adoption

U
is important and should be pursued globally from each country’s unique perspective. Based on
AN
this, this research aims to analyse and to identify influential enablers for adoption of SSCM in
Indian textile industries.
M

Specially, the identification of influential enablers for SSCM in the textile sector is
important because India has a current population of over 1 billion, and it is anticipated that India
D

will likely overtake China as the most populous country with around 1.6 billion population by
2050 (Hubacek et al. 2007). Due to the high population, textile industries have a tremendous
TE

opportunity to produce a large quantity of materials to meet customer needs. Generally, textile
industries use hazardous materials and dispose untreated waste into the surrounding
EP

environment. Based on pressures from government regulations, recently textile industries have
increased their awareness of environmental issues and have started to incorporate sustainable
C

concepts in their TSCM by adopting SSCM practices. Supply chain management has operational
activities starting from the procurement of raw materials to the delivery of finished products
AC

(forward supply chain) (Datta et al., 2013; Dweiri, and Khan, 2012; Jaggi and Verma, 2009;
Maleki and Curz-Machado, 2013; Tewari and Misra, 2013). Collecting used products from
customers is also a part of SCM (Reverse supply chain management) (Charkha and Jaju, 2014;
Topcu et al., 2013). There is limited research in Indian textile industries from a perspective of
sustainability (as explained in the Research Gap section). Influential enablers are identified from
a set of 13 recommended enablers for SSCM adoption with the help of Interpretive Structural
Modelling (ISM) in five textile units, based on their interest, in Tamilnadu, South India. The
results impact environmental adoption, making it easier for the adoption of SSCM in Indian

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
textile industries which then can be extended to all industries in India. This study also helps
industries to improve overall sustainable performance, from procurement of raw material to final
product, by identifying leading or dominant enablers to adopt SSCM in traditional activities. The
discussions and conclusions are from an extensive survey, site visits, and interviews. This paper
brings to clear view about the essential needs to analyze the enablers for SSCM adoption in an
Indian textile sector context which has not been done previously. This original research helps

PT
managers of textile industries to improve their environmental performance.

The paper is organized as follows: a literature review and the research gaps are given in

RI
Section 2, and a description of the study follows in Section 3. The methodology (ISM) of the
study is described in Section 4 and our research design is summarized in Section 5. The results

SC
we obtained, along with a discussion, are described in Section 6. Finally, our conclusions,
recommendations, limitations, and future scope of the study are given in Section 7.

2. Literature review
U
AN
Today, environmental issues attract the concern of global supply chain practitioners (
Muduli et al., 2013). Ahi and Searcy (2013) mention that due to increasing recognition of
M

environmental issues in traditional activities, organizations need to address the problem of

sustainability in their operations. Seuring (2013) offered a modeling technique for SSCM
D

through 300 papers published in the past fifteen years on the topic of green or sustainability
TE

(forward) supply chains. Also, he summarized research on quantitative models for forward
supply chains in order to achieve the most substantial review of the field. Seuring and Gold
(2013) summarized that effective integration of sustainability into industries that required action
EP

beyond the organizational boundaries. Boundary-spanning activities are increasingly being taken
up by corporate action and are spurred, accompanied, and reflected in a growing body of
C

academic literature. For this reason, recently, environmental issues have received special
AC

attention from researchers globally. To offset these emerging environmental issues, industry
practitioners expressed keenness to explore a solution to reduce waste generated from current
supply chain practices (Kuik et al., 2010). Govindan et al. (2014) mentioned that manufacturing
industries started to implement environmental practices in their existing supply chain
management. Ahi and Searcy (2013) identified and analyzed definitions of Green Supply Chain
Management (GSCM) and SSCM. They show that researchers worldwide expressed much
interest about research in environmental practices like GSCM (Salimifard and Raeesi, 2014) and
SSCM. Sustainable Development (SD) is one of the better solutions for waste reduction. It

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
improves industries’ environmental performance. The concept of sustainability was defined in
1987 in the Brundtland report and then adopted by the United Nations World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED): “sustainability means being able to satisfy current
needs without compromising the possibility for future generations to satisfy their own needs”
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Alexandre Torres Romiguer
(2011) states that there are various definitions for “sustainable development” favoring the user.

PT
For instance, the “Forum for the Future Organization” defines sustainable development as a
dynamic process, which enables all people to realize their potential and improve their quality of

RI
life in ways which simultaneously protect and enhance the Earth’s life support systems. Gladwin
et al. 1995, p. 878, p. 897 and Carter and Rogers (2008) inferred that Sustainable Development

SC
(SD) must encompass the concept of security, which “demands safety from chronic threats and
protection from harmful disruption” including “biodiversity loss, climate change, freshwater
scarcity, food insecurity (Khalili–Damghani et al. 2012; Rajkumar, 2013), and population

U
growth.” In recent years, researchers focused on a combination of scientific research with supply
AN
chain management (SCM) through Sustainable Development (SD). In modern industries,
traditional SCM is relevant not only from an economic perspective (Ramaa et al., 2013), but also
M

because of its social and environmental impact (Kleindorfer et al., 2005; Elkington, 1994; Zhu et
al., 2008; Caniato et al., 2012;). Crals and Vereeck (2005) inferred that terms like corporate
D

social responsibility, ethical funds, eco-efficiency, highlight these impacts. While these terms
indicate different concepts, they point to various aspects of sustainable development. Sikdar et
TE

al. (2012) mentions sustainability analysis as a system of interest, to which products, or

processes, or corporations, or even ecosystems can relate.
EP

Sustainability is a concept of the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998; Kleindorfer et al.,
2005) advanced to a leading area within academic research. Govindan et al. (2013) analyzed the
C

sustainable supply chain initiatives and determined the problem of identifying an effective
model based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach (economic, environmental, and social
AC

aspects) for supplier selection operations in the supply chain with the help of a fuzzy multi
criteria approach. Grimm et al. (2014) summarized the research on the theory of Critical Success
Factors (CSFs) by applying the theory to sustainability and sub-supplier management
perspectives in the food industry. Tseng and Hung (2014) proposed a strategic decision-making
model for SSCM that accounts for both the operational costs and social costs caused by carbon
dioxide emissions from operating such a supply chain network. It shows that all over the world,
researchers have started to analyze sustainability issues in all directions in order to promote
Sustainable Development (SD). Ugwu and Haupt (2007) state that Sustainable Development

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(SD) attained international focus to reduce pollution globally; they note that it is used to make
decisions about various projects. Heilig (1997) stated that the concept of sustainability involves
procedures that should not unbalance the ecosystem of which we are a part, but that this is
precisely what the human species has always been doing. In industries, sustainability involves
becoming aware of and managing risks associated with scarcity in natural resources; these risks
are used as inputs to the supply chain and help to identify fluctuations in energy costs. In

PT
addition, proactive engagement in sustainable practices lowers the risk of the introduction of
new and costly regulations (Shrivastava, (1995a, p. 955); Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Carter

RI
and Rogers, 2008; Shen et al., 2013;). White and Lee (2009) and Sarkis (2012) state that when a
sustainable supply chain term is used, the default perspective is typically environmental or

SC
ecological sustainability.
Alexandre Torres Romiguer (2011) determines that the seven most critical
environmental requirements and economic aspects for sustainable practice are as follows:

U
reduction in waste and emissions; reduction in energy intensity of goods and services; use of
AN
renewable and sustainable energy resources; maximum use and re-use of recycled components
and materials; measurement and assessment of business impact on ecosystems; standard
M

measures for evaluating sustainability performance; and environmental consciousness pervading

the culture of an organization. Alexandre Torres Romiguer (2011) pleads for including social
D

requirements in Corporate Social Responsibilities because it is rare for management literature to

examine social and economic responsibilities; most existing studies on organizational
TE

sustainability focus on ecological sustainability. Van hoof and Thiell (2014) have tested a
theoretical model of collaboration capacity as a multi-dimensional organizational construct to
EP

gauge cleaner production adoption within supply chains from the perspective of sustainable
supply chains in Mexican small and medium-sized enterprises. In this view, Wiengarten et al.
C

(2013) has explored the differences in Environmental Management System implementation and
investments from North America and Western Europe perspectives to achieve a greater
AC

understanding of industries’ environmental motivations. Also, this study analysed differences in

ISO 14000 certification and environmental supply chain investment levels between Western
European and North American industries. Besk et al. (2014) describe how SSCM practices allow
companies to maintain control over their supply chain and to gain better benefits with the
adoption of dynamic capabilities from the perspective of Germany. Marshall et al. (2005) &
Chahal and Sharma (2006) identify both internal and external drivers for SSCM implementation.
External drivers include customers’ demand for such products (Nilakantan, 2013); pressures
from investors, community groups, the public, and competitors; and compliance with

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
regulations. Internal drivers are normally connected to managerial thoughts, employees’
demands, organizational culture, internal pressure on business managers, and social
development activities (Haigh and Jones 2006). From a financial perspective there are three
major enablers (drivers), namely: cost saving, greater efficiency, and increased profits (Berry
and Rondinelli, 1998; Bhaskaran et al., 2006 and Porter ME, van der Linde, 1995). Beske et al.
(2014) investigate SSCM practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry.

PT
Faisal (2010) describes the steps in SSCM implementation. The supply chain considers
the product from the initial processing of raw material to delivery to the customer (Kongar and

RI
Gupta, 2009; Kassem and Dawood, 2013; Patil and Kant, 2014). From Faisal’s research, one
infers the effective adoption of sustainable practices in a supply chain by understanding the

SC
dynamics connecting a range of enablers aiding the conversion of a supply chain into a truly
sustainable entity. Bagheri and Hjorth (2007) and Faisal (2010) state that sustainability is not a
predetermined ideal, but an evolutionary progression of developing the management of systems

U
through enhanced understanding and knowledge. Hussain (2011) discovered 21 enablers for
AN
SSCM and found the interaction between them through ISM from a Canadian perspective.
Zheng (2010) evaluated environmentally friendly conditions in manufacturing supply chains by
M

using the Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Faisal (2010) also analyzed
enablers for SSCM, but only 10 enablers were considered; this study focused on economic and
D

environmental perspectives rather than on the social perspective. Singh and Debnath (2012)
analyse the benefits of sustainability through a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) relevant
TE

to India using ISM. Government regulations, competitive advantages, and corporate

responsibility emerged as important drivers for initialization of sustainability in today’s
EP

businesses (Houda and Said, 2011). De Brito et al. (2008) concluded that initially corporations
get involved with sustainability due to pressures from legislation. Dehghanian et al. (2011)
C

created a framework to determine an integrated index to assess sustainability of the supply chain
of a product of AHP. Vinodh (2010) indicated a major improvement of agility and sustainability
AC

in the design and development of knobs. Similarly, Berkes et al. (2000) discussed comparative
aspects of land-use sustainability in two areas, which offer physical and ecological similarities
and cultural and historical contrasts between India and Canada. Aslan et al. (2012) stated that
textile industries started to adopt e-sustainability through group activities.

Dehghanian et al. (2011) stated that industries started engaging in various activities
involving sustainable developments. Ammenberg and Hjelm (2003) also pointed out that small
and medium enterprises (SME) globally contribute to more than half the global economy and

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
environmental impact, but are often neglected in research as to how and to what extent they
affect the environment (Von Geibler et al., 2004; Preuss 2005; Michelsen and Fet, 2010;). India
has numerous SMEs producing various products both for home use and for export. Many sectors
also grew to the next level to enter the WTO. The textile industry is a sector which started to
improve its performance from the perspective of environmentally friendly practices with
economic improvements. The present study focuses on analysing enablers for SSCM adoption

PT
from environmental, economic, and social perspectives. Initially, sustainable supply chain
management articles were collected from various international publications such as Science

RI
direct, Taylors and Francis, Emerald, Wiley, Springer, and other openly available materials. We
sought a fit for sustainable adoption of traditional supply chain by using the terms “sustainable

SC
supply chain management; enablers for sustainable supply chain and sustainable supply chain
management in textile industry.” Based on these terms, more than 100 papers are downloaded
which are then fitted to the sustainable supply introduction and enablers for SSCM analysis

U
based on the objective of our studies. From these papers, initially 25 enablers were identified
AN
and shortlisted into 13 enablers after a discussion with textile industry experts. A detailed
description about the selection of the 13 enablers from the 25 enablers for SSCM adoption is
M

given in the Phase 1: Preliminary survey section; there we identify common enablers. Next,
these 13 enablers were categorized based on the three perspectives essential to the triple bottom
D

line of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. In Table 1, we identify the enablers
from the literature and show both the sources and roles of each element of the triple bottom line.
TE

Table 1: Enablers for the Sustainable Supply Chain Management adoption with
references
EP

Sl. Environ Econo

Enablers Resources Social
No mental mic
C

1. Employment stability (E1) Kuik et al., 2010; Gabzdylova

et al., 2009; Bhaskaran et al.,
AC

2006
2. Health and safety issues (E2) Carter et al., 2007; Carter and


Roger, 2008
3. Community economic welfare Gabzdylova et al., 2009



(E3)
4. Adoption of safety standards Carter et al., 2007; Carter and


(E4) Roger, 2008
5. Adoption of green purchasing Sarkis, 2012; Mudgal et al.,


(E5) 2009
6. Adoption of green practices Sarkis, 2012; Govindan et al.,



(E6) 2013a

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7. Eco-design (E7) Zhu et al., 2006; Vojdani and


Lootz, 2012
8. Government regulations (E8) Zhu et al., 2006


9. Hazard management (E9) Waheed et al., 2009


10. Customer satisfaction (E10) Hussain, 2011; Faisal, 2010


11. Environmental cost (E11) Carter and Roger, 2008



12. Economic input to Kleindorfer et al., 2005;


infrastructural development Elkington, 1994
(E12)

PT
13. Improvement of product Hussain, 2011


characteristics (E13)

RI
2.1 Research Gap

SC
In the past two decades, researchers have published more than 100 papers about the
operations and supply chain management fields, dealing with special concerns related to Green
Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and sustainable supply chains topics (Mathiyazhagan et al.,

U
2014; Jayaraman et al., 2007; Linton et al., 2007; Seuring et al., 2008; Sarkis, 2012; Xu et al.,
AN
2014; Kaliyan et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2013b;). Generally, different industries have
differing opinions about a single factor based on their nature of manufacturing activities, culture,
M

and country. Specially, many researchers pointed out that different industries have different
opinions about their environmental factors (Govindan et al., 2014; Mathiyazhagan and Haq,
D

2013; Zhu and Sarkis, 2006). Following this, from the initial survey (mail and face to face
interview), we observed that experts from different industries give varied opinions for each
TE

enabler for SSCM adoption (described in the Phase 1: Preliminary survey to identify common
enablers sections).
EP

From the literature review we see that industries (MNCs and some SMEs) globally are
aware about industrial pollution (Junior et al., 2014) and have started to adopt SSCM in their
C

TSCM. In this regard, there are many enablers for SSCM adoption. Many researchers focused
AC

on SSCM performance and other perspectives (Faisal, 2010; Vinodh, 2010; Dehghanian et al.,
2011; Hussain, 2011; Zheng, 2010) but there is not much work on the investigation of enablers
for adoption of SSCM from an Indian scenario. Similar studies were undertaken in countries
such as Poland and Canada (Hussain, 2011; Grzybowska, 2012). There is a large research gap in
the identification of influential enablers for adoption of SSCM in Indian textile industries. The
Indian textile sector is the second largest employment provider; it ensures direct employment to
over 35 million people in the country. Hence, it is essential to think of environmental adoption
in the textile sector compared to other sectors. For these reasons, this issue was chosen for this

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
study. This paper addresses the gap in the identification of dominant enablers to implement
SSCM through a two-phase research approach. Phase 1 is an initial survey to identify the
enablers for SSCM, and Phase 2 is the identification of the leading enabler by ISM approach.

3. Description of the study

As Pagell and Shevchenko (2014) state, all industries haven't shown much interest to
improve sustainability in supply chain management without any external motivations. With

PT
sustainability issues in the textiles sector, the main focus is often on social issues such as child
labour, working conditions (e.g. contract, payment, representation), and workers’ health and

RI
safety. But environmental aspects of production are increasingly attracting attention. In a global
economy, a SME business sector’s contribution is substantially large. Hence, it is necessary to

SC
adopt environmentally friendly practices in SMEs also. Most textile units come under the SMEs
category. The textile industry, one of the largest global industries after the oil industry, is also

U
one of the most polluting. Caniato et al. (2011) point out that many fashion, apparel, and textile
companies are SMEs. He also suggests that SMEs are able to reshape their supply chain and to
AN
identify different practices that large companies were unable to pursue. Kruse and Storm
Rasmussen (2012) mention that fashion and textile industries are the most important polluters of
M

the environment, in supply chains, in production, in manual labour, and finally to the consumer.
The fashion industry is global and it is one of the most polluting and socially challenged
D

industries in the world (Nordic Fashion Association, 2012). Specifically, the textile sector is
TE

responsible for significant environmental problems associated with the production process due
to the use of toxic chemicals, which adversely impact the natural environment and human health
(Pesticide Action Network, 2012).
EP

The basic reasons for the analysis of enabler issues in SSCM are summarized as follows:
• Due to limited availability of resources and pollution, Indian industries are under heavy
C

stress to focus on waste reduction and consumption of less energy, thereby ensuring
AC

sustainable supply chains.

• Due to government regulations and customers’ environmental consciousness, Indian
industries have started to adopt sustainability in supply chains to keep their customers
and to sustain their positions in the industrial environment.
So, adopting sustainable concepts in traditional supply chain management serves as a strong
motivation to reduce hazards in industries and to work towards ensuring a pollution-free
environment.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Presently, environmental pollution in textile industries in Tamilnadu, India is a very
serious issue. Every day, the media, including newspapers, social networks such as Facebook
and Twitter focus on this issue, and the result is that the government issues stricter regulations.
The public also has a heightened awareness about the hazards of pollution. Due to these reasons,
industries face pressure to update their current environmental technology (SSCM). Almost all
Indian textile industries have started to think about and adopt the new concept (SSCM) to reduce

PT
the use of hazardous materials in their activities due to stricter government regulations. This
study was helpful for industries to improve their sustainable performance by identifying leading

RI
or dominant enablers to adopt SSCM in traditional activities. This research was carried out in
five textile units in Tamilnadu as described in the next section.

SC
4. Methodology of the study
The steps of the solution methodology followed in this study are shown in Figure 1.

Literature review on SSCM and Enablers

U
AN
Collection of the most common Enablers
from literature and outcomes of discussion
with experts
M

Questionnaire development and Data

D

collection
TE

Influential enablers identified using ISM

approach
EP

Results, discussion, and conclusions with

future scope
C

Figure 1: Flowchart of study for five textile units located in Tamilnadu

AC

5. Research design
Before mailing our survey to the industry, we visited more than 50 industries involved in
spinning and other related textile industries located in South India. Hence, we selected South
India for the current research. Coimbatore is a hub of textile and spinning industries in
Tamilnadu. After our initial visit, we shortlisted 15 industries for this research. These 15
industries were selected based on their involvement in environmental practices through the
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). CII works to make and sustain an environment
favourable for industrial growth in India (Govindan et al., 2014). After this, we mailed 15 textile

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
industries. The mail contained the objectives and the necessity for research. Following frequent
phone calls and mails, we received a response from eight industries after two weeks. Finally, we
shortlisted five textile industries from those eight industries, based on the availability of experts.
Experts in three industries were too busy with production targets, so we eliminated those three
industries from our study. Finally, this research was carried out in five textile units located in
Tamilnadu. These five were finalized and identified after direct visits to their plants. Based on

PT
their interest to improve their environmental performance, the five industries were allotted time
and expertise (those with more than ten years’ experience on environmental issues) from

RI
different departments of each industry. The selected industries produce a variety of apparel for
men, women, and children. Of the five industries, a particular unit was selected based on

SC
interest. The chosen industry has more than 100 showrooms in Indian cities and exports to 17
countries. These five industries have more experience in this field, and the managers of these
five industries have more in-depth knowledge about employees, environmental issues, and

U
recent technologies. Because of these reasons and due to the availability of industry interests, we
AN
fixed five experts from each of five industries, giving a total database of 25 experts, a reasonable
cross-section for this study. Hence, this study does not attempt to validate a hypothesis with the
M

help of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). We conducted a one-day workshop for data
collection for this study. Data collection was done through two phases: Phase 1: Preliminary
D

survey to identify common enablers, and Phase 2: Identification of influential enablers for
SSCM adoption.
TE

Phase 1: Preliminary survey to identify common enablers:

EP

Before this phase, we discussed which enabler was available with experts and which
enabler provided motivation for SSCM adoption. From this, common acceptable enablers for
C

SSCM adoption were deduced. At the end of this session, 15 experts from five industries were
asked to give their opinion, rated on their self-interest (1 – No enabler; 2 – Enabler; 3-
AC

Moderate enabler; 4 – Important enabler and 5 – Very important enabler) from the
recommended list of the 25 enablers based on extensive literature. From the recommended list of
25 enablers, 10 enablers received less than 2.5 (average) and 2 obtained in between 2.6 to 3.5
(average). The remaining 13 enablers obtained more than 3.5 (average). Finally, the experts
recommended the 13 enablers which obtained more than 3.5 rating (average) for this research.
More than 3.5 rating denoted that 13 enablers are important and very important as per experts’
opinion. Enablers with lower than a 3.5 rating were ignored. For these reasons, we fixed
enablers with more than 3.5 average rates, and these were proposed for the next phase of the

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
study. Of the 25 enablers 13 obtained more than 3.5 (average) ratings. Finally, the 13 enablers
selected a common acceptable enabler from the workshop.

Phase 2: Identification of influential enablers for SSCM adoption.

In this phase, experts were asked for their opinions of the 13 enabler’s interrelationship.
This phase is described in section 5.1.

PT
5.1. Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM)

This study used the ISM technique to identify the dominant enabler for SSCM. ISM was

RI
primarily proposed as a group learning process, but can also be used individually. ISM is a
known technique to solve industrial decision-making problems. ISM transforms unclear, poorly

SC
articulated mental models of systems into visible, well-defined models useful for many purposes
(Sage, 1977; Diabat and Govindan, 2011). ISM incorporates judgments of experts in a

U
systematic manner and establishes causal relationships among variables which improve upon the
internal validity of the results (Thakkar et al., 2008). ISM is a qualitative and interpretive
AN
method which generates solutions for complex problems through discourses based on structural
mapping of complex interconnections of elements (Malone, 1975; Watson, 1978; Pfohl et al.,
M

2011). The method supports identification and ordering of complex relations between elements
of a system so that the influence can be analysed between elements. ISM has been applied to a
D

variety of problems (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Jharkharia and Shankar, 2005; Thakkar et
TE

al., 2005; Pfohl et al., 2011; Kannan et al., 2009; Govindan et al., 2012).

Attri et al. (2013) mentions the many advantages of ISM methodology. Based on these
EP

many advantages, we selected the ISM methodology because it suits the study and also because
Indian researchers have applied ISM to many problems to analyse their dominant factors. These
applications are summarized in Table 2. There is no work to analyse enablers for sustainability
C

adoption in an Indian perspective with the help of ISM, but similar studies have been conducted
AC

in Poland and Canada (Hussain, 2011; Grzybowska, 2012). Generally, every industry and every
country has different opinions about sustainable enablers based on their own culture and
environmental regulations (Zhu and Sarkis, 2006). For this reason, we chose this problem from
an Indian perspective. Recently authors analyzed sustainable indicators with a hybrid approach.
For example, Tseng (2013) proposed a novel approach where fuzzy set theory and ISM were
adopted to address the analytical objective.
Table 2: Applications of ISM in India

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Application Authors
Higher education program planning Hawthorne and Sage (1975)
Energy conservation in the Indian cement industry Saxena et al. (1992)
Vendor selection criteria Mandal and Deshmukh (1994)
Adoption of knowledge management in Indian industries Singh et al. (2003)
Strategic decision making in managerial groups Bolaños and Nenclares (2005)

PT
Barriers for GSCM Mudgal et al. (2010)
Drivers for GSCM Diabat and Govindan (2011)

RI
Barriers of reverse logistics Ravi and Shankar (2005)
Third party reverse logistic provider Govindan et al. (2013)

SC
Project management analysis Ahuja et al. (2009)
Information sharing enablers Khurana et al. (2010)

U
Flexible manufacturing system enablers in Indian companies Raj et al. (2008)
Future objectives for waste management in India Sharma et al. (1995)
AN
Selection of green suppliers Kannan et al. (2008)
Selection of reverse logistics provider Kannan et al. (2009)
M

Analysis of barriers for adoption of GSCM Mathiyazhagan et al. (2013)

D

The various steps involved in ISM methodology are as follows (Kannan et al., 2009; Diabat and
TE

Govindan, 2011):

Step 1: The Enablers (criteria) examined for the system under consideration are listed.
EP

Step 2: From the enablers identified in Step 1, a contextual relationship is established to identify
which pairs of variables should be examined.
C

Step 3: A Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) is developed for enablers, which indicates
AC

pair-wise relationships among them to the system under consideration.

Step 4: Reachability matrix is developed from SSIM and it is checked for transitivity. The
transitivity of contextual relation is a basic assumption in ISM. It states that if a variable A is
related to B and B is related to C, then A is necessarily related to C.
Step 5: The reachability matrix in Step 4 is partitioned to different levels.
Step 6: Based on the above relationship, a directed graph is drawn and transitive links removed.
Step 7: The resultant digraph is converted into an ISM, by replacing variable nodes with
statements.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Step 8: The ISM model developed in Step 7 is reviewed to check for conceptual inconsistency
and necessary modifications. The above steps are shown in Figure 2.

List of enablers for SSCM Literature review

PT
Establish contextual relationship
(Xij) between variables (i, j) Experts’ opinion

RI
Develop a structural self- Develop reachability matrix
interaction matrix (SSIM)

U SC
Partition the reachability matrix into different levels
AN
Develop the reachability matrix in its conical form
M

Remove transivity from the Develop diagraph

D

diagraph
TE

Yes
Is there any
EP

Replace variable nodes with

relationship statements conceptual
inconsistency?
C

No
AC

Represent relationship statement

into model for the enablers for
SSCM

(Modified from Kannan et al., 2009; Kannan and Haq, 2007)

Figure 2: Flow diagram to prepare the ISM model for enabler analysis in five textile
industries

5.2 Questionnaire development

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5.2.1 Data collection

ISM methodology suggests the use of expert opinions based on various management
techniques like brainstorming, nominal technique, etc., to develop a contextual relationship
among variables. Thus, in this research to identify contextual relationships among enablers,
experts from five textile units in Tamilnadu were consulted. For analysing enablers, a contextual
relationship of “leads to” type is chosen. This means that one variable leads to another. Based on

PT
this, a contextual relationship between variables was developed.
5.2.2 Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM).

RI
Keeping in mind the contextual relationship for each variable, the existence of a relation
between any two barriers (i and j) and the associated direction of the relation is questioned. Four

SC
symbols are used to denote the direction of the relationship between enablers (i and j):
V: Enabler i influence to enabler j;

U
A: Enabler j influence to enabler i;
X: Enablers i and j will influence each other; and
AN
O: Enablers i and j are unrelated.
The SSIM for enablers in adoption of SSCM is given in Table 3.
M

Table 3: Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)

Enablers 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
D

1 V V V V O V V X O X X X
TE

2 O O V O V O X X X X X
3 O O O O X O X X X X
4 X V X O X O X X O
EP

5 A A A A A O O X
6 O O O O A O O
C

7 V O X O A O
AC

8 O V O V O
9 A O A O
10 A X O
11 X O
12 O

5.2.3 Initial Reachability Matrix

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In this step, a reachability matrix is developed from SSIM. The SSIM format is initially
converted into an initial reachability matrix format by transforming information of each SSIM
cell into binary digits (i.e., ones or zeros) in the initial reachability matrix. This transformation is
done with the following rules (Kannan et al., 2009):

• If an entry in the cell (i, j) in the SSIM is V, then cell (i, j) entry becomes 1 and cell (j, i)
entry becomes 0 in the initial reachability matrix.

PT
• If an entry in the cell (i, j) in SSIM is A, then cell (i, j) entry becomes 0 and cell (j, i) entry
becomes 1 in the initial reachability matrix.

RI
• If an entry in the cell (i, j) in SSIM is X, then entries in both cells [(i, j) and (j, i)] become 1
in the initial reachability matrix.

SC
• If an entry in the cell (i, j) in SSIM is O, then the entries in both cells [(i, j) and (j, i)] become
0 in the initial reachability matrix. Following these rules, the initial reachability matrix is

U
given in Table 4.
AN
Table 4: Initial Reachability Matrix
Enablers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
M

1. 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
2. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
D

3. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
TE

4. 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
5. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EP

7. 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
8. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
C

9. 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
AC

10. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
11. 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
12. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
13. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

The final reachability matrix for enablers, shown in Table 5, is obtained by incorporating
transitivities as enumerated in Step 4 of the ISM methodology. The final reachability matrix then
consists of some entries from pair-wise comparisons and some inferred entries.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5: Final Reachability Matrix

Enablers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

PT
2. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

RI
5. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

SC
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
8. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

U
10. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
AN
12. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
M

5.2.4 Level Partitions

In the study, the 13 enablers, along with their reachability set, antecedent set, intersection
D

set and levels, are presented in Table 6. Level identification process of these enablers is
TE

completed in four iterations. From Table 6, it shows that Adoption of green practices (E5) is
found in Level I. Thus, it would be positioned at the top of the ISM model.
EP

The iterations are continued till the levels of each variable are obtained. The identified
levels aid in building digraph and the final ISM model.
C

Table 6: Level Partitions for Enablers

AC

Iteration No.
Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set
& Level
5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 I
10 2 3 6 10 12 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 2 3 6 10 12 II
12 2 3 6 10 12 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 6 10 12 II
7 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13 III
8 8 123468 8 III

18

9 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13
11 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13
13 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13
1 12346
2 12346
3 12346
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13 III
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13 III
1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 11 13 III
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 12346 IV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 12346 IV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 12346 IV

PT
4 12346 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 13 12346 IV
6 12346 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 12346 IV

RI
5.2.5 Formation of ISM Based Model

SC
From the final reachability matrix, a structural model is generated and given in Figure 3.

U
The relationship between enablers j and i is shown by an arrow from i to j. The resulting graph is
called a digraph. After removing transitivities as described in ISM methodology, the digraph is
AN
finally converted into an ISM model for the enabler.
M

Adoption of green purchasing (E5)

D

Customer satisfaction (E10) Economic input to infrastructural

TE

development (E12)
EP

Eco-design (E7) Government Hazard Environmental Improvement

regulations management cost (E11) of product
C

(E8) (E9) characteristics

(E13)
AC

Employment Health and Community Adoption of Adoption of

stability (E1) safety issues economic safety green practices
(E2) welfare (E3) standards (E4) (E6)

Figure 3: ISM based Model for Enablers of sustainable management

5.2.6 MICMAC Analysis

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Matriced Impacts ‘croises-multiplication applique’ and classment (cross-impact matrix
multiplication applied to classification) is abbreviated to MICMAC. The MICMAC principle is
based on the multiplication properties of matrices (Sharma et al., 1995; Diabat and Govindan,
2011; Kannan et al., 2009). It is a graphical representation of enablers into four clusters, namely:
Independent, Linkage, Autonomous, and Dependent. The purpose of MICMAC analysis is to
analyse the enablers’ drive power and dependence power. This is done to identify the key

PT
enablers that drive the system in various categories. Based on their drive power and dependence
power, enablers, in the present case, were classified into four categories as follows (Kannan et

RI
al., 2009):

1. Autonomous enablers: These have weak driving power and weak dependence. They are

SC
relatively disconnected from the system, with which they have few links, which may be very
strong. These enablers are represented in Quadrant – I.

U
2. Dependent enablers: This category includes enablers which have weak drive power, but
AN
strong dependence power and are placed in Quadrant – II.
3. Linkage enablers: These have strong driving power and strong dependence and are placed in
Quadrant - III. They are unstable and so action on them does not affect others. It also
M

includes a feedback effect on them.

4. Independent enablers: These have strong driving power but weak dependence power. These
D

are represented in Quadrant – IV. It is observed that a variable with a very strong driving
TE

power, called a key variable, falls into the category of independent or linkage criteria. The
driver power and dependence power of each of these barriers are shown in Table 7. More
details of the final ISM model for the enabler are given in Figure 4.
EP

Table 7: Dependence Power and Driving Power

C
AC

Driving
Enablers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Power
1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
2. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
3. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
4. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
5. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 9
6. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 12
8. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4
9. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 11
10. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6
11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 12
12. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6

PT
13. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 12
Dependence
10 12 12 10 13 12 10 6 10 11 10 12 9

RI
Power

SC
Subsequently, the diagram of driving power vs. dependence power for the enablers is
constructed as shown in Figure 4. As illustrated, it is observed from Table 6 that there is one

U
enabler, Government regulations (E8) in Quadrant - I. In Quadrant – II, Customer satisfaction
AN
(E10) and Economic input to infrastructural development (E12) are evident. Similarly, the
remaining enablers are positioned according to their driving and dependence power.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 4: Driving Power and Dependence Power Diagram

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6. Result and Discussion

Indian researchers started analysing SSCM and GSCM practices in the Indian industries
(Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Mudgal et al., 2010; Luthra et al., 2011; Govindan et al., 2014).
The textile industry is a sector which adopted SSCM practices due to pressures from SSCM
enablers. Enablers for SSCM, collected from literature, were put into ISM to investigate
interactions between them. The driver-dependence power diagram obtained from MICMAC

PT
analysis gives an insight into the relative importance and interdependencies between enablers.
Figure 4 indicates the dependence and driving power of enablers. The present research with ISM

RI
shows the following interpretations:

• The driver and dependence power diagram shows four quadrants. In the first quadrant

SC
(Quadrant I), Government regulations (E8) enabler appears because it has a driving power of 4
and dependence power of 6. It shows that government regulations enabler has less driving and

U
dependence power. Generally, autonomous enablers are weak drivers and weak dependents
AN
without much influence on sustainable supply chain implementation in the textile industry.
Guenther et al. (2011) states that environmental legislation and regulations can hold back
M

innovation by prescribing best available techniques and setting unreasonable deadlines. From
this result, it can be inferred that the government regulation enabler serves a minor role and does
D

not provide a tremendous impact to the adoption of SSCM in industries. But, Mathiyazhagan
and Haq (2013) have identified that automotive component sectors are facing more pressure
TE

from central governmental environmental regulations and regional environmental regulations

due largely to their customers’ pressure. In this view, we need more strict regulations for the
EP

textile industries to adopt the environmental practices which are available at present.
• The second quadrant (Quadrant II), is also called a dependent quadrant with low
C

driving power and high dependence power. As per our research, Customer satisfaction (E10) and
Economic input to infrastructural development (E12) enablers appear in this Quadrant. Enabler
AC

E10 has a dependence power of 11 and driving power of 6 showing that customers provide
limited pressure or motivation for implementation of SSCM in textile industries. Still, from the
customer’s side, there is a need to provide more motivation towards improving sustainability
practices in the textile industries. Customers also need to enact more pressure for
environmentally friendly products (Zhu and Sarkis, 2006). But, Ellen et al. (2006) say that
organizations need to attract their customers by means of engaging in sustainable behaviors.
Similarly, Enabler E12 has high dependence power (12) and less driving power, which shows

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
that industries have less interest in assigning money to develop their infrastructure for
sustainability.
• Ten enablers appear in Quadrant III. Enablers in this quadrant have strong driving and
strong dependence power. They are unstable. Any action on them will affect others and will
provide a feedback effect on them. They can disturb the whole system. In this quadrant,
Adoption of green purchasing (E5) enabler has lowest driving power (9) and high dependence

PT
power (12). From this, it is inferred that implementing green practice provides reduced
motivation for the adoption of SSCM as it depends on other practices; meaning that the green

RI
practice enabler needs the co-operation of other enablers, without which, E5 is difficult to
practice. Guenther et al. (2010) pointed out for the whole environment in industries, green

SC
procurement activity will ensure a tremendously effective way to develop the entire
environmental performance. The next lowest value enabler is Hazard management (E9). It has a
driving power of 11 and dependence power of 10. Currently, every industry is involved in

U
reducing their usage of hazardous materials in their operations and many have also started to
AN
find alternatives for such materials. This enabler is important for textile industries because for
color coating and other fabric related purposes, color agents are needed. These color agents are
M

harmful to human health and surroundings. The Hazard management (E9) ISM value shows that
textile industries have started to reduce hazardous materials used in their industry through
D

special attention.
Improvement of product characteristics (E13) enabler appears in the next position in
TE

Quadrant III. Compared to previous enablers (E8; E10; E12; E5; E9) E13 enabler has a high
driving power (12) and less dependence power (9). This shows that textile industries have started
EP

to improve their products by reducing the use of hazardous substances in clothes and by
improving apparel characteristics. But this step needs the co-operation of other enablers such as
C

Hazard management (E9); Government regulations (E8); Economic input to infrastructural

development (E12); and Adoption of green purchasing (E5). Two enablers appear in the next
AC

position of this region, namely, Eco-design (E7) and Environmental cost (E11). These two
enablers have equal driving power and dependence power (12, 10). For adoption of any system in
the industry, it should alter existing methodological activities by design. The design department
has a notable role in every organization. We need to re-design industrial activities towards
ecological activities, especially for environmental issues. Past researchers have observed that it is
essential for industries to design the process and products related to environmentally friendly
activities to sustain their performance (Bhaskaran et al., 2006; Mudgal et al., 2010; Hussain,
2011; Grzybowska, 2012; Houda and Said, 2011; Singh et al., 2012).
23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Employment stability (E1) and Adoption of safety standards (E4) enablers appear in the
same position. It shows that these two enablers strongly influence other enablers. Employment is
a major concern for every organization because without labour cooperation, an industry cannot
achieve its goals (Kuik et al., 2010). The adoption of safety standards will improve
environmental performance by means of placing standardized norms on the environmental
issues. ISO 14001 certification provides safety standards for industries (Carter et al., 2007;

PT
Carter and Roger, 2008). This result shows that the textile industry feels that these two enablers
provide good motivation for SSCM adoption.

RI
In this quadrant, three enablers appear in the same position, namely: Health and safety
issues (E2), Community economic welfare (E3), and Adoption of green purchasing (E6). In the

SC
dependence power and the driving power diagram, these enablers have high dependence and
driving power (12, 13). Also, this result proves that enablers E2, E3 and E6 have mutual

U
interactions. Health and safety are serious issues in every industry, because workers want a safe
working environment. Organizations also consider this enabler important as without workers’
AN
involvement, industry cannot benefit. Thus, this enabler is important to motivate SSCM
adoption. The Health and safety issues (E2) enabler has a dependence power of 12 and a driving
M

power of 13. Community economic welfare (E3) is placed next. This enabler gives economic
support to employees and increases worker involvement. In this quadrant, Adoption of green
D

purchasing (E6) is the final enabler. It also has same driving and dependence power as E2 and
TE

E3. All production starts from procurement of raw materials. Clearly, industries need to adopt
sustainability concepts in their procurement. Green purchasing is the best concept to make an
industry sustainable (Zhu et al., 2006; Mudgal et al., 2010).
EP

• In the fourth Quadrant (IV), no enabler appears. Of these 13 enablers, none has an
C

independent character, which proves that all enablers are dependent in textile industries for
SSCM adoption.
AC

7. Conclusion

Sustainable development has grown to be a generally used term that goes beyond
uncomplicated economic security to include issues of environmental impact and resource use,
together with social effects (Konstantinos et al., 2011). Moving towards sustainability in the
TSCM requires more motivation (enablers). Customers also expect more environmental
friendliness than traditional operations. As the present Indian scenario demonstrates, industries
need more motivations (enablers) for SSCM adoption to improve their environmental

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
performance. From this study, we observed that textile organizations have notable
environmental awareness and also are interested in retaining their customers by improving
environmental performance (adopting SSCM). Identifying leading enablers for SSCM creates
considerable challenges for researchers and industrial experts. Based on the inputs from experts
in five textile industries and an academician, a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) the basis
for ISM was formed.

PT
From the ISM framework, we inferred that adoption of green purchasing (E5) enabler
occupies the top level (iteration I). For the textile industry, this enabler (E5) provides less impact

RI
compared to the other recommended enablers as almost all industries have started adopting
green purchasing. For this reason, green purchasing practice enabler gets less weight. In iteration

SC
II, two enablers appear: namely, Customer satisfaction (E10) and Economic input to
infrastructural development (E12). These enablers occupy the next position to the E5 enabler.
Similarly, in iteration III, five enablers are placed: namely, Improvement of product

U
characteristics (E13); Environmental cost (E11); Hazard management (E9); Government
AN
regulations (E8), and Eco-design (E7). From iteration III, we infer that these motivations occur
from different directions. For example, Government regulations are external enablers, but Eco-
M

design is an internal enabler for industries. These five enablers are more important than the
previous iterations’ (I and II) enablers. Similarly, another five enablers appear in the lower level
D

(iteration IV). These five enablers deal with the involvement of employees to SSCM: namely,
Employment stability (E1); Health and safety issues (E2); Community economic welfare (E3);
TE

Adoption of safety standards (E4), and Adoption of green practices (E6). These enablers play a
dominant role in implementing SSCM in textile industries. This result shows that textile
EP

industries feel that employees’ involvement, stability and community economic enablers are
more important than the other enablers, because without employees’ involvement, industry
C

cannot achieve its goals. There is a need for more interest from the employees’ side, especially
in SSCM implementation.
AC

7.1 Recommendation
 It is evident from the results that identification of the leading enablers in textile industries is
helpful for easy implementation of an effective SSCM.
 It also improves environmental performance and creates a green environmental zone. The
result of this study shows that five enablers play a dominant role. Textile industries need to
focus more on other recommended enablers.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 The conclusion of this study is useful to implement SSCM in a textile industry in an Indian
scenario. Industries find it difficult to identify dominant enablers, but this study provides an
improved solution for this problem by using ISM.
 Industries need to identify the enablers with important roles and those with less important
roles during SSCM adoption. As summarized above; this study is one of the better research
tasks to identify the principal enabler for SSCM adoption.

PT
 The purpose of this paper is to provide a solid framework for enabling SSCM in textile
industries, because it is vital for such industries to offer accountability when it comes to

RI
environmental consciousness.
7.2 Limitations and Future scope

SC
This study was conducted only in the textile sector where five units were selected.
Involving more industries might provide more insight into enablers. More sectors can also be
considered for similar analysis. Only 13 enablers were considered in this research, but in reality

U
more enablers exist and their identification is possible. This study identifies the most
AN
dominant enabler through the use of the ISM methodology. In future studies, fuzzy theory
(Bansal et al., 2014; Patil and Kant, 2014) can be utilized in the traditional ISM. In
M

addition, Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) can be used to
identify the dominant enabler (Patil and Kant, 2014), and AHP can be utilized to
D

prioritize the enablers.

Acknowledgement
TE

The authors would like to thank Prof. Kannan Govindan, University of Southern Denmark,
Denmark for providing an opportunity to work on the network project “Sustainable supply chain
management: A step towards Environmental and Social Initiatives” (2211916) between partner
EP

countries from China, India & Denmark which is supported by a grant from Forsknings – og
Innovationsstyrelsen, Denmark.
C

References
AC

1. Aarabi, M., Mat Saman, M.Z., Khoei, M.R., Wong, K.Y., Beheshti, H.M., Zakuan, N., 2011.
Conceptual model for information systems of sustainable supply chain management. IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) 303 - 307.
2. Ahi, P., Searcy, C. 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable
supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 52, 329-341.
3. Alzaman, C. 2014. Green supply chain modelling: literature review. International Journal of Business
Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 6(1), 16-39.
4. Ammenberg, J., Hjelm, O. 2003. Tracing business and environmental effects of environmental
management systems – a study of networking small and medium sized enterprises using a joint
environmental management system. Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (3), 163–174.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5. Aslan, I., Çınar, O., Kumpikaitė, V. 2012. Creating strategies from tows matrix for strategic
sustainable development of Kipaş Group, Journal of Business Economics and Management 13 (1),
95-110. doi:org/10.3846/16111699.2011.620134
6. Bajaj, S., Jha, P. C., & Aggarwal, K. K. (2013). Single–source, single–destination, multi product
EOQ model with quantity discount incorporating partial/full truckload policy. International Journal
of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(2), 198-220.
7. Bagheri, A., Hjorth, P. 2007. A framework for process indicators to monitor for sustainable
development: practice to an urban water system, Environment, Development and Sustainability 9 (2),

PT
143-161. doi: 10.1007/s10668-005-9009-0
8. Bansal, A., Kumar, P. and Issar, S. (2014) Evaluation of a 3PL company: an approach of fuzzy
modelling, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 6(2), 131-161

RI
9. Berry, M., Rondinelli, D. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental management: a new industrial
revolution, Academy of Management Executive 12 (2), 38-50.
10. Berkes, F., Gardner. J, S., Sinclair, A, J., 2000. Comparative aspects of mountain land resources

SC
management and sustainability: case studies from India and Canada. International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology 7 (3), 75-90. Beske, P., Land, A., and Seuring, S.
2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry:
A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics 152, 131–143.

U
11. Bhaskaran, S., Polonsky, M., Cary, J., Fernandez, S. 2006. Environmentally sustainable food
AN
production and marketing: Opportunity or hype? British Food Journal 108 (8), 677-690.
12. Bojnec, S., Papler, D., 2011. Economic Efficiency, Energy Consumption and Sustainable
Development, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 12 (2): 353-374.
13. Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Moretto, A. 2011. Environmental sustainability in fashion supply
M

chains: An exploratory case based research. International Journal Production Economics, 659-670.
14. Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L. 2007. Structure and influence: a logistics management
D

application of social network analysis. Journal of Business Logistics 28 (1), 137-68.

15. Cetinkaya, B. 2011. Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain Strategy, C. Tyssen et al., Sustainable
TE

Supply Chain Management, and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 17-55.

16. Charkha, P. G., and Jaju, S. B. 2014. Supply chain performance measurement system: an overview.
International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 6(1), 40-60.
17. Cetinkaya, B.R., Cuthbertson, G., Ewer, T., Klass-Wissing, W., Piotrowicz, C., Tyssen. 2011.
EP

Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Practical Ideas for Moving Towards Best Practice. Springer-
VerlagBerlin Heidelberg.
18. Chahal, H., Sharma, R.D. 2006. Implications of Corporate Social Responsibility on Marketing
C

Performance: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Services Research, 6 (1), 205-216.

19. Craig, R., Carter, Dale S. Rogers., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
AC

moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
38 (5), 360 - 387.
20. Datta, S., Samantra, C., Mahapatra, S. S., Mondal, G., Chakraborty, P. S., & Majumdar, G. (2013).
Selection of internet assessment vendor using TOPSIS method in fuzzy environment. International
Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(1), 1-27.
21. De Brito, M., Carbone, V., Blanquart, C. 2008. Towards a sustainable fashion retail supply chain in
Europe: Organisation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 114 (2), 534-
553.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
22. Dehghanian, F., Mansoor, S., & Nazari, M. (2011, December). A framework for integrated
assessment of sustainable supply chain management. In Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 279-283). IEEE.
23. Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of drivers affecting the implementation of green supply
chain management. Resources Conservation and Recycling 55 (6), 659–667.
24. Dweiri, F., and Khan, S. A. 2012. Development of a universal supply chain management
performance index. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 4(3),
232-245.

PT
25. Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: win–win–win business strategies for
sustainable development. California Management Review 36(2), 90–100.
26. Elkington, J. 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century, New Society

RI
Publishers, Stoney Creek, CT.
27. Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. Mohr. L.A. 2006. Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions
for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2),

SC
147-157.
28. Evy Crals, Lode Vereeck. 2005. The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for
SMEs, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12 (2), 173-183.

U
29. Faisal, M.N. 2010. Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers. Business
Process Management Journal 16 (3), 508 – 529.
AN
30. Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F., Castka, P. 2009. Sustainability in the New Zealand wine
industry: drivers, stakeholders and practices, Journal of Cleaner Production17, 992-998. doi:
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.015.
31. Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., Krause, T. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:
M

implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20 (4), 874-
907.
D

32. Govindan, K., Mathiyazhagan, K., Devika K., A.N. Haq. 2014. Barriers analysis for green supply
chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process.
TE

International Journal of Production Economics 147, 555–568.

33. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., and Jafarian, A. 2013a. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring
sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production 47, 345-354.
EP

34. Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., Jabbour, A. B. L. D. S and Jabbour, C. J. C. 2013b.
Analysing green supply chain management practices in Brazil’s electrical/electronics industry using
interpretive structural modelling. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70(4), 477-493.
C

35. Govindan, K., Palaniappan, M., Zhu, Q., and Kannan, D. 2012. Analysis of third party reverse
logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. International Journal of Production
AC

Economics 140(1), 204-211.

36. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., and Murugesan, P. 2013. Multi criteria decision making
approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production.(in press).
37. Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., and Sarkis, J. 2013. Critical Factors for Sub-Supplier Management: A
Sustainable Food Supply Chains Perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 152,
159–173.
38. Grzybowska, K. 2012. Sustainability in the Supply Chain: Analysing the Enablers. Environmental
Issues in Supply Chain Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 25-40.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
39. Günther, E., Hoppe, H., Endikrat, J. 2011. Corporate financial performance and corporate
environmental performance: A perfect match?. Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 3, 279-296.
40. Hussain. M. 2011. Modelling the enablers and alternatives for sustainable supply chain management.
M.S. thesis, Dept. Information Systems Engg., Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
41. Hailing, G.K. 1997. Sustainable Development — Ten Arguments Against a Biologistic “Slow-down”
Philosophy of Social and Economic Development. The International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 4 (1), doi: 10.1080/13504509709469937
42. Haigh, M., Jones, M.T. 2006. The Divers of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Review. The

PT
Business Review, Cambridge 5(2), 245-251.
43. Houda, M., Said, T. 2011. Sustainability metrics for a supply chain: The case of small and medium
enterprises, Logistics (LOGISTIQUA), 2011 4th International Conference on Res. Unit in Logistics,

RI
Ind. Manage. & Quality (LOGIQ), ISGI-Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia: 109 - 114. doi:
10.1109/LOGISTIQUA.2011.5939411
44. Hubacek, K., Guan, D., Barua, A. 2007. Changing lifestyles and consumption patterns in developing

SC
countries: A scenario analysis for China and India. Futures 39, 1084–1096. doi:
org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.03.010.
45. Jaggi, C. K., and Verma, M. 2009. Retailer's ordering policy for deteriorating items in a supply chain
with varying deterioration rates. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 1(2),

U
250-266.
AN
46. Jayaraman, V., Klassen, R., Linton, J.D. 2007. Supply chain management in a sustainable
environment, Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1071-1074.
47. Jharkharia, S., Shankar, R. 2004. IT enablement of supply chains: modeling the enablersǁ.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53 (8), 700-712. doi:
M

10.1108/17410400410569116.
48. Junior, H.L.D.S., Silva, G.L.D. and Silva, V.L.D., 2014. Qualitative analysis of the presence of
D

emerging contaminants in water supplies for human use: a case study of the Guilherme de Azevedo
reservoir in Caruaru (PE, Brazil), International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 6(2),
TE

101-109.
49. Kaliyan, M., Govindan, K., and Noorul Haq. 2013. Barrier Analysis to Improve Green in Existing
Supply Chain Management. Reverse Supply Chains Issues and Analysis, CRC Press (Taylor and
Francis), 273–288. Print ISBN: 978-1-4398-9902.
EP

50. Kannan, G., Haq, A. 2007. Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for the selection of
supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment. International Journal of Production Research,
45 (17), 3831–3852.
C

51. Kannan, G., Pokharel, S., Sasi Kumar, P. 2009. A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for
the selection of reverse logistics provider, Resource, Conservation and Recycling 54 (1), 28-36.
AC

52. Kassem, M., & Dawood, N. (2013). A framework for the integration and coordination of the
construction supply chain. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain
Modelling, 5(2), 115-130.
53. Kongar, E., and Gupta, S. M. 2009. A multiple objective tabu search approach for end-of-life product
disassembly. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 1(2), 177-202.
54. Kattumuri, R., Kumar, B., Khatri, V.N., Hiremath, R.B., Patil, S.S. 2012. An integrated networking
approach for a sustainable textile sector in Solapur, India. Urbani izziv, 23 (2), 140-151.
55. Khalili–Damghani, K., Taghavifard, M., Olfat, L., and Feizi, K. 2012. Measuring agility performance
in fresh food supply chains: an ordinal two–stage data envelopment analysis. International Journal of
Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 4(3), 206-232.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
56. Kuik, S.V., Nagalingam, Y., Amer. 2010. Challenges in implementing sustainable supply chain
within a collaborative manufacturing network, in 8th International Conference on Supply Chain
Management and Information Systems, Hong Kong.
57. Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., Wassenhove, L.N.V. 2005. Sustainable operations management.
Production and Operations Management 14(4), 482–492.
58. Konstantinos I. Vatalis, Odysseus G. Manoliadis, Georgios Charalampides. 2011. Assessment of the
economic benefits from sustainable construction in Greece. International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology 18 (5), 377-383. doi:10.1080/13504509.2011.561003.

PT
59. Kruse, E., Storm Rasmussen, V. (2012, Maj 2). Bæredygtig mode er bæredygtig vækst (Sustainable
fashion is sustainable growth). Retrieved May 12, 2012, from Berlingske Tidende:
http://www.b.dk/kommentarer/baeredygtig-mode-er-baeredygtig-vaekst

RI
60. Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., van Erck, P.R.G., 2005. Assessing the sustainability performances of
industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 373–385. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007.
61. Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an introduction. Journal

SC
of Operations Management 25 (6), 1075-1082. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.012
62. Maleki, M., & Cruz–Machado, V. (2013). Supply chain performance monitoring using Bayesian
network. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(2), 177-197.

U
63. Mandal, A. Deshmukh, S.G., 1994. Vendor selection using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM).
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14 (6), 52-9.
AN
64. Marshall, R., Cordano, M., Silverman M. 2005. Exploring individual and institutional drivers of
proactive environmentalism in the US wine industry. Business Strategy and the Environment14 (2),
92–109.
65. Malone, D.W. 1975. An Introduction to the Application of Interpretive Structural Modelling,
M

Proceedings of IEEE, 63, 397-404.

66. Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., Geng, Y. 2013. An ISM approach for the barrier
D

analysis in implementing green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 47, 283-
297.
TE

67. Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., and Noorul Haq, A. 2014. Pressure analysis for green supply
chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process.
International Journal of Production Research, 52(1), 188-202.
68. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. Zacharia, Z.G. 2002.
EP

Defining supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics 22 (2), 1-25.

69. Michelsen, O., Fet, M.A. 2010. Using eco-efficiency in sustainable supply chain management; a case
study of furniture production. Clean Techn Environ Policy 12, 561–570.
C

70. Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T. 2010. Modeling the barriers of green supply chain
practices: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 7 (1),
AC

81-107.
71. Mudgal, R. K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., and Raj, T. 2009. Greening the supply chain practices: an
Indian perspective of enablers' relationships. International Journal of Advanced Operations
Management, 1(2), 151-176.
72. Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., and Geng, Y. 2013. Barriers to green supply chain management
in Indian mining industries: a graph theoretic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 335-344.
73. Nilakantan, K. (2013). Replenishment policies for warehouse systems under cyclic
demand. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(2), 148-176.
74. Nordic Fashion Association. 2012. Copenhagen Fashion Summit. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from
Nordic Fashion Association: http://nordicfashionassociation.com/40520/Background

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
75. Pagell, M., and Shevchenko, A. 2013. Why research in sustainable supply chain management should
have no future. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50 (1) (Forthcoming).
76. Patil, S. K., and Kant, R. 2014. Predicting the success of knowledge management adoption in supply
chain using fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM approach. International Journal of Business
Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 6(1), 75-93.
77. Preuss, L. 2005. Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain
management function. Bus Strategy Environ 14 (2), 123–139.
78. Pesticide Action Network. (2011, May 2). Problems with conventional cotton. Retrieved May 6,

PT
2012, from Pan North America: http://www.panna.org/resources/cotton
79. Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C. 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate, Harvard Business
Review 73 (5), 120-134.

RI
80. Pfohl, H.C, Philipp Gallus, David Thomas. 2011. Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain
risks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41 (9), 839 - 859.
81. Rajkumar, P. (2013). Service quality measurement of the public distribution system in the food

SC
grains supply chain. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain
Modelling, 5(2), 131-147.
82. Ramaa, A., Subramanya, K. N., and Rangaswamy, T. M. 2013. Performance measurement system of

U
supply chain-an empirical study. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain
Modelling 5(4), 343-360.
AN
83. Salimifard, K., and Raeesi, R. 2014. A green routing problem: optimising CO 2 emissions and costs
from a bi–fuel vehicle fleet. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 6(1), 27-57.

84. Santos, F. C. A., Andrade, E. M., Ferreira, A. C., Leme, P. C. S., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2013).
M

Practices of environmentally responsible reverse logistics systems in Brazilian

companies. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(1), 63-85.
D

85. Sarkis, J. 2012. A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 17 (2), 202 - 216.
TE

86. Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., Muller, M. and Rao, P. 2008. Sustainability and supply chain management –
an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), 1545-1551.
87. Seuring, S., and Gold, S. 2013. Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: from
stakeholders to performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 1-6.
EP

88. Seuring, S. 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management.
Decision Support Systems, 54(4), 1513-1520.
89. Sezen, B., & Turkkantos, S. (2013). The effects of relationship quality and lean applications on
C

buyer–seller relationships. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain

Modelling, 5(4), 378-400.
AC

90. Sharma, H.D., Gupta. A.D. Sushil. 1995. The objectives of waste management in India: a futures
inquiry, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 48 (3), 285–309.
91. Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., and Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria
approach for evaluating green supplier's performance in green supply chain with linguistic
preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 74, 170-179.
92. Shrivastava. 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of
Management Review 20 (4), 936-60.
93. Sage, A.P. 1977. Interpretive structural modelling: Methodology for large scale systemsǁ. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
94. Singh, R., Roma Mitra Debnath. 2012. Modeling sustainable development: India's strategy for the
future, World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 9 (2), 120 - 135.
95. Sikdar, S.K., Debalina Sengupta, Paul Harten. 2012. More on aggregating multiple indicators into a
single index for sustainability analyses. Clean Techn Environ Policy.
96. Tewari, S. K., & Misra, M. (2013). Developing supply chain evaluation framework through
performance assessment approach. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain
Modelling, 5(1), 28-45.
97. TEXTILE INDUSTRY IN INDIA, (March (2012)

PT
web.archive.org/web/20120522071945/http://cci.in/pdf/surveys_reports/indian-textile-industry.pdf
98. Thakkar, J., Kanda, A. Deshmukh, S.G. 2008. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) of IT-enablers
for Indian manufacturing SMEs. Information Management & Computer Security 16 (2), 113-136.

RI
99. Topcu, A., Benneyan, J. C., & Cullinane, T. P. (2013). A simulation–optimisation approach for
reconfigurable inventory space planning in remanufacturing facilities. International Journal of
Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(1), 86-114.

SC
100. Torres Romiguer, Alexandre. 2011. Sustainable development: objectives, enablers and challenges
for Spanish Companies. Master Thesis.
101. Ugwua, T.C., Haupt. 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure

U
sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective, Building and Environment 42 (2),
665–680.
AN
102. Van Hoof, B., and Thiell, M. 2014. Collaboration capacity for sustainable supply chain
management: small and medium-sized enterprises in Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production 67,
239-248.
103. Veleva V., Ellenbecker, M., 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: framework and
M

methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 519–549.

104. Vinodh. 2010. Improvement of agility and sustainability: A case study in an Indian rotary switches
D

manufacturing organisation. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (10-11), 1015-1020.

105. Von Geibler, J., Kuhndt, M., Seifert, E.K., Lucas, R., Lorek, S., Bleischwitz, R. 2004. Sustainable
TE

business and consumption strategies. In: Bleischwitz R, Hennicke P (eds) Eco-efficiency,

regulations and sustainable business. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 116– 164.
106. Vojdani, N., and Lootz, F. 2012. Designing supply chain networks for the offshore wind energy
industry. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling 4(3), 271-284.
EP

107. Waheed, B, Faisal Khan, Brian Veitch. 2009. Linkage-Based Frameworks for Sustainability
Assessment: Making a Case for Driving Force-Pressure-State-Exposure- Effect-Action (DPSEEA)
Frameworks. Sustainability 1, 441-463.
C

108. Watson, R.H. 1978. Interpretive Structural Modeling-A useful tool for technology assessment?.
Technology Forecasting and Social Change l (11), 165-185.
AC

109. Wiengarten, F., Pagell, M., and Fynes, B. 2013. ISO 14000 certification and investments in
environmental supply chain management practices: identifying differences in motivation and
adoption levels between Western European and North American companies. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 56, 18-28.
110. White, L., Lee, G.J. 2009. Operational research and sustainable development: tackling the social
dimension. European Journal of Operational Research 193 (3), 683-692. World Commission on
Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
111. Warfield, J.W. 1974. Developing interconnected matrices in structural modellingǁ. IEEE transcript
on systems. Men and Cybernetics 4 (1), 51-81.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
112. Xie, Y., & Allen, C. (2013). Information technologies in retail supply chains: a comparison of Tesco
and Asda. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 5(1), 46-62.
113. Xu, L., Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorul Haq, A., Ramachandran, N. V., and Ashokkumar,
A. 2013. Multiple comparative studies of green supply chain management: pressures analysis.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 78, 26-35.
114. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2008. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
management practices implementation. International Journal of Production Economics 111 (2),
261–273.

PT
115. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J. Lai K.H. 2006. Firm-level correlates of emergent green supply chain
management practices in the Chinese context. The International Journal of Management Science 36
(4), 577-591.

RI
116. Zheng, F. 2010. The Evaluation on Environmentally friendly Condition of Manufacturing Supply
Chain. 2010 3rd International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and
Industrial Engineering: 116-121.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

33