How to Measure Sustainability in the Supply Chain Design: An Integrated Proposal from an Extensive and Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The increase in the world population and resource scarcity has led to the introduction of environmental concepts such as sustainability and sustainable supply chain design (SSCD). However, there is a lack of consensus among researchers on how to measure sustainability in SSCD. Therefore, the authors propose a novel approach to measuring sustainability in the context of SSCD by developing an integrated, tractable, and representative metrics framework. The methodology corresponds to a quantitative approach involving bibliographic examination and statistical techniques. First, the authors conducted a systematic literature review by formulating research questions and a search protocol, searched for relevant articles, and conducted a quality assessment on full-text reviews to obtain metrics for measuring sustainability in SSCD from the literature. Then, they defined aggregation criteria representing their inclusion relationship by merging associated metrics. The authors then used Cluster Analysis (CA), a multivariate statistical technique, for grouping the metrics. Consequently, twelve clusters were distinguished from 541 research articles, grouping 51 metrics from different sustainability dimensions. It shows the strong connection among the sustainability dimensions, i.e., they must be assessed holistically. Then, we proposed reducing the 51 metrics to 5 to evaluate sustainability in the SSCD, allowing us to focus on a reduced number of indicators.

1. Introduction

The world population has doubled in the last fifty years, while vital resources have become increasingly limited [1]. However, several companies contribute more to resource depletion and environmental problems due to their increased raw material and energy consumptions [2]. In light of resource scarcity, certain environmental concepts have been incorporated into the design and management of production systems. One such concept is sustainability, which refers to the capacity of enterprises to meet their immediate financial needs while ensuring that they, as well as others, can meet their future needs without compromise [3]. From a holistic perspective, sustainability denotes a form of development that fulfills present requirements while ensuring that the capacity of future generations to fulfill their own needs remains intact [4].

The multidimensional nature of sustainability has been defined in recent literature as the strategic attainment and integration of an organization’s social, environmental, economic, political, and technological aspects [5,6,7,8,9,10,11] through the systemic coordination of the main inter-institutional business processes [12]. Consequently, both governmental and societal concerns have been raised about environmental protection and corporate social responsibility, leading to constant pressure on companies to reassess their supply chains—not only in terms of economic objectives but also environmental, social, political, and technological concerns [13,14]. This is reflected in the increase in company sustainability reports in the last 20 years [15].

This viewpoint introduces novel factors that must be considered when designing supply chains, a practice now known as sustainable supply chain design (SSCD). SSCD aims to effectively measure and achieve sustainability dimensions, primarily by aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined by the United Nations (UN) [16]. Over the past few years, numerous studies have been conducted across various production sectors, including applications within the healthcare industry [17], big data [18], fuels [19], energy [20], textile [21], and water resources [22,23].

In practice, research on SSCD has utilized a wide range of metrics and methodologies to address each dimension of sustainability [11,24,25]. Several literature reviews have demonstrated how SSCD could effectively incorporate sustainability [24,26,27,28,29,30]. Table 1 shows that, among the related literature reviews, those with no details regarding the years considered or number of articles reviewed correspond to narratives reviews; this means that they are based essentially on the researcher’s experience [31]. In addition, Table 1 shows that by each dimension of sustainability, there are several aspects assessed. For example, regarding the environmental dimension, refs. [29,32] integrate the Eco-indicator 99 and ReCiPe 2008, each considering different impact category indicators at the midpoint (as acidification potential) or endpoint levels (as damage to ecosystem quality). On their behalf, ref. [33] assessed the use of essential resources such as land, water, and materials, as well as air pollution represented by footprints of $N{O}_x$ and $S{O}_2$ emissions and fine particulate matter ($P{M}_{2.5}$) emissions. They also considered the damage to species richness as a consequence of pollutants, GHG emissions, and the use of land and water. Meanwhile, ref. [34] assessed the pollution emitted into air and water and considered resource consumption as energy or water. Ref. [35] considered impact categories and indicators of climate change, biochemical oxygen demand, damage to human health, and water footprint, as well as performance measures such as residual waste generated, GHG emissions, energy consumption, and amount of recycled material. With even more detail, ref. [36] described several footprints as follows. Carbon footprint or GHG footprint considers carbon dioxide ($C{O}_2$), methane ($C{H}_4$), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions to the atmosphere. Water footprint measures both the consumption of freshwater as a resource (including both blue and green water) and the use of freshwater to assimilate waste. The latter component refers to a greywater footprint. The ecological footprint measures land appropriation to produce renewable biomass resources and uptake waste via $C{O}_2$ sequestration. The land footprint measures the land required to supply food, materials, energy, and infrastructure, expressed in physical hectares or equivalent land units (global hectares). The nitrogen footprint measures the emissions of reactive N to the atmosphere and water bodies. The phosphorus footprint measures P’s use as a resource and P’s losses to water bodies. The chemical footprint accounts for all chemical substances released into the environment, which may ultimately lead to ecotoxicity and human toxicity impacts. The $P{M}_{2.5}$ and $P{M}_{10}$ footprints measure particulate matter pollution in the atmosphere. These are also included in the chemical footprint. The ozone footprint measures the emission of gases controlled or due to be controlled under the Montreal Protocol in terms of ozone-depleting potential weighted kilograms. The material footprint measures the use of materials from a consumption perspective, allocating all globally extracted and used raw materials to domestic final demand (metal ores, nonmetallic minerals, fossil fuels, and biomass (crops, wood, wild fish catch, etc.)). Finally, biodiversity loss measures the impact as a result of different pressures, such as land and water use or chemical pollution.

Note that frequently up to one metric is assessed by sustainability, which varies depending on the research [37,50]. It implies several possible metric combinations for the SSCD, considering the large number of metrics that can be evaluated for each sustainability dimension [37,50]. Thus, it should be emphasized that there is currently a lack of consensus among researchers regarding the optimal metrics to accurately represent each sustainability dimension and how to depict the overarching concept of sustainability within the framework of supply chain design. This research tendency has implied different approaches and metrics to assess sustainability and, then, the following question emerges: How do you measure sustainability in sustainable supply chain design (SSCD)?

It leads to the need for a comprehensive and integrated framework to depict the sustainability measure in the SSCD, evidence of at least two new significant problems to be addressed [52,53,54,55]. First, adopting multiple metrics to evaluate each sustainability dimension could search for a feasible solution, ideally optimal, by any resolution method approach. Second, a particular solution from a limited set of metrics could have substantive differences in terms of results in comparison with another metric’s selection, seeking an isolated goal and avoiding a comprehensive vision of sustainability and the relationships of its components [50]. In addition, similar metrics could be considered in more than one dimension. For instance, both logistic cost (from the economic dimension) and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions by transport (from the environmental dimension) require distance between the supply chain actors as a parameter for their computation. Another example is total carbon emission (from the environmental dimension) and the carbon emission cost (from the economic dimension), where the former, weighted by the carbon cost parameter, provides the latter.

Our Contribution

In this paper, the objective is to propose an integrated, tractable, and representative metrics framework to measure the five sustainability dimensions: Economic, Social, Environmental, Political, and Technological, which allows us to address the problems related to measuring sustainability in the sustainable supply chain design (SSCD). This research is based on a quantitative approach involving mainly bibliographic examinations and multivariate relational and statistical techniques. To our best knowledge, this report describes a novel approach that has not been followed in previous research in a sustainable setting. Formally, our contributions are threefold: First, we conduct an exhaustive literature review to analyze the measuring of each of the five sustainability dimensions. This process follows a systematic literature review process through a practical and methodological analysis, distinguishing temporal trends, countries, the main production sectors, methodologies, decision-making levels, and metrics considered to measure each sustainability dimension from 541 published papers available in the Web of Science (WoS) database, until the year 2020. Second, we work on the above-obtained results and develop an integrated metrics framework based on aggregation criteria and Cluster Analysis (CA) methods. It allows for the representation and identification of the relations among different parameters and metrics to be computed/optimized in each of the five sustainability dimensions in SSCD from the literature. In addition, it provides a systemic scheme to incorporate other new metrics from future research. In practice, we propose 12 clusters and a reduced group of metrics to measure sustainability as a basis for novel decision-aid models for production systems and logistics design. It will support and facilitate sustainability management in supply chain design for decision makers in the industry. Third, we discuss our findings and their theoretical and managerial implications, leaving open questions to be addressed in future work about sustainability in SSCD and providing insights from our results to guide answers from research and practice perspectives.

The paper is structured as follows, Section 2 introduces the proposed methodology by integrating a literature review and statistical analysis. Section 3 presents relevant results regarding trends in supply chain scientific literature and sustainability measure identification. Then, Section 4 describes the implications of those results on measuring sustainability in supply chain design. Finally, Section 5 presents an overview of the main results and their implications as well as future research questions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

To conduct our exhaustive and systematic literature review, we adopted the search methodology for a systematic literature review presented by [56] because it generalizes the stages and steps for a successful literature review. This methodology includes three major stages: (i) planning the review, (ii) conducting the review, and (iii) reporting the review. The initial phase involves recognizing the need for a review, determining research queries, and constructing a review protocol. The subsequent stage entails identifying and selecting primary studies and extracting, analyzing, and synthesizing pertinent data. Lastly, the third stage involves the dissemination of the resultant findings.

In particular, the research questions for the initial phase are defined as follows:

• What methodologies have been used to measure sustainability in the SSCD?

• At what decision-making level has sustainability been measured in the SSCD?

• How has sustainability been measured in the SSCD?

Then, the review protocol considers as keywords the concepts related to these questions, which are formulated as the search string: ((“Green Supply Chain” OR “Sustainable Supply Chain”) AND (Design OR Conception)) OR ((“Supply Chain Design”) AND (Sustainable OR Sustainability)). Note that the search string does not include decision making or metric-related keywords in order to not restrict the search.

In the second stage, we establish a search strategy corresponding to search articles available in the Web of Science (WoS) database, which is widely regarded as the foremost scientific citation search and analytical information platform [57]. This search strategy focuses on articles published up to December 2020, utilizing keywords that are searched for within the database’s Title, Abstract, and Keywords sections. Note that no initial date was selected to identify the first related literature. The inclusion criteria involve evaluating whether the research articles identified are relevant to the research queries. Furthermore, the screening procedure involves the initial review of the titles and abstracts to identify articles that satisfy the inclusion criteria, as Figure 1 shows. Then, in the third stage, we performed a refined quality assessment on a full-text review to select the articles for data extraction. After the literature search and selection, the literature assessment focused on the research questions defined for the data analysis, particularly to obtain the metric used for measuring the sustainability in SSCD from the literature.

2.2. Aggregation Criteria, Cluster Analysis (CA), and Reduction Rules

Specifically, we determined parameters and metrics from the literature assessment and defined aggregation criteria to represent the inclusion relationship between them. It is formally defined as follows: “An element (A) aggregates another element (B) if and only if the element (B) correspond to the previous calculations required to obtain the value of the element (A)”. For example, profit maximization (A) integrates the total supply chain costs ($B_1$) and the revenues ($B_2$) by adding them. This reduction follows similar initiatives in other research communities, such as the scheduling setting, where the reduction allows the representation and identification of the relations among different parameters and objective functions of the scheduling problems (see the “scheduling zoo” initiative in [58] for details). To our best knowledge, this report describes a novel approach that has not been followed in previous research in a sustainable setting. In this case, we formally identify and define sets of parameters, auxiliary metrics, and final metrics from the measuring analysis of sustainability in SSCD provided by the literature review, stating the relationships between them based on the defined aggregation criteria. We remark that the final metrics are stated from the metrics recognized from the literature review, merging other associated metrics. The parameters and auxiliary metrics are identified from the considered final metrics.

This procedure allows for assessing the relationship among the different metrics, as Figure 1 presents, to analyze the interrelationship among the sustainability dimensions. To analyze it, we consider the multivariate statistical technique, Cluster Analysis (CA), which groups elements to achieve the maximum homogeneity within each group and the highest difference between groups based on the relationships among the metrics [59]. CA can be performed in Gephi open-source software for graph and network analysis [60]. The obtained results allow the construction of a set of directed acyclic graphs, where a directed arrow represents the aggregation criteria to a single metric from the aggregated metric. In this representation, we remark that many metrics can aggregate a metric, and the node size of each metric is directly defined by its number of aggregated metrics. In practice, we obtain an interconnected network among all parameters and metrics used to measure sustainability in the SSCD. In this network, the sustainability dimensions integrated into each cluster and the relationships among the clusters would lead to understanding the interrelationship among the sustainability pillars.

Furthermore, to introduce the reduction rules, consider pollution generation and the pollution cost. In this case, one metric is contained in the other because a pollution cost factor is multiplied by the pollution production. Then, the pollution cost can be understood as a more complex metric or integrated at a higher level. Therefore, the objective is to identify the metrics at the higher level of integration. It would lead us to understand which metrics are a particular case of another metric. Finally, the more complex metrics or objective functions could be selected to measure sustainability in SSCD from five dimensions: Economic, Social, Environmental, Political, and Technological, since they all integrate other metrics.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Assessment

Following the review protocol, we found and scrutinized 1147 articles, of which only 541 research articles met the refined quality standards required for data extraction. During the initial screening, 422 articles were excluded, of which 63 were review articles, 82 did not involve supply chain design, 152 evaluated sustainability drivers, and 125 performed sustainability effects evaluations. The latter two categories involved ex post assessments, which were not within the scope of this research focusing on ex ante assessments. Additionally, 184 articles were excluded from the full-text review, of which four were review articles, 32 did not perform supply chain design, 85 evaluated sustainability drivers, and 63 assessed sustainability effects.

This section details the data extracted from the 541 research articles to solve the research questions presented in the previous section.

3.1.1. Trends in Related Literature

What methodologies have been used to measure sustainability in the SSCD?

The analysis of research articles based on methodology reveals that the majority, 62.85%, employ optimization models (O), followed by evaluation studies (Ev) with 17.01%, and simulation (S) with 10.91%. These details are depicted in Figure 2. The combined use of optimization and simulation (O-S) amounts to 3.14%, while only three articles employ optimization, simulation, and evaluation (O-S-Ev) jointly [61,62,63].

Most of the research articles classified as optimization developed mixed-integer linear programming models [64,65,66,67]. However, mixed-integer nonlinear programming models were also presented [68,69,70]. Research articles integrating several decision-making levels mainly develop two-stage models to incorporate uncertainty [70,71,72,73,74]. Even though stochastic mixed-integer linear fractional programming models to tackle multiple uncertainties regarding feedstock supply and product demand were developed [75]. Furthermore, research articles that assessed several sustainability dimensions frequently integrated multiple objective functions [65,73,74,76,77,78]. These multi-objective models have been solved with the Epsilon-constraint method [79,80]; particle swarm [67]; weighted sum methods, such as weighted Tchebycheff and augmented weighted Tchebycheff [66,77]; genetic algorithms [67,70], such as non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm [81], non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II [82], and tabu search [83], among others. In addition, game-theoretic approaches seeking optimal supply chain configurations were found [84,85]. Furthermore, DEMATEL methodology [86] and intuitionistic fuzzy-TOPSIS [87] have been applied to evaluate the suppliers’ characteristics for its selection. Besides, other evaluation research articles address the environmental impacts of the supply chain through the Life Cycle Assessment [88]. The methodologies applied in the simulation research articles include Multi-agent-based simulation [89], Discrete Event Simulation [90], and System Dynamics [91]. Furthermore, the research articles, including optimization and simulation, applied Monte Carlo to address uncertainty effects on supply and demand [92,93]. Even when optimization is the most used methodology to integrate sustainability in the supply chain design, future research should include uncertainty studies through evaluations or simulations.

At what decision-making level has sustainability been measured in the SSCD?

In the literature, three levels of supply chain decision making are distinguished according to the time horizon, the uncertainty, and the activities involved [94]. The strategic level at the base of the decision-making structure covers decisions such as facility location, storage capacity, production capacity, and supplier selection, among others [95]. These are long-term decisions taken with high levels of uncertainty, and they are the basis of tactical and operational decisions, designing the principal supply chain structure [96]. The tactical level covers aspects such as production and distribution planning, production allocation, transport capacities, inventories, and the management of safety stocks [97]. Finally, at the top is the operational level, integrating short-term or daily decisions, such as job execution, vehicle loading, unloading, and order delivery [98]. These decisions involve lower uncertainty degrees than the other decision-making levels. Consequently, we classify the research articles selected by the following criteria. A document accounting for the strategic decision-making level must address a long planning cycle of several years. Furthermore, a research article considering the tactical decision-making level deals with a shorter planning cycle (6 months to a year). Meanwhile, the research articles on the operational decision-making level involve weekly or daily planning tasks.

Figure 3 shows the number of publications assessing the different decision-making levels, either individually or integrated.Although it exhibits that the authors have focused mainly on the strategic aspects, in percentage terms, 41.96% of the research articles studied consider only decisions at the strategic level mainly related to supplier selection [99,100,101,102] and facility location [78,103], 5.18% involve decisions from the tactical level related to inventory strategies [104,105,106] and 18.11% only assess decisions from the operational level, devoted to scheduling [107], pricing [108,109,110,111], and transportation decisions [109,112,113], among others. The above reflects the essential importance of the strategic decision-making level in the supply chain. Furthermore, only 27 research articles consider the three decision-making levels, such as in [114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124], mainly developing models with more than one stage. This reduced the number of research articles due to the requirements for complex models and significant computational calculations, compared with the integration of one decision-making level, in the search for an optimal supply chain, considering optimization is the main approach used in the SSCD, as Figure 2 shows.

Related to the supply chain decision-making levels considered in the SSCD, we observed that at least 34% of the research articles integrate more than one level. Moreover, they provide interesting proofs in an integrated SC design, considering different planning horizons, indicating the need for uncertainty inclusion in the SSCD.

How has sustainability been measured in the SSCD?

Figure 4 shows the distribution of research articles according to the dimension of sustainability covered. Furthermore, 28% of the research articles integrate economic and environmental aspects; 17% focus on economic, social, and environmental dimensions (a set of dimensions called triple bottom line (TBL)); 11% corresponds to research articles devoted only to environmental aspects; the economic dimension is studied in isolation by 9%; and 5% of the research articles focus only on social aspects. It shows that environmental and economic aspects lead the sustainability studied in SSCD.

Only seven research articles integrate the extended definition of sustainability (i.e., environmental, economic, social, political, and technological), published between 2010 and 2020. Dev and Shankar [115] extend the knowledge of the limits of green supply chain management (GSCM) elaborated by [125] by finding a hierarchy of interactions between the sustainable boundary enablers with interpretive structural modeling methodology. The boundaries include environmental, economic, cultural, legal, political, technological, and temporal aspects.

Then, in the context of energy transition policy, ref. [126] investigate whether reframing the bioenergy supply chain design can allow sustainable regional development targets.The enablers studied include environmental factors, such as reduced agricultural fertilizer use, economic aspects such as biogas filling station installation, social aspects such as satisfying biogas demand, political aspects such as converting public sector vehicles to biogas, and technological aspects, such as stabilizing manure processing. Finally, ref. [127] focused on supporting managerial decision making based on a Delphi with domain experts and literature synthesis in the same trend. The supply chain activities ranked include the reduction of pollution to air, water, and land, minimizing energy and material consumption, reducing noise levels, utilizing renewable and alternative forms of inputs, and the discussion, investigation, and selection of alternative methods/options.

Ref. [128] developed a model for SSCD based on the ANP (analytic network process) methodology. It presents a case study applied to the electrical goods industry in Germany assessing environmental criteria (ISO 14001), windows for delivery, occupational health and safety (ISO 45001), corporate social responsibility (CSR), demand volume customers influence on distribution and manufacturing orders, and the duration of the product lifecycle.

Furthermore, ref. [82] focuses on Phase III biorefineries (mix feedstock and multiple products) in the Colombian context and develops a multiobjective optimization model solved with an adapted non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA II). It assesses the property concentration of cultivable lands, the net present value and transportation costs, the potential workstations, the governmental subsidies for the industry, and compare production technologies.

Meanwhile, ref. [129] investigates the impact of information sharing on the decisions and profits of the manufacturer and the retailer. The developed game theory models aim for the equilibrium of both the manufacturer and the retailer profits, including aspects such as the environmental impact of a product, promotional campaigns to capture the consumers’ attention, expected consumer surplus, subsidy policies to encourage consumers to purchase, and new technology to manufacture green product introduction by the manufacturer. Finally, ref. [130] developed research for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles applied to the Occitania Region in France, seeking an optimal hydrogen supply chain with the sequential application of an optimization strategy and a multi-criteria decision-making tool. The optimization model presents a social cost-benefit analysis, including $C{O}_2$ and pollution emissions, platinum depletion, externality costs and net present value, noise, a subsidy policy scenario assessment, and the evaluation of different production technologies.

The Supplementary Materials shows the research articles’ classification in detail according to the methodological analysis performed in this work.

3.1.2. Metrics Describing Sustainability in SCCD

Considering most of the research articles related to the SSCD are approached by optimization, the metrics describing sustainability could be represented as objective functions. Thus, Figure 5 presents a detailed description of the 51 objective functions to be optimized from the 541 research articles studied. Note that a number is given for each objective function (metric) in the second column, this number facilitates the relationship between the definition and the acronym presented in the Appendix B.

The main objective functions and optimization criteria considered to assess the economic aspect are minimizing total costs, maximizing profits, and minimizing transportation costs. Likewise, the main objectives sought in the social dimension are the maximization of job opportunities and social welfare. Regarding the environmental dimension, the main aim is to minimize $C{O}_2$ emissions, environmental impact, GHG emissions, and water use. Finally, for the political and technological aspects, it is sought to increase the high-quality green products in the market, assure food security, maximize the desired effects of the regulations, and minimize the related cost of innovative production technologies.

It is worth noting that economic functions constitute the majority (16 objective functions), followed by environmental functions (15 objective functions). Additionally, seven objective functions can be categorized into more than one dimension of sustainability, denoted by an asterisk in Figure 5. For instance, reducing taxes paid corresponds to the economic dimension, while it is also related to tax collection in the political dimension. Besides, maximizing high-quality green goods and/or services could be classified into social or political sections. Finally, the cost and net present value related to technologies could be classified in the economic section.

It should be noted that the objective functions described in this study apply to a general SSCD. Hence, some objective functions may be more suitable for a particular SSCD than others. Furthermore, the analysis identified 51 objective functions, leading to a many-objective optimization problem. Solving such a problem results in a set of nondominated solutions known as a Pareto-optimal set (POS) or Pareto front [131]. However, solvers for such problems are sensitive to the number of objectives considered, as computational costs increase with more objectives, making solution visualization and analysis more complex [45,132]. Therefore, considering the large number of sustainability metrics and the need for an integrated approach to SSCD, it is crucial to develop efficient many-objective models and dimensionality reduction techniques that effectively address different aspects of sustainable development [51].

Other topics such as the distribution of research articles focused on SSCD by year, the number of related research article applications in the SSCD by country, and the main production sectors in SSCD development are analyzed from the literature review. These allow us to evidence the SSCD as a relevant topic worldwide with the constant growth of related research articles. Furthermore, the leading countries are Iran and China, who focus on goods production, such as automotive and manufacturing products. However, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa were left behind. In the same vein, much remains to be done related to using residues in producing new products, fuels, and energy. See details in Appendix A.

3.2. The Aggregation Criteria and Cluster Analysis (CA)

From the above literature review, 51 objective functions (metrics) are recognized to be considered in the measure of sustainability in the SSCD by the decision maker.

To start the aggregation criteria, we initially merge the objective functions n° 16 and n° 47 associated with the net present value (NPV) (see Figure 5). Thus, we formally consider 50 final objective functions (metrics) and identify 58 auxiliary functions and sets of 48 parameters, stating the relationships among them based on the defined aggregation criteria.

The obtained results are described in detail in Appendix B and allow us to construct a set of directed acyclic graphs. The aggregation criteria are represented by a directed arrow to a single objective function from the aggregated function, as shown in Figure 6. Note that many objective functions can aggregate an objective function, and the node size of each one is directly defined by its number of aggregated functions. For instance, the total greenhouse gas emissions in the supply chain (TGHGESC) involve waste, wastewater, transport, production, and infrastructure GHG emissions. The total production cost (TPC) involves the raw material acquisition, water, energy, and fuel costs. Furthermore, social welfare (TSW) integrates the NPV, ROI, consumer surplus, social impacts, capacity use, environmental impacts, health impacts, and weighted customer satisfaction.

By considering the relationships among the final objective function, auxiliary function, and parameters based on the defined aggregation criteria, we analyze and reduce the number of functions to measure sustainability by considering the multivariate statistical technique called the cluster analysis (CA) method [59]. It provides a graph and network analysis using Gephi open-source software [60]. Figure 6 shows the results obtained, where the relationship between the parameters, auxiliary functions, and final functions allows us to identify 12 clusters, which are colored to improve the visualization of each one. In addition, we analyzed the cluster in terms of sustainability dimensions involved by its parameters and functions, as Table 2 shows.

Concerning the cluster assessment, we note that each cluster involves a different stage in the supply chain. For instance, cluster 8 includes the infrastructure and technologies implementation for production operations, while Cluster 10 evaluates the impact of this implementation. Then, cluster 11 considers the provisioning stage, while cluster 4 evaluates the transport in the entire supply chain. Cluster 3 includes the consumables necessary for production, such as water, fuel, and raw materials, while Cluster 9 measures the emissions generated in production. Clusters 1 and 2 measure emissions of waste and wastewater generated in the production stage. Clusters 5 and 6 refer to the distribution of products by measuring customer satisfaction and surplus. Finally, cluster 12 measures the costs of all emissions generated in the supply chain, while cluster 8 assesses the financial aspects of the supply chain. Then, this distinction of metrics by cluster allows us to distinguish what material flow and information (parameters) are required to assess sustainability in each section or stage of the supply chain.

Regarding the sustainability dimensions involved in each cluster, we remark that the environmental and economic dimensions are in eleven (92%) and six (50%) clusters, respectively. It shows the importance of environmental and economic dimensions in the SSCD and their relation with the other dimensions to be evaluated. The social and political dimensions are in four (33%) and two (17%) clusters, respectively. In contrast, the technological dimension is in only one cluster (8%), evidencing the incipient assessment and relations of these aspects in SSCD. Furthermore, considering the interactions among the sustainability dimensions, five (42%) clusters simultaneously assess the economic and environmental metrics. Meanwhile, four (33%) clusters integrate environmental and social metrics, while three (25%) only assess environmental metrics. It defends the hypothesis of the possibility of finding similarities between the metrics, grouping them despite belonging to different dimensions of sustainability. In addition, it shows the strong interrelationship among all the sustainability pillars, which reinforces the need for a holistic assessment of sustainability.

Additionally, at larger nodes, which represent a larger number of function and parameter aggregations, we can highlight metrics such as TEIC. It aggregates the environmental impacts by categories, including those associated with wastewater, waste, transportation, and production. Similarly, TEmCost considers the costs associated with the emissions generated throughout the entire supply chain, also accounted for as emissions in the TTESC metric. TSI represents the social impact and includes the impact on food safety, infrastructure redundancy, accidents associated with production technologies, the impact of implementing facilities according to the selected geographical location, and the impact associated with the fixed and variable work generated. Finally, TSW represents social welfare and incorporates several sustainability dimensions by evaluating the importance of net present value, return on investment, environmental impact, impact on human health, and social impact, among others. By including various metrics of several sustainability dimensions, this is observed as an alternative to the inclusion of sustainability to all its extensions through weighting the metrics it incorporates.

3.3. The Aggregation Criteria and Reduction Rules

Then, to understand which metrics are a particular case of another, we have developed Figure A2 in Appendix C. It separates the metrics by level, increasing in level as metrics are added. Then, we have a set of five metrics representative of sustainability as follows: (1) total social welfare (TSW), (2) total products obtained with incipient technologies (TPIT), (3) total raw materials acquired from sustainable suppliers (TRMSS), (4) total sustainable raw material used (TSRM), and (5) total governmental expenditures (TGE). Note that TSW integrates: net present value (NPV), return over investment (ROI), total social impact (TSI), total environmental impact (TEI), total human impact (THI), total consumer satisfaction (TCSat), total consumer surplus (TCSur), and total implemented capacity use (TICU). This reduced number of metrics to consider when integrating sustainability in the SSCD is a manageable number for both multi-objective optimization and decision-maker assessments. Furthermore, these five metrics at the higher level of integration consider the five sustainability dimensions: Economic, Social, Environmental, Political, and Technological. Finally, note that TSW could be the only metric assessing sustainability by considering weights to integrate TPIT, TRMSS, TSRM, and TGE.

4. Discussion

The proposed integrated metrics framework provides decision makers in the industry with a systematic approach to defining and integrating sustainability metrics in sustainable supply chain design (SSCD). This framework will allow decision makers to identify and prioritize sustainability metrics and facilitate decision making in SSCD.

The metrics assessment based on aggregation criteria and cluster analysis (CA) method offers an integrated view of the relationship between the metrics and the sustainability pillars. It reveals the holistic nature of sustainability and indicates that the sustainability dimensions should not be analyzed separately but as a whole. This task is complex to perform if we consider the different sustainability measurement guides or even the UN sustainable development goals, which consider a large number of indicators to be evaluated. In the SSCD context, the large number of metrics found in the related literature show this complexity. Therefore, the reduced group of metrics proposed to measure sustainability will simplify the process of measuring sustainability in SSCD and reduce the burden of considering an unmanageable number of metrics. It will support and facilitate sustainability management in supply chain design for decision-makers in the industry.

In addition, this proposal made tractable the SSCD problem from an optimization point of view since it enables researchers and practitioners to design optimal sustainable supply chains through the typical multi-objective solution methods to evaluate five objective functions.

The proposed framework lays the basis for novel decision-aid models for production systems and logistics design. Because this research was focused on the strategic decision-making level, further research could assess the ex post assessments following the proposed methodology to identify and integrate the sustainability metrics.

5. Conclusions

This paper proposes an integrated, tractable, and representative metrics framework to measure the five sustainability dimensions in the sustainable supply chain design. This research has been based on an exhaustive and systematic literature review, multivariate relational statistical techniques, and reduction rules. To our best knowledge, this report describes a novel approach that has not been followed in previous research in a sustainable setting.

In the review process, 541 research articles were analyzed in depth, where most of the literature assesses strategical decisions by applying optimization as the principal methodological approach. Other topics observed from the literature review allowed us to expect a clear linear research trend for evaluating sustainability aspects in the SSCD, identifying that the principal research countries seeking SSCD are Iran, China, and the United States of America, which are focused mainly on the automotive sector and consumer goods production. Furthermore, the sustainability dimensions most studied are economical and environmental. Fifty-one metrics to measure sustainability in the SSCD are described based on the literature review. Among these, 16 correspond to the economic aspects, 15 to environmental, 12 to social, and 4 to political and technological dimensions. They can be understood as objective functions to be optimized, considering optimization is the most applied methodology. From the sustainability metrics recognized in the literature, we identify parameters and auxiliary functions by applying the aggregation criteria. Then, the cluster analysis obtained 12 clusters showing the strong interrelationship among the sustainability dimensions. Finally, following the reduction rules, a reduced number of 5 objective functions to measure sustainability in the SSCD is proposed, evidencing the measure of social welfare as a potential metric to integrate all sustainability dimensions.

Consistently, interesting practical and policy implications emerge from the research. Firstly, it reveals the exponential growth of SSCD-related research since formulating the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. As a result, it has led to an unmanageable number of metrics to consider when integrating sustainability into supply chain design. Secondly, the research proposes a limited set of metrics that make optimization tractable through different methodologies to solve the SSCD multi-objective problem. Thirdly, the proposed limited set of metrics facilitates decision making for stakeholders by reducing the number of indicators to observe to make a decision. This research has important implications for supporting the integration of sustainability in productive sectors by providing a managerial-level understanding and allowing the development of optimized supply chain structures for sustainability.

The proposed methodology provides a systemic framework to incorporate additional metrics or objective functions. Hence, considering this research work conducted a literature review up to December 2020, it is advisable to conduct periodic updates every five years.

For future research, some associated research questions are proposed to be addressed, which could facilitate the sustainability measure and analysis in the design problem of a sustainable supply chain:

• How do we integrate the different objective functions in an index/value of sustainability in SSCD?

• How do we define a validation process for it?

The first question invites us to study and analyze these research results from multi-objective and many-objective optimization perspectives to obtain an index/value of sustainability in SSCD, considering the unique features of each productive sector. It requires analyzing and evaluating the five metrics found with a higher level of integration since they could be integrated into a unique metric by weighting them according to their relevance. Moreover, the relevance of each metric could vary depending on the production sector (energy, waste, water, and others) and the organizational setting. This leads to the second question, which is about defining a validation process based on historical management reports and expert knowledge from relevant actors such as government authorities, industry, and the community.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T.E.P.; formal analysis, Ó.C.V.; methodology, A.T.E.P. and Ó.C.V.; software, A.T.E.P.; validation, Ó.C.V.; writing—original draft, A.T.E.P.; writing—review and editing, Ó.C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Footnotes

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.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Methodology followed to develop an Integrated, tractable, and representative metrics framework to depict the sustainability measure in the SSCD.

Figure 2. Assessing the methodologies applied for SSCD. Optimization (O), evaluation (Ev), simulation (S), literature review (R).

Figure 3. Decision-making levels. Strategic (STR); tactical (TAC); operational (OPE).

Figure 4. Sustainability dimensions. Economic (EC), social (SO), environmental (EN), political (PO), technological (TE).

Figure 5. Detailed objective functions found in the research articles reviewed. The objective functions that can be categorized into more than one dimension of sustainability are denoted by an asterisk.

Figure 6. Objective functions relationship diagram.

Table 1

Related literature review assessment.

Ref	Years	N Articles	Sustainability Dimensions
			Economic	Social	Environmental
[37]	1997–2010	36	Total cost, net revenue	Profit sharing, employment, and income distribution	LCA-based environmental impacts: energy demand and CO2 emissions, natural capital, or  resources
[28]	January 2008 to October 2020	354		Customer service level, attendance to demand, and reduction of work accidents	CO2 emission, use of energy and/or the number of tailings
[30]		54	Total annualized supply chain cost, annualized profit, total profit, revenue, NPV	Accrued jobs, land use changes, traffic annoyance	GHG emissions, Eco-Indicator 99, non-renewable energy use, water use, pollution, CO2 emissions, Impact 2002+
[29]	1995–2017	188	Overall costs, NPV, raw material availability and energy potential, payback period calculation, prices, energy potential	Incomes, calorie consumption, energy access, people in water stressed areas, child deaths, employment, health and safety	Eco-indicator 99; ReCiPe, GHG emissions, cumulated energy demand, global warming potential, acidification potential, primary energy use, land use efficiency, energy consumption, particle emissions, agriculture land use, climate change.
[38]	1997 to July 2016	146	Total cost, risks on investment, efficiency, NPV, total profits, financial revenue, total transportation cost, logistics cost of raw material collection, transport distance, unit cost, economic potential, conditional value-at-risk, marginal delivery cost	Job opportunity, social impact, number of workers, total service level	GHG emissions, total GHG emission savings, net energy out, environmental impact, global warming potential
[39]	Up to Dec. 2019	112	Resource productivity indicator, total costs	Job creation	Waste and emissions related, CO2 emissions, GHG emissions, Eco-Indicator 99, non-renewable energy use, water use and pollution, Impact 2002+
[40]	2000–2015	over 20,000	Cost of production	Food security, human health	GHG emissions, air quality (non-GHGs emissions), soil resources, land use change, water resources
[41]	2000 to 2014/2015		Net income from sales, productivity in primary feedstock production, number, and capacity of routes for critical distribution systems, capacity use and flexibility, gross value added, energy diversity	Employment created, incidences of occupational injury, illness and fatalities in the production process, uncertainty of tenure and land rights	GHG emissions in production, soil organic carbon maintained, non GHG emissions, water withdrawn, pollutant loadings to waterways and bodies of water related to raw material obtention, area and percentage of lands of high biodiversity converted for production, net energy ratio in individual process steps, the  change in diversity of total primary energy supply
[32]				Employment, occupational accidents, unemployment, hazardous work, vulnerable employment, social security, access to clean water	GHG emissions and the use of basic resources, air pollution, damage to species richness, energy consumption, waste production, CO2 emissions
[33]	2008–2019	132			Pollution, soil degradation, product losses and waste, GHG emission, resources consumption, environmental damage or stress
[35]					Carbon footprint, water footprint, ecological footprint, land footprint, nitrogen footprint, phosphorus footprint, chemical footprint, PM2.5 and PM10 footprints, ozone footprint, material footprint, biodiversity loss
[42]		78	Economic performance, financial performance	Human rights, community development	Low-carbon products, low-carbon logistics, low-carbon production, energy consumption
[24]	2000-2015	190	Production performance metrics	Product safety, work safety	Ecological footprint, emissions, pollution
[36]	2012–2015	979	Total supply chain cost, net revenue, profit		GHG emissions
[43]	2006–2016	85	Profitability, cost, revenues, NPV	Job generation, food security, respects for property land rights, social acceptability, working conditions	GHG emission, waste management, wastewater management, biodiversity conservation and protection, energy efficiency
[44]	1997–2012	71	Overall cost, overall profit, NPV, financial revenue, risk on investment, transport cost	Number of jobs, social footprint	GHG emissions, maximize energy return in the conversion facility, minimize energy used in the supply chain, maximize net energy profit
[27]		10 Reviews + 188 articles	Cost reduction, profit, NPV, expected return, economic output, financial risk, total value of purchasing	Service level, number of accrued jobs, hours of employment, injury rate, satisfaction levels of stakeholders and customers, social risks	GHG emissions, energy consumption and water consumption, waste production, CO2 equivalent, CO2 emission per capita, embodied carbon footprint, air pollution, global warming
[45]	1999 to May 2016	220	Cost, profit, NPV, risk	Job creation, safety, health, number of working hours, discrimination, satisfaction, and  poverty aspects	Global warming, LCA impacts, waste reduction, recycling, biodiversity, renewable energy consumption
[46]	1995–2018	198		Number of jobs created by the supply chain, number of workdays missed by employees due to health problems, ethical supply chains, equitable treatment of stakeholders, education and training, social justice, and diversity.	CO2 emissions, natural resources utilization, and product recovery
[29]	2000–2017	50	Profit, cash flow, delivery lead time, customer satisfaction, trade level, budget variance, total cost, capacity utilization, production effectiveness, product quality	Employment, occupational health and safety, local communities, food to energy competition, jobs created, job opportunities created, social benefits	Eco-Indicador 99, Recipe 2008, Impact 2002+, global warming potential, pollution, CO2 emissions, NO2 emission, CO emission, volatile organic compounds, water usage, green appraisal scores, carbon trading, new technologies, new material for products, water quality, fossil fuel consumption
[47]	1900–2018	40	Total cost, total profit, inventory, routing costs, product waste cost	Storage and distribution of infectious medical waste and hazardous material, customer dissatisfaction	Total carbon emissions from logistics operations, carbon emissions by pricing them, reducing waste generation, collection of waste
[48]			Net cash flow generated	Employment	Net GHG emissions, emissions from carbon stock change due to land use, potential environmental risk, land use intensity, energy use, materials use, fertilizer and pesticide use, chemicals used for raw material obtention, water use, wastewater to be treated
[49]	2015–2018	113	Reliability, responsiveness, flexibility, financial performance, quality, transportation costs and establishment costs of facilities, logistics activity costs, purchasing, carbon emission cost, profit, total cost, NPV	Work condition, human health and safety, societal commitment, customer issues, business practices	Environmental management (environmental certification owned by the company), use of resources (use of raw or recycled material, water, and energy from the surrounding area), pollution (methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide CO2)), dangerousness, natural environment
[34]	1990–2014	87	Cost of facility investment, feedstock purchase and transportation, pollution cost, logistics costs, total annual cost, wastewater treatment costs	Work conditions, social commitment, customer issues, human rights, and business practice	Methods (Eco-Indicator 99, Impact 2002+, CML92, Recipe), Impact category and indicators
[50]	2005–2016	333	Total cost, service quality	Customer service level	CO2 emission
[51]			Food versus fuel debate, efficiency, and energy balance, and increasing biofuel budget programs	Poverty reduction potential, land and crop indirect impacts, and effects on social resources, such as water utility systems	GHG emission, water resources quality, soil degradation and loss of biodiversity
[26]	1987 to March 2019	247	Total cost, profit, NVP	Food quality and safety, food security, social welfare, job generation and equality, supporting small enterprises, public and dietary health, consumer price fairness, food donation, corporate social responsiveness investment, social cost of GHG emissions	Carbon footprint and emissions, biomass energy production, waste disposal and food loss, land use and erosion, energy consumption, water use and contamination, LCA impacts, freshness-keeping effort, green effort, organic agriculture

Table 2

Cluster analysis according to the addressed sustainability dimensions. Economic (EC), social (SO), environmental (EN), political (PO), technological (TE).

Area	Dimension	Description
(1)	EC - EN	This cluster is related to waste generation by considering the waste emission amounts and their environmental and economic impacts.
(2)	EN	This cluster is related to wastewater generation by considering the wastewater emission amounts and their environmental and economic impacts. In addition to the total avoided emissions related to waste recovery.
(3)	EC–EN	This cluster is the economic and environmental impacts related to fuel, raw materials, and water consumption in production.
(4)	EC–EN	It involves the environmental impacts related to fuel consumption in transport, as well as the logistics cost.
(5)	EN–SO	This cluster includes consumer satisfaction and energy balance linked through the production assessment. It involves customer satisfaction by considering the maximum customers coverage, the customer service, quality of products, and delivery time to customers.
(6)	EC–EN–SO	It involves social welfare linked to other clusters, in addition to the total capacity use, the consumer surplus, and the health impacts related to the supply chain emissions.
(7)	EN–SO–PO	This cluster involves the social impact by considering hazardous materials used, occupational accidents, infrastructure redundancy, social impact according to geographic characteristics by considering the customers and suppliers’ geographical selection, and food security.
(8)	EC–TE–PO	It includes the governmental expenditures related to subsidies and taxes, the investment related to infrastructure implementation as well as the financial metrics: net present value and return on investment.
(9)	EN	This cluster involves the total greenhouse gas emissions in the supply chain and the environmental impact related to all the emissions in the supply chain.
(10)	EN–SO	This cluster assesses the infrastructure implementation by considering the emission amounts generated and their environmental impacts, in addition to the number of infrastructures implemented and the job creation impact related to Gini Index, poverty levels, gross domestic product, among others.
(11)	EN	It includes the emissions related to the raw material acquisition as well as its sustainable classification. Besides, the energy consumption links this cluster with clusters 4 and 5 to reach the energy balance calculation..
(12)	EC–EN	It involves the total emissions cost and the total emissions produced in all the supply chain stages.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15097138/s1, Table S1: Research articles classification according to the methodological analysis, Table S2: Details for the objective functions found in the research articles reviewed [2,21,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,115,116,118,120,121,122,123,124,126,127,128,129,130,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,360,361,362,363,364,365,366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,418,419,420,421,422,423,424,425,426,427,428,429,430,431,432,433,434,435,436,437,438,439,440,441,442,443,444,445,446,447,448,449,450,451,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481,482,483,484,485,486,487,488,489,490,491,492,493,494,495,496,497,498,499,500,501,502,503,504,505,506,507,508,509,510,511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518,519,520,521,522,523,524,525,526,527,528,529,530,531,532,533,534,535,536,537,538,539,540,541,542,543,544,545,546,547,548,549,550,551,552,553,554,555,556,557,558,559,560,561,562,563,564,565,566,567,568,569,570,571,572,573,574,575,576,577,578,579,580,581,582,583,584,585,586,587,588,589,590,591,592,593,594,595,596,597,598,599,600,601,602,603,604,605,606,607,608,607,608].

References

1. United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. 2019; Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/publications/files/wpp2019_highlights.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2021).

2. Hafezalkotob, A.; Borhani, S.; Zamani, S. Development of a Cournot-oligopoly model for competition of multi-product supply chains under government supervision. Sci. Iranica. Trans. E Ind. Eng.; 2017; 24, pp. 1519-1532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4132]

3. Bansal, P.; DesJardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg. Organ.; 2014; 12, pp. 70-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265]

4. Pérez Mayorga, M.G. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. 2020; Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm (accessed on 10 April 2021).

5. You, F.; Wang, B. Life cycle optimization of biomass-to-liquid supply chains with distributed–centralized processing networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2011; 50, pp. 10102-10127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200850t]

6. Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic.; 2012; 17, pp. 4-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033]

7. Schoolman, E.D.; Guest, J.S.; Bush, K.F.; Bell, A.R. How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustain. Sci.; 2012; 7, pp. 67-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z]

8. Gebreslassie, B.H.; Yao, Y.; You, F. Design under uncertainty of hydrocarbon biorefinery supply chains: Multiobjective stochastic programming models, decomposition algorithm, and a comparison between CVaR and downside risk. AIChE J.; 2012; 58, pp. 2155-2179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.13844]

9. Yue, D.; Slivinsky, M.; Sumpter, J.; You, F. Sustainable design and operation of cellulosic bioelectricity supply chain networks with life cycle economic, environmental, and social optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2014; 53, pp. 4008-4029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie403882v]

10. Boyer, R.H.; Peterson, N.D.; Arora, P.; Caldwell, K. Five approaches to social sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8090878]

11. Bautista, S.; Narvaez, P.; Camargo, M.; Chery, O.; Morel, L. Biodiesel-TBL+: A new hierarchical sustainability assessment framework of PC&I for biodiesel production–Part I. Ecol. Indic.; 2016; 60, pp. 84-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.020]

12. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2008; 38, pp. 360-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816]

13. World Resources Institute, W. Climate Watch: Countries. 2020; Available online: https://www.wri.org/initiatives/climate-watch (accessed on 12 April 2021).

14. Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.; Mota, B.; Carvalho, A. How to design and plan sustainable supply chains through optimization models?. Pesqui. Oper.; 2018; 38, pp. 363-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2018.038.03.0363]

15. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci.; 2019; 14, pp. 681-695. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5]

16. UN. Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016; UN: Rome, Italy, 2016.

17. Chate, A.B.; Anikumar, E.; Sridharan, R. Analysis of Barriers and Enablers of Sustainability Implementation in Healthcare Centers. Operations Management and Systems Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 287-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6017-0_18]

18. Zhang, X.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, N. Sustainable supply chain management under big data: A bibliometric analysis. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.; 2020; 34, pp. 427-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-12-2019-0381]

19. Ahmed, W.; Sarkar, B.; Agha, M.H. Integration of Triple Sustainable Management by Considering the Multi-period Supply Chain for Next-Generation Fuel. Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems; Novi Sad, Serbia, 30 August–3 September 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 217-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57993-7_25]

20. Saavedra, S.M.; Fontes, C.H.d.O.; Freires, F.G.M. Sustainable and renewable energy supply chain: A system dynamics overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2018; 82, pp. 247-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.033]

21. Jafari, H.; Seifbarghy, M.; Omidvari, M. Sustainable supply chain design with water environmental impacts and justice-oriented employment considerations: A case study in textile industry. Sci. Iranica. Trans. E Ind. Eng.; 2017; 24, pp. 2119-2137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4299]

22. Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Ahmadi, A.; Al-e Hashem, S.M. Sustainable closed-loop supply chain network for an integrated water supply and wastewater collection system under uncertainty. J. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 275, 111277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111277] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32858269]

23. Jorquera-Bravo, N.; Pérez, A.T.E.; Vásquez, Ó.C. Toward a sustainable system of wastewater treatment plants in Chile: A multi-objective optimization approach. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2022; 311, pp. 731-747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03777-4]

24. Mardani, A.; Kannan, D.; Hooker, R.E.; Ozkul, S.; Alrasheedi, M.; Tirkolaee, E.B. Evaluation of green and sustainable supply chain management using structural equation modelling: A systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 249, 119383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119383]

25. Teuteberg, F.; Wittstruck, D. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik; 2010; 2010, 203.

26. Mata, T.M.; Martins, A.A.; Sikdar, S.K.; Costa, C.A.V. Sustainability considerations of biodiesel based on supply chain analysis. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2011; 13, pp. 655-671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-010-0346-9]

27. Awudu, I.; Zhang, J. Uncertainties and sustainability concepts in biofuel supply chain management: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2012; 16, pp. 1359-1368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.10.016]

28. Seuring, S. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decis. Support Syst.; 2013; 54, pp. 1513-1520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.053]

29. Santos, A.; Carvalho, A.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; Marques, A.; Amorim, P. Assessment and optimization of sustainable forest wood supply chains – A systematic literature review. For. Policy Econ.; 2019; 105, pp. 112-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.026]

30. Oliveira, L.S.; Machado, R.L. Application of optimization methods in the closed-loop supply chain: A literature review. J. Comb. Optim.; 2021; 41, pp. 357-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10878-020-00677-y]

31. Martins, C.; Pato, M. Supply chain sustainability: A tertiary literature review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 225, pp. 995-1016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.250]

32. Mujkic, Z.; Qorri, A.; Kraslawski, A. Sustainability and Optimization of Supply Chains: A Literature Review. Oper. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J.; 2018; 11, pp. 186-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31387/oscm0350213]

33. Wiedmann, T.; Lenzen, M. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci.; 2018; 11, pp. 314-321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0113-9]

34. Elhidaoui, S.; Benhida, K.; Elfezazi, S.; El Hachadi, A. Environmental dimension in sustainable supply chain management: Framework and literature review. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci.; 2020; 7, pp. 74-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.11.008]

35. Eskandarpour, M.; Dejax, P.; Miemczyk, J.; Péton, O. Sustainable supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review. Omega; 2015; 54, pp. 11-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.01.006]

36. Vanham, D.; Leip, A.; Galli, A.; Kastner, T.; Bruckner, M.; Uwizeye, A.; van Dijk, K.; Ercin, E.; Dalin, C.; Brandão, M. et al. Environmental footprint family to address local to planetary sustainability and deliver on the SDGs. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 693, 133642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133642] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31635013]

37. Malladi, K.T.; Sowlati, T. Sustainability aspects in Inventory Routing Problem: A review of new trends in the literature. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 197, pp. 804-814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.224]

38. Cambero, C.; Sowlati, T. Assessment and optimization of forest biomass supply chains from economic, social and environmental perspectives—A review of literature. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2014; 36, pp. 62-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.041]

39. Ghaderi, H.; Pishvaee, M.S.; Moini, A. Biomass supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review and analysis. Ind. Crop. Prod.; 2016; 94, pp. 972-1000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.027]

40. Vega-Mejía, C.A.; Montoya-Torres, J.R.; Islam, S.M.N. Consideration of triple bottom line objectives for sustainability in the optimization of vehicle routing and loading operations: A systematic literature review. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2019; 273, pp. 311-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2723-9]

41. Zaimes, G.; Vora, N.; Chopra, S.; Landis, A.; Khanna, V. Design of Sustainable Biofuel Processes and Supply Chains: Challenges and Opportunities. Processes; 2015; 3, pp. 634-663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr3030634]

42. Bentsen, N.S.; Jørgensen, J.R.; Stupak, I.; Jørgensen, U.; Taghizadeh-Toosi, A. Dynamic sustainability assessment of heat and electricity production based on agricultural crop residues in Denmark. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 213, pp. 491-507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.194]

43. Mortazavi, A.; Arshadi Khamseh, A.; Azimi, P. Designing of an intelligent self-adaptive model for supply chain ordering management system. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.; 2015; 37, pp. 207-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2014.09.004]

44. Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.K.; Padhi, S.S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 162, pp. 299-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026]

45. Guo, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Using Objective Clustering for Solving Many-Objective Optimization Problems. Math. Probl. Eng.; 2013; 2013, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/584909]

46. Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Process Supply Chains Management. Where are We? Where to Go Next?. Front. Energy Res.; 2014; 2, 23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2014.00023]

47. Banasik, A.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Claassen, G.D.H.; van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for green supply chains: A review. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J.; 2018; 30, pp. 366-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10696-016-9263-5]

48. Meyer, A.D.; Cattrysse, D.; Rasinmäki, J.; Orshoven, J.V. Methods to optimise the design and management of biomass-for-bioenergy supply chains: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2014; 31, pp. 657-670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.036]

49. Dessbesell, L.; Xu, C.C.; Pulkki, R.; Leitch, M.; Mahmood, N. Forest biomass supply chain optimization for a biorefinery aiming to produce high-value bio-based materials and chemicals from lignin and forestry residues: A review of literature. Can. J. For. Res.; 2017; 47, pp. 277-288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0336]

50. Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; da Silva, C.; Carvalho, A. Opportunities and challenges in sustainable supply chain: An operations research perspective. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2018; 268, pp. 399-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.036]

51. Moreno-Camacho, C.A.; Montoya-Torres, J.R.; Jaegler, A.; Gondran, N. Sustainability metrics for real case applications of the supply chain network design problem: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 231, pp. 600-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.278]

52. Mitchell, G. Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators. Sustain. Dev.; 1996; 4, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1719(199603)4:1<1::AID-SD24>3.0.CO;2-N]

53. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. Sustainable development: Our common future revisited. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2014; 26, pp. 130-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006]

54. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W. A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 183, pp. 231-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162]

55. Ruggerio, C.A. Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 786, 147481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481]

56. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res.; 2019; 39, pp. 93-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971]

57. Li, K.; Rollins, J.; Yan, E. Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics; 2018; 115, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29527070]

58. Brucker, P.; Dürr, C.; Jäger, S.; Knust, S.; Prot, D.; van Stee, R.; Vásquez, Ó.C. The scheduling zoo. 2016.

59. Blondel, V.D.; Guillaume, J.L.; Lambiotte, R.; Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp.; 2008; 2008, P10008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008]

60. Gephi Consortium. Gephi—The Open Graph Viz Platform; Gephi Consortium: Paris, France, 2021.

61. Mallidis, I.; Dekker, R.; Vlachos, D. The impact of greening on supply chain design and cost: A case for a developing region. J. Transp. Geogr.; 2012; 22, pp. 118-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.12.007]

62. Wu, D.D.; Yang, L.; Olson, D.L. Green supply chain management under capital constraint. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2019; 215, pp. 3-10.

63. Bai, C.; Sarkis, J. Integrating and extending data and decision tools for sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider selection. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2019; 110, pp. 188-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.06.005]

64. Mohamed Abdul Ghani, N.M.A.; Egilmez, G.; Kucukvar, M.S.; Bhutta, M.K. From green buildings to green supply chains: An integrated input-output life cycle assessment and optimization framework for carbon footprint reduction policy making. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2017; 28, pp. 532-548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2015-0211]

65. Akin Bas, S.; Ahlatcioglu Ozkok, B. A fuzzy approach to multi-objective mixed integer linear programming model for multi-echelon closed-loop supply chain with multi-product multi-time-period. Oper. Res. Decis.; 2020; 30, pp. 25-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37190/ord200102]

66. Jabarzadeh, Y.; Reyhani Yamchi, H.; Kumar, V.; Ghaffarinasab, N. A multi-objective mixed-integer linear model for sustainable fruit closed-loop supply chain network. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2020; 31, pp. 1351-1373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0276]

67. Ehtesham Rasi, R.; Sohanian, M. A multi-objective optimization model for sustainable supply chain network with using genetic algorithm. J. Model. Manag.; 2020; 16, pp. 714-727. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-06-2020-0150]

68. Zhang, D.; Zou, F.; Li, S.; Zhou, L. Green supply chain network design with economies of scale and environmental concerns. J. Adv. Transp.; 2017; 2017, 6350562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6350562]

69. Wheeler, J.; Caballero, J.A.; Ruiz-Femenia, R.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Mele, F.D. MINLP-based Analytic Hierarchy Process to simplify multi-objective problems: Application to the design of biofuels supply chains using on field surveys. Comput. Chem. Eng.; 2017; 102, pp. 64-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.10.014]

70. Hemmati, M.; Pasandideh, S.H.R. A bi-objective supplier location, supplier selection and order allocation problem with green constraints: Scenario-based approach. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput.; 2021; 12, pp. 8205-8228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02555-1]

71. Rezaee, A.; Dehghanian, F.; Fahimnia, B.; Beamon, B. Green supply chain network design with stochastic demand and carbon price. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2017; 250, pp. 463-485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1936-z]

72. Castillo-Villar, K.K.; Eksioglu, S.; Taherkhorsandi, M. Integrating biomass quality variability in stochastic supply chain modeling and optimization for large-scale biofuel production. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 149, pp. 904-918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.123]

73. Allaoui, H.; Guo, Y.; Choudhary, A.; Bloemhof, J. Sustainable agro-food supply chain design using two-stage hybrid multi-objective decision-making approach. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2018; 89, pp. 369-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.10.012]

74. Mahmoodirad, A.; Niroomand, S. A belief degree-based uncertain scheme for a bi-objective two-stage green supply chain network design problem with direct shipment. Soft Comput.; 2020; 24, pp. 18499-18519. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05085-2]

75. Gao, J.; You, F. Modeling framework and computational algorithm for hedging against uncertainty in sustainable supply chain design using functional-unit-based life cycle optimization. Comput. Chem. Eng.; 2017; 107, pp. 221-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.05.021]

76. Soleimani, H.; Govindan, K.; Saghafi, H.; Jafari, H. Fuzzy multi-objective sustainable and green closed-loop supply chain network design. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 109, pp. 191-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.038]

77. Nurjanni, K.P.; Carvalho, M.S.; Costa, L. Green supply chain design: A mathematical modeling approach based on a multi-objective optimization model. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2017; 183, pp. 421-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.028]

78. Feitó-Cespón, M.; Sarache, W.; Piedra-Jimenez, F.; Cespón-Castro, R. Redesign of a sustainable reverse supply chain under uncertainty: A case study. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 151, pp. 206-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.057]

79. Ameknassi, L.; Aït-Kadi, D.; Rezg, N. Integration of logistics outsourcing decisions in a green supply chain design: A stochastic multi-objective multi-period multi-product programming model. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2016; 182, pp. 165-184. Erratum in Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 186, 132 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.031]

80. Rabbani, M.; Hosseini-Mokhallesun, S.A.A.; Ordibazar, A.H.; Farrokhi-Asl, H. A hybrid robust possibilistic approach for a sustainable supply chain location-allocation network design. Int. J. Syst. Sci. Oper. Logist.; 2020; 7, pp. 60-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2018.1506061]

81. Hassanzadeh, A.; Rasti-Barzoki, M. Minimizing total resource consumption and total tardiness penalty in a resource allocation supply chain scheduling and vehicle routing problem. Appl. Soft Comput.; 2017; 58, pp. 307-323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.010]

82. Espinoza Pérez, A.T.; Narváez Rincón, P.C.; Camargo, M.; Alfaro Marchant, M.D. Multiobjective optimization for the design of Phase III Biorefinery sustainable supply chain. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 223, pp. 189-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.268]

83. Su, C.; Shi, Y.; Dou, J. Multi-objective optimization of buffer allocation for remanufacturing system based on TS-NSGAII hybrid algorithm. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 166, pp. 756-770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.064]

84. Zhu, W.; He, Y. Green product design in supply chains under competition. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2017; 258, pp. 165-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.053]

85. Hong, Z.; Chu, C.; Zhang, L.L.; Yu, Y. Optimizing an emission trading scheme for local governments: A Stackelberg game model and hybrid algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2017; 193, pp. 172-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.009]

86. Zhou, F.; Wang, X.; Lim, M.K.; He, Y.; Li, L. Sustainable recycling partner selection using fuzzy DEMATEL-AEW-FVIKOR: A case study in small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs). J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 196, pp. 489-504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.247]

87. Sen, D.K.; Datta, S.; Mahapatra, S. Sustainable supplier selection in intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A decision-making perspective. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2018; 25, pp. 545-574. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2016-0172]

88. Simão, L.E.; Gonçalves, M.B.; Taboada Rodriguez, C.M. An approach to assess logistics and ecological supply chain performance using postponement strategies. Ecol. Indic.; 2016; 63, pp. 398-408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.048]

89. Ma, K.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. A collaborative cloud service platform for realizing sustainable make-to-order apparel supply chain. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10010011]

90. Moreno, M.; Court, R.; Wright, M.; Charnley, F. Opportunities for redistributed manufacturing and digital intelligence as enablers of a circular economy. Int. J. Sustain. Eng.; 2019; 12, pp. 77-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2018.1508316]

91. Zhao, Y.; Cao, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y. Bullwhip effect mitigation of green supply chain optimization in electronics industry. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 180, pp. 888-912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.134]

92. Diaz, R.; Marsillac, E. Evaluating strategic remanufacturing supply chain decisions. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2017; 55, pp. 2522-2539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1239848]

93. Motevalli-Taher, F.; Paydar, M.M.; Emami, S. Wheat sustainable supply chain network design with forecasted demand by simulation. Comput. Electron. Agric.; 2020; 178, 105763. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105763]

94. Mula, J.; Peidro, D.; Díaz-Madroñero, M.; Hernández, J.E. Modelos para la planificación centralizada de la producción y el transporte en la cadena de suministro: Una revisión. Innovar; 2010; 20, pp. 179-194.

95. Pérez Mayorga, M.G. Manejo Óptimo de la Información Soporte de la Cadena de Suministros en el Proceso Ejecutivo de Toma de Decisiones Gerencial Pérez. Ph.D. Thesis; Universidad Técnica de Machala: Machala, Ecuador, 2016.

96. Pérez, A.T.E.; Camargo, M.; Rincón, P.C.N.; Marchant, M.A. Key challenges and requirements for sustainable and industrialized biorefinery supply chain design and management: A bibliographic analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 69, pp. 350-359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.084]

97. Huang, G.Q.; Lau, J.S.; Mak, K. The impacts of sharing production information on supply chain dynamics: A review of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2003; 41, pp. 1483-1517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020754031000069625]

98. Ballesteros Riveros, D.P.; Ballesteros Silva, P.P. Importancia de la administración logística. Sci. Tech.; 2008; 1, 38.

99. Faisal, M.N.; Al-Esmael, B.; Sharif, K.J. Supplier selection for a sustainable supply chain: Triple bottom line (3BL) and analytic network process approach. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2017; 24, pp. 1956-1976. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2016-0042]

100. Khalilzadeh, M.; Derikvand, H. A multi-objective supplier selection model for green supply chain network under uncertainty. J. Model. Manag.; 2018; 13, pp. 605-625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-06-2017-0062]

101. Park, K.; Okudan Kremer, G.E.; Ma, J. A regional information-based multi-attribute and multi-objective decision-making approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 187, pp. 590-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.035]

102. Lu, H.; Jiang, S.; Song, W.; Ming, X. A rough multi-criteria decision-making approach for sustainable supplier selection under vague environment. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082622]

103. Sirilertsuwan, P.; Thomassey, S.; Zeng, X. A Strategic Location Decision-Making Approach for Multi-Tier Supply Chain Sustainability. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12208340]

104. Felberbauer, T.; Altendorfer, K.; Peirleitner, A.J. Effect of load bundling on supply Chain inventory management: An evaluation with simulation-based optimisation. J. Simul.; 2020; 16, pp. 327-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17477778.2020.1800420]

105. Tang, Z.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y. Integrated Optimization of Sustainable Transportation and Inventory with Multiplayer Dynamic Game under Carbon Tax Policy. Math. Probl. Eng.; 2020; 2020, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/4948383]

106. Hosseini-Motlagh, S.M.; Ebrahimi, S.; Jokar, A. Sustainable supply chain coordination under competition and green effort scheme. J. Oper. Res. Soc.; 2019; 72, pp. 304-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2019.1671152]

107. Miranda, M.A.; Alvarez, M.J.; Briand, C.; Urenda Moris, M.; Rodríguez, V. Eco-efficient management of a feeding system in an automobile assembly-line. J. Model. Manag.; 2020; 16, pp. 464-485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-10-2019-0241]

108. Zhen, X.; Xu, S.; Shi, D.; Liu, F. Pricing decisions and subsidy preference of government with traditional and green products. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int.; 2020; 11, pp. 459-482. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-10-2019-0048]

109. Barzinpour, F.; Taki, P. A dual-channel network design model in a green supply chain considering pricing and transportation mode choice. J. Intell. Manuf.; 2018; 29, pp. 1465-1483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1190-x]

110. Sinayi, M.; Rasti-Barzoki, M. A game theoretic approach for pricing, greening, and social welfare policies in a supply chain with government intervention. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 196, pp. 1443-1458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.212]

111. Hong, Z.; Li, M.; Han, X.; He, X. Innovative green product diffusion through word of mouth. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2020; 134, 101833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.101833]

112. Valizadeh, J. A novel mathematical model for municipal waste collection and energy generation: Case study of Kermanshah city. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2020; 31, pp. 1437-1453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2020-0027]

113. Kang, H.Y.; Lee, A.H.; Yeh, Y.F. An optimization approach for traveling purchaser problem with environmental impact of transportation cost. Kybernetes; 2020; 50, pp. 2289-2317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2020-0237]

114. Saenz, M.J.; Koufteros, X.; Touboulic, A.; Walker, H. Theories in sustainable supply chain management: A structured literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2015; 45, pp. 16-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0305]

115. Dev, N.K.; Shankar, R. Using interpretive structure modeling to analyze the interactions between environmental sustainability boundary enablers. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2016; 23, pp. 601-617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2013-0063]

116. Yu, M.; Cruz, J.M.; Li, D. The sustainable supply chain network competition with environmental tax policies. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2019; 217, pp. 218-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.005]

117. Ji, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Yang, G. Constructing sustainable supply chain under double environmental medium regulations. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2014; 147, pp. 211-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.012]

118. Zhang, Z.; Awasthi, A. Modelling customer and technical requirements for sustainable supply chain planning. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2014; 52, pp. 5131-5154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.899717]

119. Bhattacharya, A.; Dey, P.K.; Ho, W. Green manufacturing supply chain design and operations decision support. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2015; 53, pp. 6339-6343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1065021]

120. Jiao, Z.; Ran, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhang, W. Data-driven approaches to integrated closed-loop sustainable supply chain design under multi-uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 185, pp. 105-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.255]

121. Song, Z.; He, S.; An, B. Decision and coordination in a dual-channel three-layered green supply chain. Symmetry; 2018; 10, 549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sym10110549]

122. Blundo, D.S.; Muiña, F.E.G.; Pini, M.; Volpi, L.; Siligardi, C.; Ferrari, A.M. Lifecycle-oriented design of ceramic tiles in sustainable supply chains (SSCs). Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep.; 2018; 12, pp. 323-337.

123. Jabbarzadeh, A.; Fahimnia, B.; Sabouhi, F. Resilient and sustainable supply chain design: Sustainability analysis under disruption risks. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2018; 56, pp. 5945-5968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1461950]

124. Khademi, A.; Eksioglu, B. Spare parts inventory management with substitution-dependent reliability. Informs J. Comput.; 2018; 30, pp. 507-521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2017.0794]

125. Sarkis, J. A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J.; 2012; 17, pp. 202-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212924]

126. McGovern, G.; Klenke, T. Towards a driver framework for regional bioenergy pathways. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 185, pp. 610-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.251]

127. Reefke, H.; Sundaram, D. Sustainable supply chain management: Decision models for transformation and maturity. Decis. Support Syst.; 2018; 113, pp. 56-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.07.002]

128. Medina-Serrano, R.; Gonzalez, R.; Gasco, J.; Llopis, J. Collaborative and sustainable supply chain practices: A case study. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ.; 2019; 14, pp. 3-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEC-09-2019-0085]

129. Ding, J.; Wang, W. Information sharing in a green supply chain with promotional effort. Kybernetes; 2020; 49, pp. 2683-2712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2019-0625]

130. Robles, J.O.; Azzaro-Pantel, C.; Garcia, G.M.; Lasserre, A.A. Social cost-benefit assessment as a post-optimal analysis for hydrogen supply chain design and deployment: Application to Occitania (France). Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2020; 24, pp. 105-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.010]

131. Mane, S.U.; Narasinga Rao, M.R. Many-objective optimization: Problems and evolutionary algorithms - a short review. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res.; 2017; 12, pp. 9774-9793.

132. Carreras, J.; Pozo, C.; Boer, D.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Caballero, J.A.; Ruiz-Femenia, R.; Jiménez, L. Systematic approach for the life cycle multi-objective optimization of buildings combining objective reduction and surrogate modeling. Energy Build.; 2016; 130, pp. 506-518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.062]

133. Malviya, R.K.; Kant, R. Modeling the enablers of green supply chain management: An integrated ISM - fuzzy MICMAC approach. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2017; 24, pp. 536-568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2015-0082]

134. Saxena, L.K.; Jain, P.K.; Sharma, A.K. A fuzzy goal programme with carbon tax policy for Brownfield Tyre remanufacturing strategic supply chain planning. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 198, pp. 737-753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.005]

135. Petridis, K.; Grigoroudis, E.; Arabatzis, G. A goal programming model for a sustainable biomass supply chain network. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.; 2018; 12, pp. 79-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-09-2017-0002]

136. Gong, J.; You, F. A new superstructure optimization paradigm for process synthesis with product distribution optimization: Application to an integrated shale gas processing and chemical manufacturing process. AIChE J.; 2018; 64, pp. 123-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.15882]

137. Ebrahimi, S.B. A stochastic multi-objective location-allocation-routing problem for tire supply chain considering sustainability aspects and quantity discounts. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 198, pp. 704-720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.059]

138. Bortolini, M.; Galizia, F.G.; Mora, C.; Botti, L.; Rosano, M. Bi-objective design of fresh food supply chain networks with reusable and disposable packaging containers. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 184, pp. 375-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.231]

139. Kesharwani, R.; Sun, Z.; Dagli, C. Biofuel supply chain optimal design considering economic, environmental, and societal aspects towards sustainability. Int. J. Energy Res.; 2018; 42, pp. 2169-2198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.4006]

140. Santibañez Aguilar, J.; Flores-Tlacuahuac, A.; Betancourt-Galvan, F.; Lozano-García, D.F.; Lozano, F.J. Facilities Location for Residual Biomass Production System Using Geographic Information System under Uncertainty. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2018; 6, pp. 3331-3348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03303]

141. Liang, L.; Quesada, H.J. Green Design of a Cellulosic Butanol Supply Chain Network: A Case Study of Sorghum Stem Bio-butanol in Missouri. BioResources; 2018; 13, pp. 5617-5642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15376/biores.13.3.5617-5642]

142. Balaman, Ş.Y.; Matopoulos, A.; Wright, D.G.; Scott, J. Integrated optimization of sustainable supply chains and transportation networks for multi technology bio-based production: A decision support system based on fuzzy ε-constraint method. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 172, pp. 2594-2617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.150]

143. Jiang, X.; Xu, J.; Luo, J.; Zhao, F. Network design towards sustainability of chinese baijiu industry from a supply chain perspective. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc.; 2018; 2018, 4391351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/4391351]

144. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A. The sustainable humanitarian supply chain design: Agility, adaptability and alignment. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.; 2016; 19, pp. 62-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1015511]

145. Svanberg, M.; Finnsgård, C.; Flodén, J.; Lundgren, J. Analyzing animal waste-to-energy supply chains: The case of horse manure. Renew. Energy; 2018; 129, pp. 830-837. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.002]

146. Chand, M.; Bhatia, N.; Singh, R.K. ANP-MOORA-based approach for the analysis of selected issues of green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2018; 25, pp. 642-659. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2016-0177]

147. Umpfenbach, E.L.; Dalkiran, E.; Chinnam, R.B.; Murat, A.E. Promoting sustainability of automotive products through strategic assortment planning. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2018; 269, pp. 272-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.031]

148. Shen, B.; Ding, X.; Chen, L.; Chan, H.L. Low carbon supply chain with energy consumption constraints: Case studies from China’s textile industry and simple analytical model. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.; 2017; 22, pp. 258-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-05-2015-0197]

149. Galve, J.E.; Elduque, D.; Pina, C.; Javierre, C. Sustainable supply chain management: The influence of disposal scenarios on the environmental impact of a 2400 L waste container. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8060564]

150. Xie, G. Modeling decision processes of a green supply chain with regulation on energy saving level. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2015; 54, pp. 266-273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2013.11.020]

151. Huang, Y.; Xie, F. Multistage optimization of sustainable supply chain of biofuels. Transp. Res. Rec.; 2015; 2502, pp. 89-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2502-11]

152. Xie, G.; Yue, W.; Wang, S. Optimal selection of cleaner products in a green supply chain with risk aversion. J. Ind. Manag. Optim.; 2015; 11, 515. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2015.11.515]

153. Jafarnejad, E.; Makui, A.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Mohammaditabar, D. A Robust Approach for Cooperation and Coopetition of Bio-Refineries Under Government Interventions by Considering Sustainability Factors. IEEE Access; 2020; 8, pp. 155873-155890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014460]

154. Zarei, J.; Amin-Naseri, M.R.; Fakehi Khorasani, A.H.; Kashan, A.H. A sustainable multi-objective framework for designing and planning the supply chain of natural gas components. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 259, 120649. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120649]

155. Gholizadeh, H.; Fazlollahtabar, H. Robust optimization and modified genetic algorithm for a closed loop green supply chain under uncertainty: Case study in melting industry. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2020; 147, 106653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106653]

156. Valizadeh, J.; Sadeh, E.; Amini Sabegh, Z.; Hafezalkotob, A. Robust optimization model for sustainable supply chain for production and distribution of polyethylene pipe. J. Model. Manag.; 2020; 15, pp. 1613-1653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-06-2019-0139]

157. Pourmehdi, M.; Paydar, M.M.; Asadi-Gangraj, E. Scenario-based design of a steel sustainable closed-loop supply chain network considering production technology. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 277, 123298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123298]

158. Nunes, P.; Oliveira, F.; Hamacher, S.; Almansoori, A. Design of a hydrogen supply chain with uncertainty. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy; 2015; 40, pp. 16408-16418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.015]

159. Zhou, X.; Zhou, Y. Designing a multi-echelon reverse logistics operation and network: A case study of office paper in Beijing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2015; 100, pp. 58-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.04.009]

160. Yao, J.; Shi, H.; Liu, C. Optimising the configuration of green supply chains under mass personalisation. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 58, pp. 7420-7438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1723814]

161. Ghani, N.M.A.M.A.; Szmerekovsky, J.G.; Vogiatzis, C. Plant capacity level and location as a mechanism for sustainability in biomass supply chain. Energy Syst.; 2019; 11, pp. 1075-1109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12667-019-00361-z]

162. Yue, D.; You, F. Stackelberg-game-based modeling and optimization for supply chain design and operations: A mixed integer bilevel programming framework. Comput. Chem. Eng.; 2017; 102, pp. 81-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.07.026]

163. Zhang, X.; Adamatzky, A.; Chan, F.T.; Mahadevan, S.; Deng, Y. Physarum solver: A bio-inspired method for sustainable supply chain network design problem. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2017; 254, pp. 533-552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2410-x]

164. Gong, D.C.; Chen, P.S.; Lu, T.Y. Multi-objective optimization of green supply chain network designs for transportation mode selection. Sci. Iran.; 2017; 24, pp. 3355-3370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4403]

165. Zhu, L.; Hu, D. Sustainable logistics network modeling for enterprise supply chain. Math. Probl. Eng.; 2017; 2017, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9897850]

166. Varsei, M.; Polyakovskiy, S. Sustainable supply chain network design: A case of the wine industry in Australia. Omega; 2017; 66, pp. 236-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.11.009]

167. Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q. The fuzzy multi-objective distribution planner for a green meat supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2017; 184, pp. 47-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.016]

168. Kargari Esfand Abad, H.; Vahdani, B.; Sharifi, M.; Etebari, F. A bi-objective model for pickup and delivery pollution-routing problem with integration and consolidation shipments in cross-docking system. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 193, pp. 784-801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.046]

169. Saberi, S.; Cruz, J.M.; Sarkis, J.; Nagurney, A. A competitive multiperiod supply chain network model with freight carriers and green technology investment option. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2018; 266, pp. 934-949. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.043]

170. Palacio, A.; Adenso-Díaz, B.; Lozano, S. A decision-making model to design a sustainable container depot logistic network: The case of the port of Valencia. Transport; 2015; 33, pp. 119-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1107621]

171. Golpîra, H.; Najafi, E.; Zandieh, M.; Sadi-Nezhad, S. Robust bi-level optimization for green opportunistic supply chain network design problem against uncertainty and environmental risk. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 107, pp. 301-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.029]

172. Wang, G.; Gunasekaran, A. Modeling and analysis of sustainable supply chain dynamics. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2017; 250, pp. 521-536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1860-2]

173. Mumtaz, U.; Ali, Y.; Petrillo, A. A linear regression approach to evaluate the green supply chain management impact on industrial organizational performance. Sci. Total Environ.; 2018; 624, pp. 162-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.089]

174. Guo, H.; Li, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Lu, M. A Location-Inventory Problem in a Closed-Loop Supply Chain with Secondary Market Consideration. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1891. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10061891]

175. Rad, R.S.; Nahavandi, N. A novel multi-objective optimization model for integrated problem of green closed loop supply chain network design and quantity discount. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 196, pp. 1549-1565.

176. Tsao, Y.C.; Linh, V.T.; Lu, J.C.; Yu, V. A supply chain network with product remanufacturing and carbon emission considerations: A two-phase design. J. Intell. Manuf.; 2018; 29, pp. 693-705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1296-4]

177. Cabezas, H.; Argoti, A.; Friedler, F.; Mizsey, P.; Pimentel, J. Design and engineering of sustainable process systems and supply chains by the P-graph framework. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy; 2018; 37, pp. 624-636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.12887]

178. Eskandari-Khanghahi, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Taleizadeh, A.A.; Amin, S.H. Designing and optimizing a sustainable supply chain network for a blood platelet bank under uncertainty. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.; 2018; 71, pp. 236-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2018.03.004]

179. Azimifard, A.; Moosavirad, S.H.; Ariafar, S. Designing steel supply chain and assessing the embedded CO 2 emission based on the input-output table by using DEMATEL method. Manag. Decis.; 2018; 56, pp. 757-776. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0478]

180. Raj, A.; Biswas, I.; Srivastava, S.K. Designing supply contracts for the sustainable supply chain using game theory. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 185, pp. 275-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.046]

181. Tsao, Y.C.; Thanh, V.V.; Lu, J.C.; Yu, V. Designing sustainable supply chain networks under uncertain environments: Fuzzy multi-objective programming. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 174, pp. 1550-1565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.272]

182. Rabbani, M.; Saravi, N.A.; Farrokhi-Asl, H.; Lim, S.F.W.; Tahaei, Z. Developing a sustainable supply chain optimization model for switchgrass-based bioenergy production: A case study. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 200, pp. 827-843. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.226]

183. Attari, M.Y.N.; Torkayesh, A.E. Developing benders decomposition algorithm for a green supply chain network of mine industry: Case of Iranian mine industry. Oper. Res. Perspect.; 2018; 5, pp. 371-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2018.11.002]

184. Gao, J.; You, F. Dynamic material flow analysis-based life cycle optimization framework and application to sustainable design of shale gas energy systems. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2018; 6, pp. 11734-11752. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01983]

185. Heidari-Fathian, H.; Pasandideh, S.H.R. Green-blood supply chain network design: Robust optimization, bounded objective function & Lagrangian relaxation. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2018; 122, pp. 95-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.05.051]

186. Samadi, A.; Mehranfar, N.; Fathollahi Fard, A.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Heuristic-based metaheuristics to address a sustainable supply chain network design problem. J. Ind. Prod. Eng.; 2018; 35, pp. 102-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2017.1422039]

187. Yu, H.; Solvang, W.D. Incorporating flexible capacity in the planning of a multi-product multi-echelon sustainable reverse logistics network under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 198, pp. 285-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.019]

188. Gao, J.; You, F. Integrated Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment and Optimization of Shale Gas. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2018; 6, pp. 1803-1824. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03198]

189. Das, K. Integrating lean systems in the design of a sustainable supply chain model. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2018; 198, pp. 177-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.01.003]

190. Fakhrzad, M.B.; Talebzadeh, P.; Goodarzian, F. Mathematical Formulation and Solving of Green Closed-loop Supply Chain Planning Problem with Production, Distribution and Transportation Reliability. Int. J. Eng.; 2018; 31, pp. 2059-2067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5829/ije.2018.31.12c.10]

191. Zhang, H.; Yang, K. Multi-objective optimization for green dual-channel supply chain network design considering transportation mode selection. Supply Chain and Logistics Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 382-404.

192. Yilmaz Balaman, S.; Wright, D.G.; Scott, J.; Matopoulos, A. Network design and technology management for waste to energy production: An integrated optimization framework under the principles of circular economy. Energy; 2018; 143, pp. 911-933. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.058]

193. Hong, Z.; Dai, W.; Luh, H.; Yang, C. Optimal configuration of a green product supply chain with guaranteed service time and emission constraints. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2018; 266, pp. 663-677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.046]

194. Rahimi, M.; Fazlollahtabar, H. Optimization of a Closed Loop Green Supply Chain using Particle Swarm and Genetic Algorithms. Jordan J. Mech. Ind. Eng.; 2018; 12.

195. Fahimnia, B.; Davarzani, H.; Eshragh, A. Planning of complex supply chains: A performance comparison of three meta-heuristic algorithms. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2018; 89, pp. 241-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2015.10.008]

196. Raut, R.; Kharat, M.; Kamble, S.; Kumar, C.S. Sustainable evaluation and selection of potential third-party logistics (3PL) providers: An integrated MCDM approach. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2018; 25, pp. 76-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2016-0065]

197. Mota, B.; Gomes, M.I.; Carvalho, A.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Sustainable supply chains: An integrated modeling approach under uncertainty. Omega; 2018; 77, pp. 32-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.05.006]

198. Sahebjamnia, N.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Sustainable tire closed-loop supply chain network design: Hybrid metaheuristic algorithms for large-scale networks. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 196, pp. 273-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.245]

199. Fercoq, A.; Lamouri, S.; Carbone, V. Lean/Green integration focused on waste reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 137, pp. 567-578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.107]

200. Laosirihongthong, T.; Samaranayake, P.; Nagalingam, S. A holistic approach to supplier evaluation and order allocation towards sustainable procurement. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2019; 26, pp. 2543-2573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2018-0360]

201. Azadi, M.; Shabani, A.; Khodakarami, M.; Saen, R.F. Planning in feasible region by two-stage target-setting DEA methods: An application in green supply chain management of public transportation service providers. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2014; 70, pp. 324-338. Reprinted in Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015, 74, 22–36 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.07.009]

202. Cobuloglu, H.I.; Büyüktahtakın, İ.E. Food vs. biofuel: An optimization approach to the spatio-temporal analysis of land-use competition and environmental impacts. Appl. Energy; 2015; 140, pp. 418-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.080]

203. Graham, G.; Freeman, J.; Chen, T. Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J.; 2015; 20, pp. 327-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-04-2014-0142]

204. Saberi, S. Sustainable, multiperiod supply chain network model with freight carrier through reduction in pollution stock. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2018; 118, pp. 421-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.08.010]

205. Rostamzadeh, R.; Govindan, K.; Esmaeili, A.; Sabaghi, M. Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecol. Indic.; 2015; 49, pp. 188-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.045]

206. Kuo, T.C.; Chiu, M.C.; Hsu, C.W.; Tseng, M.L. Supporting sustainable product service systems: A product selling and leasing design model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2019; 146, pp. 384-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.007]

207. Martí, J.M.C.; Tancrez, J.S.; Seifert, R.W. Carbon footprint and responsiveness trade-offs in supply chain network design. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 166, pp. 129-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.04.016]

208. Lin, C.; Madu, C.N.; Kuei, C.h.; Tsai, H.L.; Wang, K.n. Developing an assessment framework for managing sustainability programs: A Analytic Network Process approach. Expert Syst. Appl.; 2015; 42, pp. 2488-2501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.09.025]

209. Lam, J.S.L.; Dai, J. Environmental sustainability of logistics service provider: An ANP-QFD approach. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2015; 26, pp. 313-333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2013-0088]

210. Meneghetti, A.; Monti, L. Greening the food supply chain: An optimisation model for sustainable design of refrigerated automated warehouses. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2015; 53, pp. 6567-6587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.985449]

211. Danloup, N.; Mirzabeiki, V.; Allaoui, H.; Goncalves, G.; Julien, D.; Mena, C. Reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions with collaborative distribution: A case study. Manag. Res. Rev.; 2015; 38, pp. 1049-1067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2014-0262]

212. Yoder, J.R.; Alexander, C.; Ivanic, R.; Rosch, S.; Tyner, W.; Wu, S.Y. Risk versus reward, a financial analysis of alternative contract specifications for the miscanthus lignocellulosic supply chain. BioEnergy Res.; 2015; 8, pp. 644-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9548-z]

213. Shamsuddoha, M.; Quaddus, M.; Klass, D. Sustainable poultry production process to mitigate socio-economic challenge. Humanomics; 2015; 31, pp. 242-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/H-09-2012-0017]

214. Tseng, M.; Lim, M.; Wong, W.P. Sustainable supply chain management: A closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2015; 115, pp. 436-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2014-0319]

215. Lee, S.Y. The effects of green supply chain management on the supplier’s performance through social capital accumulation. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.; 2015; 20, pp. 42-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2014-0009]

216. Günther, H.O.; Kannegiesser, M.; Autenrieb, N. The role of electric vehicles for supply chain sustainability in the automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 90, pp. 220-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.058]

217. Xu, J.; Jiang, X.; Wu, Z. A Sustainable Performance Assessment Framework for Plastic Film Supply Chain Management from a Chinese Perspective. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 1042. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8101042]

218. O’Reilly, S.; Kumar, A. Closing the loop: An exploratory study of reverse ready-made garment supply chains in Delhi NCR. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2016; 27, pp. 486-510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2015-0050]

219. Xie, G. Cooperative strategies for sustainability in a decentralized supply chain with competing suppliers. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 113, pp. 807-821. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.013]

220. Huang, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, T.; Pang, C. Green supply chain coordination with greenhouse gases emissions management: A game-theoretic approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 112, pp. 2004-2014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.137]

221. Beldek, T.; Aldemir, G.; Camgoz-Akdag, H.; Hoskara, E. Green Supply Chain Management in Green Hospital Operations. IIOAB J.; 2016; 7, pp. 467-472.

222. Khan, M.; Hussain, M.; Saber, H.M. Information sharing in a sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2016; 181, pp. 208-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.010]

223. Jiang, W.; Chen, X. Optimal strategies for manufacturer with strategic customer behavior under carbon emissions-sensitive random demand. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2016; 116, pp. 759-776. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2015-0321]

224. Li, C.; Xiang, X.; Qu, Y. Product quality dynamics in closed-loop supply chains and its sensitivity analysis. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services (GSIS); Leicester, UK, 18–20 August 2015; pp. 479-484.

225. Vahdani, B.; Mousavi, S.M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Hashemi, H. A new enhanced support vector model based on general variable neighborhood search algorithm for supplier performance evaluation: A case study. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst.; 2017; 10, pp. 293-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.2017.10.1.20]

226. Khalafi, S.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Mohammaditabar, D.; Sayadi, M.K. Multi objective Fuzzy programming of remanufactured green perishable products using supply contracts. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag.; 2020; 15, pp. 274-287. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2020.1773347]

227. Mehrbakhsh, S.; Ghezavati, V. Mathematical modeling for green supply chain considering product recovery capacity and uncertainty for demand. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2020; 27, pp. 44378-44395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10331-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32767212]

228. Uçal Sarı, İ.; Çayır Ervural, B.; Bozat, S. Analyzing criteria used in supplier evaluation by DEMATEL method in sustainable supply chain management and an application to health sector. Pamukkale Univ. J. Eng. Sci.; 2017; 23, pp. 477-485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2017.14892]

229. Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Tang, W. Coordinating a supply chain with green innovation in a dynamic setting. 4OR; 2017; 15, pp. 133-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10288-016-0327-x]

230. Rao, C.; Goh, M.; Zheng, J. Decision Mechanism for Supplier Selection Under Sustainability. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.; 2017; 16, pp. 87-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500450]

231. Shi, X.; Qian, Y.; Dong, C. Economic and environmental performance of fashion supply chain: The joint effect of power structure and sustainable investment. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 961. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9060961]

232. Machado, C.G.; de Lima, E.P.; da Costa, S.E.G.; Angelis, J.J.; Mattioda, R.A. Framing maturity based on sustainable operations management principles. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2017; 190, pp. 3-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.020]

233. Aziziankohan, A.; Jolai, F.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Soltani, R.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. Green supply chain management using the queuing theory to handle congestion and reduce energy consumption and emissions from supply chain transportation fleet. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. (JIEM); 2017; 10, pp. 213-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2170]

234. Xing, W.; Zou, J.; Liu, T.L. Integrated or decentralized: An analysis of channel structure for green products. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 112, pp. 20-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.08.013]

235. Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Chan, H.K. Manufacturer and retailer coordination for environmental and economic competitiveness: A power perspective. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2017; 97, pp. 268-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.11.007]

236. Zhao, Y.; Choi, S.; Wang, X.; Qiao, A.; Wang, S. Production and Low-carbon Investment Analysis in Make-to-stock Supply Chain. Eng. Lett.; 2017; 25, pp. 80-89.

237. Wang, F.; Zhuo, X.; Niu, B. Sustainability analysis and buy-back coordination in a fashion supply chain with price competition and demand uncertainty. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9010025]

238. Zhao, X.; Li, Y.; Xu, F.; Dong, K. Sustainable collaborative marketing governance mechanism for remanufactured products with extended producer responsibility. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 166, pp. 1020-1030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.073]

239. Dallasega, P.; Rauch, E. Sustainable construction supply chains through synchronized production planning and control in engineer-to-order enterprises. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9101888]

240. Sinha, A.K.; Anand, A. Towards fuzzy preference relationship based on decision making approach to access the performance of suppliers in environmental conscious manufacturing domain. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 105, pp. 39-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.12.033]

241. Pinto Taborga, C.; Lusa, A.; Coves, A.M. A proposal for a green supply chain strategy. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. (JIEM); 2018; 11, pp. 445-465. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2518]

242. Niknamfar, A.H.; Niaki, S.A.A.; Karimi, M. A series-parallel inventory-redundancy green allocation system using a max-min approach via the interior point method. Assem. Autom.; 2018; 38, pp. 323-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AA-07-2017-085]

243. Sazvar, Z.; Rahmani, M.; Govindan, K. A sustainable supply chain for organic, conventional agro-food products: The role of demand substitution, climate change and public health. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 194, pp. 564-583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.118]

244. Ledari, A.M.; Khamseh, A.A.; Mohammadi, M. A three echelon revenue oriented green supply chain network design. Numer. Algebr. Control Optim.; 2018; 8, pp. 157-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/naco.2018009]

245. Anvar, S.H.; Sadegheih, A.; Zad, M.A.V. Carbon emission management for greening supply chains at the operational level. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. (EEMJ); 2018; 17, pp. 1337-1347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2018.133]

246. Moradinasab, N.; Amin-Naseri, M.; Behbahani, T.J.; Jafarzadeh, H. Competition and cooperation between supply chains in multi-objective petroleum green supply chain: A game theoretic approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 170, pp. 818-841. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.114]

247. De Meyer, A.; Cattrysse, D.; Van Orshoven, J. A generic mathematical model to optimise strategic and tactical decisions in biomass-based supply chains (OPTIMASS). Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2015; 245, pp. 247-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.045]

248. Das, K.; Posinasetti, N.R. Addressing environmental concerns in closed loop supply chain design and planning. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 163, pp. 34-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.02.012]

249. Pinto, M.M.A.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Yoshino, R.T.; Pagani, R.N. Knowledge and technology transfer influencing the process of innovation in green supply chain management: A multicriteria model based on the DEMATEL Method. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11123485]

250. Belaud, J.P.; Prioux, N.; Vialle, C.; Sablayrolles, C. Big data for agri-food 4.0: Application to sustainability management for by-products supply chain. Comput. Ind.; 2019; 111, pp. 41-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.06.006]

251. Gao, J.; Xiao, Z.; Wei, H.; Zhou, G. Active or passive? Sustainable manufacturing in the direct-channel green supply chain: A perspective of two types of green product designs. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2018; 65, pp. 332-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.007]

252. Wan, P. Analysis of carbon emission reduction and pricing for sustainable closed-loop supply chain considering the quality of recycled products. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res.; 2019; 17, pp. 9947-9963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1704_99479963]

253. Rahmani, K.; Yavari, M. Pricing policies for a dual-channel green supply chain under demand disruptions. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 127, pp. 493-510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.039]

254. Gautam, P.; Kishore, A.; Khanna, A.; Jaggi, C.K. Strategic defect management for a sustainable green supply chain. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 233, pp. 226-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.005]

255. Diba, S.; Xie, N. Sustainable supplier selection for Satrec Vitalait Milk Company in Senegal using the novel grey relational analysis method. Grey Syst. Theory Appl.; 2019; 9, pp. 262-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/GS-01-2019-0003]

256. Kolotzek, C.; Helbig, C.; Thorenz, A.; Reller, A.; Tuma, A. A company-oriented model for the assessment of raw material supply risks, environmental impact and social implications. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 176, pp. 566-580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.162]

257. Kannan, D.; Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S. Fuzzy axiomatic design approach based green supplier selection: A case study from Singapore. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 96, pp. 194-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.076]

258. Ghadimi, P.; Dargi, A.; Heavey, C. Sustainable supplier performance scoring using audition check-list based fuzzy inference system: A case application in automotive spare part industry. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 105, pp. 12-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.002]

259. Bernstein, W.Z.; Ramanujan, D.; Kulkarni, D.M.; Tew, J.; Elmqvist, N.; Zhao, F.; Ramani, K. Mutually coordinated visualization of product and supply chain metadata for sustainable design. J. Mech. Des.; 2015; 137, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4031293]

260. Hsu, C.C.; Tan, K.C.; Zailani, S.H.M. Strategic orientations, sustainable supply chain initiatives, and reverse logistics: Empirical evidence from an emerging market. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2016; 36, pp. 86-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2014-0252]

261. Kunz, N.; Gold, S. Sustainable humanitarian supply chain management-exploring new theory. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.; 2017; 20, pp. 85-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1103845]

262. Zhao, L.; Li, L.; Song, Y.; Li, C.; Wu, Y. Research on Pricing and Coordination Strategy of a Sustainable Green Supply Chain with a Capital-Constrained Retailer. Complexity; 2018; 2018, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/6845970]

263. Sarkar, S.; Bhadouriya, A. Manufacturer competition and collusion in a two-echelon green supply chain with production trade-off between non-green and green quality. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 253, 119904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119904]

264. Beng, L.G.; Omar, B. Integrating axiomatic design principles into sustainable product development. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol.; 2014; 1, pp. 107-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40684-014-0015-2]

265. Rijpkema, W.A.; Rossi, R.; van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. Effective sourcing strategies for perishable product supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2014; 44, pp. 494-510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2013-0013]

266. Tabatabaei, M.H.; Bazrkar, A. Providing a Model for Ranking Suppliers in the Sustainable Supply Chain Using Cross Efficiency Method in Data Envelopment Analysis. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2019; 16, pp. 43-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2019.v16.n1.a4]

267. Mohseni, S.; Pishvaee, M.S. A robust programming approach towards design and optimization of microalgae-based biofuel supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2016; 100, pp. 58-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.08.003]

268. Aghazadeh Ardebili, A.; Padoano, E.; Rahmani, N. Waste Reduction for Green Service Supply Chain—The Case Study of a Payment Service Provider in Iran. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12051833]

269. Parthiban, P.; Amalaldhasan, S.; Dhanalakshmi, R. Fuzzy Quantitative Approach to Prioritize Green Factors in Supply Chain. Applied Mechanics and Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Stafa-Zurich, Switzerland, 2017.

270. Tippayawong, K.Y.; Niyomyat, N.; Sopadang, A.; Ramingwong, S. Factors affecting green supply chain operational performance of the thai auto parts industry. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 1161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8111161]

271. Jonkman, J.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; Bloemhof, J.M. Integrating harvesting decisions in the design of agro-food supply chains. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2019; 276, pp. 247-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.12.024]

272. Wu, T.; Zhang, L.G.; Ge, T. Managing financing risk in capacity investment under green supply chain competition. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2019; 143, pp. 37-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.03.005]

273. Yang, S.; Xiao, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, Y. The green supply chain design and marketing strategy for perishable food based on temperature control. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9091511]

274. Validi, S.; Bhattacharya, A.; Byrne, P. A case analysis of a sustainable food supply chain distribution system—A multi-objective approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2014; 152, pp. 71-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.02.003]

275. Chiu, C.Y.; Lin, Y.; Yang, M.F. Applying fuzzy multiobjective integrated logistics model to green supply chain problems. J. Appl. Math.; 2014; 2014, 767095. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/767095]

276. Wang, Q.; Wu, J.; Zhao, N.; Zhu, Q. Inventory control and supply chain management: A green growth perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2019; 145, pp. 78-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.024]

277. Aggarwal, R. A chance constraint based low carbon footprint supply chain configuration for an FMCG product. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2018; 29, pp. 1002-1025. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2017-0130]

278. Karimi, A.; Jafarzadeh-Ghoushchi, S.; Mohtadi-Bonab, M.A. Presenting a new model for performance measurement of the sustainable supply chain of Shoa Panjereh Company in different provinces of Iran (case study). Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag.; 2020; 11, pp. 140-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-00932-4]

279. Zhang, H.; Xu, X.; Liu, W.; Jia, Z. Green supply chain decision modeling under financial policy, with or without uniform government emission reduction policy. Manag. Decis. Econ.; 2020; 41, pp. 1040-1056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mde.3158]

280. Liu, C.; Chen, W.; Mu, J. Retailer’s multi-tier green procurement contract in the presence of suppliers’ reference point effect. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 131, pp. 242-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.03.013]

281. Thamsatitdej, P.; Boon-itt, S.; Samaranayake, P.; Wannakarn, M.; Laosirihongthong, T. Eco-design practices towards sustainable supply chain management: Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. Int. J. Sustain. Eng.; 2017; 10, pp. 326-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1379571]

282. Beltagui, A.; Kunz, N.; Gold, S. The role of 3D printing and open design on adoption of socially sustainable supply chain innovation. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2020; 221, 107462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.035]

283. Antheaume, N.; Thiel, D.; de Corbière, F.; Rowe, F.; Takeda, H. An analytical model to investigate the economic and environmental benefits of a supply chain resource-sharing scheme based on collaborative consolidation centres. J. Oper. Res. Soc.; 2018; 69, pp. 1888-1902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2017.1415638]

284. Chang, S.; Hu, B.; He, X. Supply chain coordination in the context of green marketing efforts and capacity expansion. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11205734]

285. Zhang, Q.; Zhao, Q.; Zhao, X. Manufacturer’s product choice in the presence of environment-conscious consumers: Brown product or green product. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2019; 57, pp. 7423-7438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1624853]

286. Sen, D.K.; Datta, S.; Mahapatra, S. On evaluation of supply chain’s ecosilient (g-resilient) performance index. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2018; 25, pp. 2370-2389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2017-0038]

287. Zhang, J.; Dai, R.; Zhang, Q.; Tang, W. An Optimal Energy Efficiency Investment and Product Pricing Strategy in a Two-Market Framework. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst.; 2018; 48, pp. 608-621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2016.2613939]

288. Scott, J.A.; Ho, W.; Dey, P.K. Strategic sourcing in the UK bioenergy industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2013; 146, pp. 478-490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.01.027]

289. Vance, L.; Cabezas, H.; Heckl, I.; Bertok, B.; Friedler, F. Synthesis of sustainable energy supply chain by the P-graph framework. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2013; 52, pp. 266-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie3013264]

290. Oh, J.; Jeong, B. Profit Analysis and Supply Chain Planning Model for Closed-Loop Supply Chain in Fashion Industry. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 9027-9056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6129027]

291. Kannan, D.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2014; 233, pp. 432-447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.023]

292. Mari, S.; Lee, Y.; Memon, M. Sustainable and Resilient Supply Chain Network Design under Disruption Risks. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 6666-6686. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6106666]

293. Tajbakhsh, A.; Hassini, E. A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate sustainability in supply chain networks. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 105, pp. 74-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.054]

294. Machani, M.; Nourelfath, M.; D’Amours, S. A scenario-based modelling approach to identify robust transformation strategies for pulp and paper companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 168, pp. 41-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.06.006]

295. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Eshragh, A. A tradeoff model for green supply chain planning: A leanness-versus-greenness analysis. Omega; 2015; 54, pp. 173-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.01.014]

296. Zhang, Q.; Shah, N.; Wassick, J.; Helling, R.; Van Egerschot, P. Sustainable supply chain optimisation: An industrial case study. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2014; 74, pp. 68-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.05.002]

297. Govindan, K.; Jafarian, A.; Khodaverdi, R.; Devika, K. Two-echelon multiple-vehicle location-routing problem with time windows for optimization of sustainable supply chain network of perishable food. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2014; 152, pp. 9-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.028]

298. Choudhary, A.; Sarkar, S.; Settur, S.; Tiwari, M. A carbon market sensitive optimization model for integrated forward–reverse logistics. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 164, pp. 433-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.08.015]

299. Diabat, A.; Al-Salem, M. An integrated supply chain problem with environmental considerations. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 164, pp. 330-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.004]

300. Wu, C.; Barnes, D. Partner selection for reverse logistics centres in green supply chains: A fuzzy artificial immune optimisation approach. Prod. Plan. Control; 2016; 27, pp. 1356-1372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1221159]

301. Garg, K.; Kannan, D.; Diabat, A.; Jha, P. A multi-criteria optimization approach to manage environmental issues in closed loop supply chain network design. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 100, pp. 297-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.075]

302. Validi, S.; Bhattacharya, A.; Byrne, P. A solution method for a two-layer sustainable supply chain distribution model. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2015; 54, pp. 204-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.06.015]

303. Altmann, M. A supply chain design approach considering environmentally sensitive customers: The case of a German manufacturing SME. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2015; 53, pp. 6534-6550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.961203]

304. Pop, P.C.; Pintea, C.M.; Sitar, C.P.; Hajdu-Măcelaru, M. An efficient Reverse Distribution System for solving sustainable supply chain network design problem. J. Appl. Log.; 2015; 13, pp. 105-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2014.11.004]

305. Boukherroub, T.; Ruiz, A.; Guinet, A.; Fondrevelle, J. An integrated approach for sustainable supply chain planning. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2015; 54, pp. 180-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.09.002]

306. Govindan, K.; Jafarian, A.; Nourbakhsh, V. Bi-objective integrating sustainable order allocation and sustainable supply chain network strategic design with stochastic demand using a novel robust hybrid multi-objective metaheuristic. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2015; 62, pp. 112-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.12.014]

307. Vance, L.; Heckl, I.; Bertok, B.; Cabezas, H.; Friedler, F. Designing sustainable energy supply chains by the P-graph method for minimal cost, environmental burden, energy resources input. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 94, pp. 144-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.011]

308. Dadhich, P.; Genovese, A.; Kumar, N.; Acquaye, A. Developing sustainable supply chains in the UK construction industry: A case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 164, pp. 271-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.012]

309. Boonsothonsatit, K.; Kara, S.; Ibbotson, S.; Kayis, B. Development of a Generic decision support system based on multi-Objective Optimisation for Green supply chain network design (GOOG). J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.; 2015; 26, pp. 1069-1084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2012-0102]

310. Tognetti, A.; Grosse-Ruyken, P.T.; Wagner, S.M. Green supply chain network optimization and the trade-off between environmental and economic objectives. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2015; 170, pp. 385-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.05.012]

311. Wanke, P.; Correa, H.; Jacob, J.; Santos, T. Including carbon emissions in the planning of logistic networks: A Brazilian case. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist.; 2015; 7, pp. 655-675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2015.072681]

312. Hasani, A.; Zegordi, S.H.; Nikbakhsh, E. Robust closed-loop global supply chain network design under uncertainty: The case of the medical device industry. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2015; 53, pp. 1596-1624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.965349]

313. Gao, J.; You, F. Shale Gas Supply Chain Design and Operations toward Better Economic and Life Cycle Environmental Performance: MINLP Model and Global Optimization Algorithm. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2015; 3, pp. 1282-1291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00122]

314. Qiang, Q.P. The closed-loop supply chain network with competition and design for remanufactureability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 105, pp. 348-356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.005]

315. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J. The design of a responsive sustainable supply chain network under uncertainty. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2015; 80, pp. 427-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-6967-8]

316. Mohajeri, A.; Fallah, M. A carbon footprint-based closed-loop supply chain model under uncertainty with risk analysis: A case study. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.; 2016; 48, pp. 425-450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.001]

317. Alhaj, M.A.; Svetinovic, D.; Diabat, A. RETRACTED: A carbon-sensitive two-echelon-inventory supply chain model with stochastic demand. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2016; 108, pp. 82-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.011]

318. Suzuki, Y. A dual-objective metaheuristic approach to solve practical pollution routing problem. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2016; 176, pp. 143-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.008]

319. Tiwari, A.; Chang, P.C.; Tiwari, M.; Kandhway, R. A Hybrid Territory Defined evolutionary algorithm approach for closed loop green supply chain network design. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2016; 99, pp. 432-447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.018]

320. Coskun, S.; Ozgur, L.; Polat, O.; Gungor, A. A model proposal for green supply chain network design based on consumer segmentation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 110, pp. 149-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.063]

321. Entezaminia, A.; Heydari, M.; Rahmani, D. A multi-objective model for multi-product multi-site aggregate production planning in a green supply chain: Considering collection and recycling centers. J. Manuf. Syst.; 2016; 40, pp. 63-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.06.004]

322. Golpîra, H. A robust bi-objective uncertain green supply chain network management. Serbian J. Manag.; 2016; 11, pp. 211-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5937/sjm11-10705]

323. Talaei, M.; Moghaddam, B.F.; Pishvaee, M.S.; Bozorgi-Amiri, A.; Gholamnejad, S. A robust fuzzy optimization model for carbon-efficient closed-loop supply chain network design problem: A numerical illustration in electronics industry. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 113, pp. 662-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.074]

324. Ji, X.; Wu, J.; Zhu, Q. Eco-design of transportation in sustainable supply chain management: A DEA-like method. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2016; 48, pp. 451-459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.08.007]

325. Yu, Q.; Hou, F. An approach for green supplier selection in the automobile manufacturing industry. Kybernetes; 2016; 45, pp. 571-588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2015-0034]

326. Coelho, I.; Munhoz, P.; Ochi, L.; Souza, M.; Bentes, C.; Farias, R. An integrated CPU-GPU heuristic inspired on variable neighbourhood search for the single vehicle routing problem with deliveries and selective pickups. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2016; 54, pp. 945-962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1035811]

327. Duarte, A.; Sarache, W.; Costa, Y. Biofuel supply chain design from Coffee Cut Stem under environmental analysis. Energy; 2016; 100, pp. 321-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.076]

328. Miret, C.; Chazara, P.; Montastruc, L.; Negny, S.; Domenech, S. Design of bioethanol green supply chain: Comparison between first and second generation biomass concerning economic, environmental and social criteria. Comput. Chem. Eng.; 2016; 85, pp. 16-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2015.10.008]

329. Colicchia, C.; Creazza, A.; Dallari, F.; Melacini, M. Eco-efficient supply chain networks: Development of a design framework and application to a real case study. Prod. Plan. Control; 2016; 27, pp. 157-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1090030]

330. Sahu, A.K.; Datta, S.; Mahapatra, S. Evaluation and selection of suppliers considering green perspectives. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2016; 23, pp. 1579-1604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2014-0111]

331. Neumüller, C.; Lasch, R.; Kellner, F. Integrating sustainability into strategic supplier portfolio selection. Manag. Decis.; 2016; 54, pp. 194-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2015-0191]

332. Balaman, S.Y. Investment planning and strategic management of sustainable systems for clean power generation: An ϵ-constraint based multi objective modelling approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 137, pp. 1179-1190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.202]

333. Ren, J.; An, D.; Liang, H.; Dong, L.; Gao, Z.; Geng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Song, S.; Zhao, W. Life cycle energy and CO2 emission optimization for biofuel supply chain planning under uncertainties. Energy; 2016; 103, pp. 151-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.151]

334. Shaw, K.; Irfan, M.; Shankar, R.; Yadav, S.S. Low carbon chance constrained supply chain network design problem: A Benders decomposition based approach. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2016; 98, pp. 483-497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.011]

335. Wu, K.J.; Liao, C.J.; Tseng, M.; Chiu, K.K.S. Multi-attribute approach to sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2016; 116, pp. 777-800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2015-0327]

336. Zhang, S.; Lee, C.K.M.; Wu, K.; Choy, K.L. Multi-objective optimization for sustainable supply chain network design considering multiple distribution channels. Expert Syst. Appl.; 2016; 65, pp. 87-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.037]

337. Bairamzadeh, S.; Pishvaee, M.S.; Saidi-Mehrabad, M. Multiobjective Robust Possibilistic Programming Approach to Sustainable Bioethanol Supply Chain Design under Multiple Uncertainties. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2016; 55, pp. 237-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02875]

338. Sepehri, M.; Sazvar, Z. Multi-objective Sustainable Supply Chain with Deteriorating Products and Transportation Options under Uncertain Demand and Backorder. Sci. Iran.; 2016; 23, pp. 2977-2994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2016.4006]

339. Golpîra, H.; Zandieh, M.; Najafi, E.; Sadi-Nezhad, S. A multi-objective multi-echelon green supply chain network design problem with risk-averse retailers in an uncertain environment. Scientiairanica; 2017; 24, pp. 413-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4043]

340. Mari, S.I.; Lee, Y.H.; Memon, M.S. Sustainable and resilient garment supply chain network design with fuzzy multi-objectives under uncertainty. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8101038]

341. Chanchaichujit, J.; Saavedra-Rosas, J.; Quaddus, M.; West, M. The use of an optimisation model to design a green supply chain: A case study of the Thai rubber industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2016; 27, pp. 595-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2013-0121]

342. Costa, Y.; Duarte, A.; Sarache, W. A decisional simulation-optimization framework for sustainable facility location of a biodiesel plant in Colombia. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 167, pp. 174-191. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.126]

343. Pandey, P.; Shah, B.J.; Gajjar, H. A fuzzy goal programming approach for selecting sustainable suppliers. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2017; 24, pp. 1138-1165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2015-0110]

344. Miranda-Ackerman, M.A.; Azzaro-Pantel, C.; Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A. A green supply chain network design framework for the processed food industry: Application to the orange juice agrofood cluster. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 109, pp. 369-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.031]

345. Brandenburg, M. A hybrid approach to configure eco-efficient supply chains under consideration of performance and risk aspects. Omega; 2017; 70, pp. 58-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.09.002]

346. Mokhtari, H.; Hasani, A. A multi-objective model for cleaner production-transportation planning in manufacturing plants via fuzzy goal programming. J. Manuf. Syst.; 2017; 44, pp. 230-242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.06.002]

347. Musavi, M.; Bozorgi-Amiri, A. A multi-objective sustainable hub location-scheduling problem for perishable food supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 113, pp. 766-778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.07.039]

348. Yáñez, M.; Ortiz, A.; Brunaud, B.; Grossmann, I.E.; Ortiz, I. Contribution of upcycling surplus hydrogen to design a sustainable supply chain: The case study of Northern Spain. Appl. Energy; 2018; 231, pp. 777-787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.047]

349. Amalnick, M.S.; Saffar, M.M. A new fuzzy mathematical model for green supply chain network design. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput.; 2017; 8, pp. 45-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.7.003]

350. Arampantzi, C.; Minis, I. A new model for designing sustainable supply chain networks and its application to a global manufacturer. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 156, pp. 276-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.164]

351. Chen, Y.W.; Wang, L.C.; Wang, A.; Chen, T.L. A particle swarm approach for optimizing a multi-stage closed loop supply chain for the solar cell industry. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf.; 2017; 43, pp. 111-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.10.006]

352. Sampat, A.M.; Ruiz-Mercado, G.J.; Zavala, V.M. Economic and environmental analysis for advancing sustainable management of livestock waste: A Wisconsin Case Study. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2018; 6, pp. 6018-6031. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04657]

353. Fazli-Khalaf, M.; Mirzazadeh, A.; Pishvaee, M.S. A robust fuzzy stochastic programming model for the design of a reliable green closed-loop supply chain network. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J.; 2017; 23, pp. 2119-2149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2017.1367644]

354. Nakhjirkan, S.; Mokhatab Rafiei, F. An integrated multi-echelon supply chain network design considering stochastic demand: A genetic algorithm based solution. Promet-Traffic Transp.; 2017; 29, pp. 391-400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v29i4.2193]

355. Zhao, R.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, N.; Huang, T. An optimization model for green supply chain management by using a big data analytic approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 142, pp. 1085-1097. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.006]

356. Hashim, M.; Nazam, M.; Yao, L.; Ahmad Baig, S.; Abrar, M.; Zia-ur Rehman, M. Application of multi-objective optimization based on genetic algorithm for sustainable strategic supplier selection under fuzzy environment. J. Ind. Eng. Manag.; 2017; 10, 188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2078]

357. Kadziński, M.; Tervonen, T.; Tomczyk, M.K.; Dekker, R. Evaluation of multi-objective optimization approaches for solving green supply chain design problems. Omega; 2017; 68, pp. 168-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.07.003]

358. Zhao, Q.; Wen, Z.; Toppinen, A. Constructing the embodied Carbon flows and emissions landscape from the perspective of supply chain. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 3865. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10113865]

359. Li, L.; Dababneh, F.; Zhao, J. Cost-effective supply chain for electric vehicle battery remanufacturing. Appl. Energy; 2018; 226, pp. 277-286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.115]

360. Zhu, Q.; Li, X.; Zhao, S. Cost-sharing models for green product production and marketing in a food supply chain. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2018; 118, pp. 654-682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0181]

361. Hong, I.H.; Su, J.C.; Chu, C.H.; Yen, C.Y. Decentralized decision framework to coordinate product design and supply chain decisions: Evaluating tradeoffs between cost and carbon emission. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 204, pp. 107-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.239]

362. Fang, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Sun, L.; Han, X. Design of Green Cold Chain Networks for Imported Fresh Agri-Products in Belt and Road Development. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10051572]

363. Jeong, J.S.; Ramírez-Gómez, Á. Development of a web graphic model with fuzzy-decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory/Multi-criteria-Spatial Decision Support System (F-DEMATEL/MC-SDSS) for sustainable planning and construction of rural housings. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 199, pp. 584-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.227]

364. Tong, Y.; Li, Y. External Intervention or Internal Coordination? Incentives to Promote Sustainable Development through Green Supply Chains. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082857]

365. Helo, P.; Ala-Harja, H. Green logistics in food distribution—A case study. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.; 2018; 21, pp. 464-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2017.1421623]

366. Gao, J.; Xiao, Z.; Cao, B.; Chai, Q. Green supply chain planning considering consumer’s transportation process. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2018; 109, pp. 311-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.12.001]

367. Fahimnia, B.; Jabbarzadeh, A.; Sarkis, J. Greening versus resilience: A supply chain design perspective. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2018; 119, pp. 129-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.09.005]

368. Carrero-Parreño, A.; Reyes-Labarta, J.A.; Salcedo-Díaz, R.; Ruiz-Femenia, R.; Onishi, V.C.; Caballero, J.A.; Grossmann, I.E. Holistic Planning Model for Sustainable Water Management in the Shale Gas Industry. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2018; 57, pp. 13131-13143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b02055]

369. Ahmed, W.; Sarkar, B. Impact of carbon emissions in a sustainable supply chain management for a second generation biofuel. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 186, pp. 807-820. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.289]

370. Xue, M.; Zhang, J. Impacts of heterogeneous environment awareness and power structure on green supply chain. RAIRO-Oper. Res.; 2018; 52, pp. 143-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ro/2018005]

371. Chen, Z.; Pei, L. Inter-Basin Water Transfer Green Supply Chain Equilibrium and Coordination under Social Welfare Maximization. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10041229]

372. Sarkar, B.; Ahmed, W.; Kim, N. Joint effects of variable carbon emission cost and multi-delay-in-payments under single-setup-multiple-delivery policy in a global sustainable supply chain. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 185, pp. 421-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.215]

373. Sahu, A.K.; Sahu, N.K.; Sahu, A.K. Knowledge based decision support system for appraisement of sustainable partner under fuzzy cum non-fuzzy information. Kybernetes; 2018; 47, pp. 1090-1121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2017-0020]

374. Jin, M.; Song, L.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, Y. Longitudinal cooperative robust optimization model for sustainable supply chain management. Chaos Solitons Fractals; 2018; 116, pp. 95-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2018.09.008]

375. Valderrama, C.V.; Santibañez González, E.; Pimentel, B.; Candia-Véjar, A.; Canales-Bustos, L. Designing an environmental supply chain network in the mining industry to reduce carbon emissions. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 254, 119688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119688]

376. Sampat, A.M.; Martín-Hernández, E.; Martín, M.; Zavala, V.M. Technologies and logistics for phosphorus recovery from livestock waste. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2018; 20, pp. 1563-1579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1546-y]

377. Yuan, B.; Gu, B.; Guo, J.; Xia, L.; Xu, C. The Optimal Decisions for a Sustainable Supply Chain with Carbon Information Asymmetry under Cap-and-Trade. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10041002]

378. Fu, H.; Teo, K.L.; Li, Y.; Wang, L. Weather risk-reward contract for sustainable agri-food supply chain with loss-averse farmer. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10124540]

379. Ahrens, F.; Dobrzykowski, D.; Sawaya, W. Addressing mass-customization trade-offs in bottom of the pyramid markets. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2019; 49, pp. 451-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2018-0048]

380. Wang, W.; Mo, D.Y.; Wang, Y.; Tseng, M.M. Assessing the cost structure of component reuse in a product family for remanufacturing. J. Intell. Manuf.; 2019; 30, pp. 575-587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1267-1]

381. Lin, N. CO₂ emissions mitigation potential of buyer consolidation and rail-based intermodal transport in the China-Europe container supply chains. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 240, 118121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118121]

382. Noh, J.; Kim, J.S. Cooperative green supply chain management with greenhouse gas emissions and fuzzy demand. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 208, pp. 1421-1435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.124]

383. Wang, W.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Gao, G.; Zhang, H. Coordination of a Green Supply Chain with One Manufacturer and Two Competing Retailers under Different Power Structures. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc.; 2019; 2019, pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3453850]

384. Santos, G.; Murmura, F.; Bravi, L. Developing a model of vendor rating to manage quality in the supply chain. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci.; 2019; 11, pp. 34-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-06-2017-0058]

385. Péra, T.G.; Bartholomeu, D.B.; Su, C.T.; Caixeta Filho, J.V. Evaluation of green transport corridors of Brazilian soybean exports to China. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2019; 16, pp. 398-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2019.v16.n3.a4]

386. Chen, Y.K.; Chiu, F.R.; Chang, Y.C. Implementing Green Supply Chain Management for Online Pharmacies through a VADD Inventory Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 4454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224454] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31766175]

387. Ahmed, W.; Sarkar, B. Management of next-generation energy using a triple bottom line approach under a supply chain framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2019; 150, 104431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104431]

388. Nujoom, R.; Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q. Drafting a cost-effective approach towards a sustainable manufacturing system design. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 133, pp. 317-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.05.007]

389. Kůdela, J.; Šomplák, R.; Nevrlý, V.; Lipovský, T.; Smejkalová, V.; Dobrovský, L. Multi-objective strategic waste transfer station planning. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 230, pp. 1294-1304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.167]

390. Nugroho, Y.K.; Zhu, L. Platforms planning and process optimization for biofuels supply chain. Renew. Energy; 2019; 140, pp. 563-579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.072]

391. Šomplák, R.; Kůdela, J.; Smejkalová, V.; Nevrlý, V.; Pavlas, M.; Hrabec, D. Pricing and advertising strategies in conceptual waste management planning. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 239, 118068. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118068]

392. Nidhi, M.; Madhusudanan Pillai, V. Product disposal penalty: Analysing carbon sensitive sustainable supply chains. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 128, pp. 8-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.059]

393. Chen, D.; Ignatius, J.; Sun, D.; Zhan, S.; Zhou, C.; Marra, M.; Demirbag, M. Reverse logistics pricing strategy for a green supply chain: A view of customers’ environmental awareness. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2019; 217, pp. 197-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.031]

394. Kaur, H.; Singh, S.P. Sustainable procurement and logistics for disaster resilient supply chain. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2019; 283, pp. 309-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2374-2]

395. Nakamura, K.; Yamada, T.; Tan, K.H. The impact of Brexit on designing a material-based global supply chain network for Asian manufacturers. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2019; 30, pp. 980-1000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2018-0206]

396. Dey, K.; Roy, S.; Saha, S. The impact of strategic inventory and procurement strategies on green product design in a two-period supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2019; 57, pp. 1915-1948. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1511071]

397. Manupati, V.K.; Schoenherr, T.; Ramkumar, M.; Wagner, S.M.; Pabba, S.K.; Inder Raj Singh, R. A blockchain-based approach for a multi-echelon sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 58, pp. 2222-2241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1683248]

398. Zhang, H.; Xu, H.; Pu, X. A Cross-Channel Return Policy in a Green Dual-Channel Supply Chain Considering Spillover Effect. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062171]

399. Safarzadeh, S.; Rasti-Barzoki, M. A duopolistic game for designing a comprehensive energy-efficiency scheme regarding consumer features: Which energy policy is the best?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 255, 120195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120195]

400. Sazvar, Z.; Sepehri, M. An integrated replenishment-recruitment policy in a sustainable retailing system for deteriorating products. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.; 2020; 69, 100686. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2019.02.001]

401. Shan, H.; Zhang, C.; Wei, G. Bundling or Unbundling? Pricing Strategy for Complementary Products in a Green Supply Chain. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12041331]

402. Elias Mota, B.A.; Cerqueira de Sousa Gouveia Carvalho, A.I.; Azevedo Rodrigues Gomes, M.I.; Ferreira Dias Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Business strategy for sustainable development: Impact of life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment steps in supply chain design and planning. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 87-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2352]

403. Qian, X.; Chan, F.T.; Zhang, J.; Yin, M.; Zhang, Q. Channel coordination of a two-echelon sustainable supply chain with a fair-minded retailer under cap-and-trade regulation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 244, 118715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118715]

404. Li, X.; Zhu, Q. Contract Design for Enhancing Green Food Material Production Effort with Asymmetric Supply Cost Information. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12052119]

405. Xie, J.; Li, J.; Liang, L.; Fang, X.; Yang, G.; Wei, L. Contracting Emissions Reduction Supply Chain Based on Market Low-Carbon Preference and Carbon Intensity Constraint. Asia-Pac. J. Oper. Res.; 2020; 37, 2050003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217595920500037]

406. Messmann, L.; Helbig, C.; Thorenz, A.; Tuma, A. Economic and environmental benefits of recovery networks for WEEE in Europe. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 222, pp. 655-668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.244]

407. Ren, H.; Zhou, W.; Guo, Y.; Huang, L.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Hong, L.; Ma, T. A GIS-based green supply chain model for assessing the effects of carbon price uncertainty on plastic recycling. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 58, pp. 1705-1723. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1693656]

408. Abdi, A.; Abdi, A.; Akbarpour, N.; Amiri, A.S.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Innovative approaches to design and address green supply chain network with simultaneous pick-up and split delivery. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 250, 119437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119437]

409. De, M.; Giri, B. Modelling a closed-loop supply chain with a heterogeneous fleet under carbon emission reduction policy. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2020; 133, 101813. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.11.007]

410. Cobo, S.; Fengqi, Y.; Dominguez-Ramos, A.; Irabien, A. Noncooperative Game Theory To Ensure the Marketability of Organic Fertilizers within a Sustainable Circular Economy. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2020; 8, pp. 3809-3819. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b07108]

411. Wang, J.; Jiang, H.; Yu, M. Pricing decisions in a dual-channel green supply chain with product customization. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 247, 119101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119101]

412. Xiao, D.; Wang, J.; Lu, Q. Stimulating sustainability investment level of suppliers with strategic commitment to price and cost sharing in supply chain. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 252, 119732. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119732]

413. Chávez, M.M.M.; Sarache, W.; Costa, Y. Towards a comprehensive model of a biofuel supply chain optimization from coffee crop residues. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2018; 116, pp. 136-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.06.001]

414. Chalmardi, M.K.; Camacho-Vallejo, J.F. A bi-level programming model for sustainable supply chain network design that considers incentives for using cleaner technologies. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 213, pp. 1035-1050. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.197]

415. Pourjavad, E.; Mayorga, R.V. A comparative study on fuzzy programming approaches to design a sustainable supply chain under uncertainty. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.; 2019; 36, pp. 2947-2961. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-171168]

416. Guo, Y.; Hu, F.; Allaoui, H.; Boulaksil, Y. A distributed approximation approach for solving the sustainable supply chain network design problem. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2019; 57, pp. 3695-3718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1556412]

417. Safarzadeh, S.; Rasti-Barzoki, M. A game theoretic approach for pricing policies in a duopolistic supply chain considering energy productivity, industrial rebound effect, and government policies. Energy; 2019; 167, pp. 92-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.190]

418. Liang, R.; Chong, H.Y. A hybrid group decision model for green supplier selection: A case study of megaprojects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 1712-1734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2018-0462]

419. Budiman, S.D.; Rau, H. A mixed-integer model for the implementation of postponement strategies in the globalized green supply chain network. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 137, 106054. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106054]

420. Tautenhain, C.P.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.; Nascimento, M.C. A multi-objective matheuristic for designing and planning sustainable supply chains. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 135, pp. 1203-1223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.062]

421. Matić, B.; Jovanović, S.; Das, D.K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stević, Ž.; Sremac, S.; Marinković, M. A new hybrid MCDM model: Sustainable supplier selection in a construction company. Symmetry; 2019; 11, 353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sym11030353]

422. Resat, H.G.; Unsal, B. A novel multi-objective optimization approach for sustainable supply chain: A case study in packaging industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2019; 20, pp. 29-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.04.008]

423. Kaur, J.; Sidhu, R.; Awasthi, A.; Srivastava, S.K. A Pareto investigation on critical barriers in green supply chain management. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag.; 2019; 14, pp. 113-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2018.1504237]

424. Qiu, R.; Shi, S.; Sun, Y. A p-Robust Green Supply Chain Network Design Model under Uncertain Carbon Price and Demand. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 5928. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11215928]

425. Jabbarzadeh, A.; Haughton, M.; Pourmehdi, F. A robust optimization model for efficient and green supply chain planning with postponement strategy. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2019; 214, pp. 266-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.06.013]

426. Rahimi, M.; Ghezavati, V.; Asadi, F. A stochastic risk-averse sustainable supply chain network design problem with quantity discount considering multiple sources of uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 130, pp. 430-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.02.037]

427. Torabi, N.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Najafi, E. A Two-Stage Green Supply Chain Network with a Carbon Emission Price by a Multi-Objective Interior Search Algorithm. Int. J. Eng.; 2019; 32, pp. 828-834.

428. Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Montero-Simo, M.J.; Araque-Padilla, R.A. An Integrated Multi-Attribute Model for Evaluation of Sustainable Mobile Phone. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11133704]

429. Yu, C.; Zhao, W.; Li, M. An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach using compensatory and non-compensatory decision methods. Kybernetes; 2019; 48, pp. 1782-1805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2018-0063]

430. Chavoshlou, A.S.; Khamseh, A.A.; Naderi, B. An optimization model of three-player payoff based on fuzzy game theory in green supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 128, pp. 782-794. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.057]

431. Yadav, V.S.; Tripathi, S.; Singh, A. Bi-objective optimization for sustainable supply chain network design in omnichannel. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.; 2019; 30, pp. 972-986. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2017-0118]

432. Nobari, A.; Kheirkhah, A.; Esmaeili, M. Considering chain-to-chain competition on environmental and social concerns in a supply chain network design problem. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag.; 2019; 14, pp. 33-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2018.1474142]

433. Liu, C.; Chen, W. Decision making in green supply chains under the impact of the stochastic and multiple-variable dependent reference point. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2019; 128, pp. 443-469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.06.011]

434. Niranjan, T.; Parthiban, P.; Sundaram, K.; Jeyaganesan, P.N. Designing a omnichannel closed loop green supply chain network adapting preferences of rational customers. Sādhanā; 2019; 44, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12046-018-1038-0]

435. Farrokhi-Asl, H.; Makui, A.; Ghousi, R.; Rabbani, M. Designing a sustainable integrated forward/reverse logistics network. J. Model. Manag.; 2019; 14, pp. 896-921. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-09-2018-0136]

436. Govindan, K.; Jafarian, A.; Nourbakhsh, V. Designing a sustainable supply chain network integrated with vehicle routing: A comparison of hybrid swarm intelligence metaheuristics. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2019; 110, pp. 220-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.013]

437. Jiang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Dong, M.; Han, S. Sustainable Supply Chain Network Design with Carbon Footprint Consideration: A Case Study in China. Math. Probl. Eng.; 2019; 2019, 3162471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/3162471]

438. Mohseni, S.; Pishvaee, M.S. Data-driven robust optimization for wastewater sludge-to-biodiesel supply chain design. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2020; 139, 105944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.001]

439. Zhao, N.; Lehmann, J.; You, F. Poultry Waste Valorization via Pyrolysis Technologies: Economic and Environmental Life Cycle Optimization for Sustainable Bioenergy Systems. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2020; 8, pp. 4633-4646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c00704]

440. Gilani, H.; Sahebi, H. A multi-objective robust optimization model to design sustainable sugarcane-to-biofuel supply network: The case of study. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery; 2020; 11, pp. 2521-2542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00639-8]

441. He, L.; Wu, Z.; Xiang, W.; Goh, M.; Xu, Z.; Song, W.; Ming, X.; Wu, X. A novel Kano-QFD-DEMATEL approach to optimise the risk resilience solution for sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 59, pp. 1714-1735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1724343]

442. Rani, S.; Ali, R.; Agarwal, A. Fuzzy inventory model for deteriorating items in a green supply chain with carbon concerned demand. Opsearch; 2019; 56, pp. 91-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00361-8]

443. Gupta, S.; Soni, U.; Kumar, G. Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 136, pp. 663-680. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.038]

444. Taleizadeh, A.A.; Haghighi, F.; Niaki, S.T.A. Modeling and solving a sustainable closed loop supply chain problem with pricing decisions and discounts on returned products. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 207, pp. 163-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.198]

445. Pourjavad, E.; Mayorga, R.V. Multi-objective fuzzy programming of closed-loop supply chain considering sustainable measures. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst.; 2019; 21, pp. 655-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0551-y]

446. Vafaeenezhad, T.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Cheikhrouhou, N. Multi-objective mathematical modeling for sustainable supply chain management in the paper industry. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 135, pp. 1092-1102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.05.027]

447. Meyer, R.; Campanella, S.; Corsano, G.; Montagna, J.M. Optimal design of a forest supply chain in Argentina considering economic and social aspects. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 231, pp. 224-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.090]

448. Ochoa Robles, J.; Giraud Billoud, M.; Azzaro-Pantel, C.; Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A. Optimal Design of a Sustainable Hydrogen Supply Chain Network: Application in an Airport Ecosystem. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2019; 7, pp. 17587-17597. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b02620]

449. Manupati, V.K.; Jedidah, S.J.; Gupta, S.; Bhandari, A.; Ramkumar, M. Optimization of a multi-echelon sustainable production-distribution supply chain system with lead time consideration under carbon emission policies. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2019; 135, pp. 1312-1323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.010]

450. Susanty, A.; Sari, D.P.; Rinawati, D.I.I.; Purwaningsih, R.; Sjawie, F.H. Policy making for GSCM implementation in the wooden furniture industry: A DEMATEL and system dynamics approach. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2019; 30, pp. 925-944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2018-0193]

451. Hong, J.; Alzaman, C.; Diabat, A.; Bulgak, A. Sustainability dimensions and PM2.5 in supply chain logistics. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2019; 275, pp. 339-366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3077-7]

452. Rezaei, J.; Papakonstantinou, A.; Tavasszy, L.; Pesch, U.; Kana, A. Sustainable product-package design in a food supply chain: A multi-criteria life cycle approach. Packag. Technol. Sci.; 2019; 32, pp. 85-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pts.2418]

453. Rohmer, S.; Gerdessen, J.C.; Claassen, G. Sustainable supply chain design in the food system with dietary considerations: A multi-objective analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2019; 273, pp. 1149-1164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.09.006]

454. Mohammadi, M.; Jämsä-Jounela, S.L.; Harjunkoski, I. Sustainable supply chain network design for the optimal utilization of municipal solid waste. AIChE J.; 2019; 65, e16464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.16464]

455. Chen, C.C.; Shih, H.S.; Shyur, H.J.; Wu, K.S. A business strategy selection of green supply chain management via an analytic network process. Comput. Math. Appl.; 2012; 64, pp. 2544-2557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2012.06.013]

456. Pullman, M.E.; Dillard, J. Values based supply chain management and emergent organizational structures. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2010; 30, pp. 744-771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571011057326]

457. Kuo, T.C.; Lee, Y. Using pareto optimization to support supply chain network design within environmental footprint impact assessment. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11020452]

458. Zhen, L. A bi-objective model on multiperiod green supply chain network design. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. Syst.; 2017; 50, pp. 771-784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2017.2690444]

459. Aboytes-Ojeda, M.; Castillo-Villar, K.K.; Roni, M.S. A decomposition approach based on meta-heuristics and exact methods for solving a two-stage stochastic biofuel hub-and-spoke network problem. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 247, 119176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119176]

460. Mohtashami, Z.; Aghsami, A.; Jolai, F. A green closed loop supply chain design using queuing system for reducing environmental impact and energy consumption. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 242, 118452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118452]

461. Tirkolaee, E.B.; Mardani, A.; Dashtian, Z.; Soltani, M.; Weber, G.W. A novel hybrid method using fuzzy decision making and multi-objective programming for sustainable-reliable supplier selection in two-echelon supply chain design. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 250, 119517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119517]

462. Ghahremani Nahr, J.; Pasandideh, S.H.R.; Niaki, S.T.A. A robust optimization approach for multi-objective, multi-product, multi-period, closed-loop green supply chain network designs under uncertainty and discount. J. Ind. Prod. Eng.; 2020; 37, pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2017.1421591]

463. Bijarchiyan, M.; Sahebi, H.; Mirzamohammadi, S. A sustainable biomass network design model for bioenergy production by anaerobic digestion technology: Using agricultural residues and livestock manure. Energy, Sustain. Soc.; 2020; 10, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00252-7]

464. Sherafati, M.; Bashiri, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Pishvaee, M.S. Achieving sustainable development of supply chain by incorporating various carbon regulatory mechanisms. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2020; 81, 102253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102253]

465. Eydi, A.; Fathi, A. An integrated decision making model for supplier and carrier selection with emphasis on the environmental factors. Soft Comput.; 2020; 24, pp. 4243-4258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04190-1]

466. Biuki, M.; Kazemi, A.; Alinezhad, A. An integrated location-routing-inventory model for sustainable design of a perishable products supply chain network. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 2020, 120842. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120842]

467. Shen, J. An uncertain sustainable supply chain network. Appl. Math. Comput.; 2020; 378, 125213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125213]

468. Rahemi, H.; Torabi, S.A.; Avami, A.; Jolai, F. Bioethanol supply chain network design considering land characteristics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2020; 119, 109517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109517]

469. Alashhab, M.S.; Mlybari, E.A. Developing a robust green supply chain planning optimization model considering potential risks. Int. J. Geomate; 2020; 19, pp. 208-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21660/2020.73.52896]

470. Xu, J.; Cao, J.; Wang, Y.; Shi, X.; Zeng, J. Evolutionary Game on Government Regulation and Green Supply Chain Decision-Making. Energies; 2020; 13, 620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13030620]

471. Naini, S.G.J.; Aliahmadi, A.R.; Jafari-Eskandari, M. Designing a mixed performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using evolutionary game theory and balanced scorecard: A case study of an auto industry supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2011; 55, pp. 593-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.10.008]

472. Mamun, S.; Hansen, J.K.; Roni, M.S. Supply, operational, and market risk reduction opportunities: Managing risk at a cellulosic biorefinery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2020; 121, 109677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109677]

473. Mogale, D.; Cheikhrouhou, N.; Tiwari, M.K. Modelling of sustainable food grain supply chain distribution system: A bi-objective approach. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 58, pp. 5521-5544. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1669840]

474. Kumar, A. Extended TPB model to understand consumer “selling” behaviour: Implications for reverse supply chain design of mobile phones. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2017; 29, pp. 721-742. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2016-0159]

475. Kazancoglu, Y.; Kazancoglu, I.; Sagnak, M. Fuzzy DEMATEL-based green supply chain management performance: Application in cement industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2018; 118, pp. 412-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2017-0121]

476. Ding, H.; Huang, H.; Tang, O. Sustainable supply chain collaboration with outsourcing pollutant-reduction service in power industry. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 186, pp. 215-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.039]

477. Hursthouse, A.; Menzies, B.; Kelly, S.; Mirzaeian, M.; McPherson, W.; Wood, D. WEEE collection and CRM recovery trials: Piloting a holistic approach for Scotland. Glob. NEST J.; 2018; 20, pp. 712-718.

478. Rahmani, D.; Abadi, M.Q.H.; Hosseininezhad, S.J. Joint decision on product greenness strategies and pricing in a dual-channel supply chain: A robust possibilistic approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 256, 120437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120437]

479. Yousefloo, A.; Babazadeh, R. Mathematical Model for Optimizing Green Waste Recycling Networks Considering Outsourcing. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; 2020; 59, pp. 8259-8280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b06876]

480. Mahjoub, N.; Sahebi, H.; Mazdeh, M.; Teymouri, A. Optimal design of the second and third generation biofuel supply network by a multi-objective model. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 256, 120355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120355]

481. Isaloo, F.; Paydar, M.M. Optimizing a robust bi-objective supply chain network considering environmental aspects: A case study in plastic injection industry. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag.; 2020; 15, pp. 26-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2019.1592720]

482. Jafari, H.R.; Abharian, A.K. Sustainable closed-loop supply chain design for the car battery industry with taking into consideration the correlated criteria for supplier selection and uncertainty conditions. Rev. Gest Ao Tecnol.; 2020; 20, pp. 3-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2020.v20i0.1749]

483. Yun, Y.; Chuluunsukh, A.; Gen, M. Sustainable closed-loop supply chain design problem: A hybrid genetic algorithm approach. Mathematics; 2020; 8, 84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math8010084]

484. Tsaur, R.C. The Optimal Pricing Analysis for Remanufactured Notebooks in a Duopoly Environment. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12020636]

485. Iqbal, M.W.; Kang, Y.; Jeon, H.W. Zero waste strategy for green supply chain management with minimization of energy consumption. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 245, 118827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118827]

486. Boronoos, M.; Mousazadeh, M.; Torabi, S.A. A robust mixed flexible-possibilistic programming approach for multi-objective closed-loop green supply chain network design. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2020; 23, pp. 3368-3395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00723-z]

487. Zhao, N.; Wang, Q. Analysis of two financing modes in green supply chains when considering the role of data collection. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2020; 121, pp. 921-939. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0557]

488. Ghomi-Avili, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Jalali Naeini, S.G.; Jabbarzadeh, A. Competitive green supply chain network design model considering inventory decisions under uncertainty: A real case of a filter company. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 59, pp. 4248-4267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1760391]

489. Fattahi, M.; Govindan, K.; Farhadkhani, M. Sustainable supply chain planning for biomass-based power generation with environmental risk and supply uncertainty considerations: A real-life case study. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 59, pp. 3084-3108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1746427]

490. Lou, G.; Lai, Z.; Ma, H.; Fan, T. Coordination in a composite green-product supply chain under different power structures. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2020; 120, pp. 1101-1123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0532]

491. Gupta, A.; Singh, R.K. Managing operations by a logistics company for sustainable service quality: Indian perspective. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2020; 31, pp. 1309-1327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2019-0246]

492. Taleizadeh, A.A.; Noori-Daryan, M.; Sana, S.S. Manufacturing and selling tactics for a green supply chain under a green cost sharing and a refund agreement. J. Model. Manag.; 2020; 15, pp. 1419-1450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2019-0016]

493. Eskandarpour, M.; Dejax, P.; Péton, O. Multi-directional local search for sustainable supply chain network design. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2019; 15, pp. 412-428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1696488]

494. Rabbani, M.; Hashemi, P.; Bineshpour, P.; Farrokhi-Asl, H. Municipal solid waste management considering NGO’s role in consumer environmental awareness and government regulations for air pollution. J. Model. Manag.; 2020; 15, pp. 783-807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-08-2018-0128]

495. Chen, S.; Zhou, F.; Su, J.; Li, L.; Yang, B.; He, Y. Pricing policies of a dynamic green supply chain with strategies of retail service. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2020; 33, pp. 296-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2019-0423]

496. Maiyar, L.M.; Thakkar, J.J. Robust optimisation of sustainable food grain transportation with uncertain supply and intentional disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 58, pp. 5651-5675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1656836]

497. Fung, Y.N.; Choi, T.M.; Liu, R. Sustainable planning strategies in supply chain systems: Proposal and applications with a real case study in fashion. Prod. Plan. Control; 2020; 31, pp. 883-902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695913]

498. Fragoso, R.; Figueira, J.R. Sustainable supply chain network design: An application to the wine industry in Southern Portugal. J. Oper. Res. Soc.; 2020; 72, pp. 1236-1251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2020.1718015]

499. Fathi, A.; Saen, R.F. A novel bidirectional network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating sustainability of distributive supply chains of transport companies. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 184, pp. 696-708. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.256]

500. Tong, K.; Gleeson, M.J.; Rong, G.; You, F. Optimal design of advanced drop-in hydrocarbon biofuel supply chain integrating with existing petroleum refineries under uncertainty. Biomass Bioenergy; 2014; 60, pp. 108-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.023]

501. Tong, K.; You, F.; Rong, G. Robust design and operations of hydrocarbon biofuel supply chain integrating with existing petroleum refineries considering unit cost objective. Comput. Chem. Eng.; 2014; 68, pp. 128-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.05.003]

502. Huang, Y.; Chen, C.W.; Fan, Y. Multistage optimization of the supply chains of biofuels. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2010; 46, pp. 820-830. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.03.002]

503. Yue, D.; Kim, M.A.; You, F. Design of sustainable product systems and supply chains with life cycle optimization based on functional unit: General modeling framework, mixed-integer nonlinear programming algorithms and case study on hydrocarbon biofuels. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2013; 1, pp. 1003-1014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/sc400080x]

504. Xie, F.; Huang, Y. Sustainable biofuel supply chain planning and management under uncertainty. Transp. Res. Rec.; 2013; 2385, pp. 19-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2385-03]

505. De-León Almaraz, S.; Azzaro-Pantel, C.; Montastruc, L.; Domenech, S. Hydrogen supply chain optimization for deployment scenarios in the Midi-Pyrénées region, France. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy; 2014; 39, pp. 11831-11845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.05.165]

506. Cao, K.; Siddhamshetty, P.; Ahn, Y.; El-Halwagi, M.M.; Sang-Il Kwon, J. Evaluating the spatiotemporal variability of water recovery ratios of shale gas wells and their effects on shale gas development. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 276, 123171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123171]

507. Mogale, D.G.; Kumar, S.K.; Tiwari, M.K. Green food supply chain design considering risk and post-harvest losses: A case study. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2020; 295, pp. 257-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03664-y]

508. Ene, S.; Küçükoğlu, İ.; Aksoy, A.; Öztürk, N. A genetic algorithm for minimizing energy consumption in warehouses. Energy; 2016; 114, pp. 973-980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.045]

509. Padhi, S.S.; Pati, R.K.; Rajeev, A. Framework for selecting sustainable supply chain processes and industries using an integrated approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 184, pp. 969-984. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.306]

510. Thakker, S.V.; Rane, S.B. Implementation of green supplier development process model in Indian automobile industry. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2018; 29, pp. 938-960. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2018-0052]

511. Kuntner, W.; Weber, W.G. Tensions within sustainability management: A socio-psychological framework. J. Glob. Responsib.; 2018; 9, pp. 193-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JGR-09-2017-0051]

512. Pourjavad, E.; Shahin, A. The Application of Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System in Evaluating Green Supply Chain Management Performance. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst.; 2018; 20, pp. 901-912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0378-y]

513. Tsolakis, N.; Bam, W.; Srai, J.S.; Kumar, M. Renewable chemical feedstock supply network design: The case of terpenes. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 222, pp. 802-822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.108]

514. Rezaei Vandchali, H.; Cahoon, S.; Chen, S.L. Creating a sustainable supply chain network by adopting relationship management strategies. J. Bus.-Mark.; 2020; 27, pp. 125-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1748354]

515. Reinerth, D.; Busse, C.; Wagner, S.M. Using country sustainability risk to inform sustainable supply chain management: A design science study. J. Bus. Logist.; 2019; 40, pp. 241-264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12190]

516. Guo, X.; Cheng, L.; Liu, J. Green supply chain contracts with eco-labels issued by the sales platform: Profitability and environmental implications. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2020; 58, pp. 1485-1504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1658911]

517. Park, S.J.; Cachon, G.P.; Lai, G.; Seshadri, S. Supply Chain Design and Carbon Penalty: Monopoly vs. Monopolistic Competition. Prod. Oper. Manag.; 2015; 24, pp. 1494-1508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/poms.12373]

518. Nasir, M.H.A.; Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Koh, S.; Yamoah, F. Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2017; 183, pp. 443-457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.008]

519. Maryniak, A. Competitive instruments preferred by customers versus the level of pro-environmental activities in a supply chain. LogForum; 2017; 13, pp. 159-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2017.2.4]

520. Huang, Z.; Nie, J.; Tsai, S.B. Dynamic collection strategy and coordination of a remanufacturing closed-loop supply chain under uncertainty. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 683. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9050683]

521. Sahu, A.K.; Narang, H.K.; Rajput, M.S.; Sahu, N.K.; Sahu, A.K. Performance modeling and benchmarking of green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2018; 25, pp. 2248-2271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0032]

522. Ivanov, D. Revealing interfaces of supply chain resilience and sustainability: A simulation study. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2018; 56, pp. 3507-3523. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1343507]

523. Biswas, I.; Raj, A.; Srivastava, S.K. Supply chain channel coordination with triple bottom line approach. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2018; 115, pp. 213-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.05.007]

524. Montshiwa, A.L. Supply chain cooperation as a green supply chain management implementation strategy to achieve competitive advantages in natural disaster prone regions. Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J.; 2018; 28, pp. 564-583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CR-10-2016-0067]

525. Hong, Z.; Guo, X. Green product supply chain contracts considering environmental responsibilities. Omega; 2019; 83, pp. 155-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.02.010]

526. Kalverkamp, M.; Young, S.B. In support of open-loop supply chains: Expanding the scope of environmental sustainability in reverse supply chains. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 214, pp. 573-582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.006]

527. He, B.; Liu, Y.; Zeng, L.; Wang, S.; Zhang, D.; Yu, Q. Product carbon footprint across sustainable supply chain. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 241, 118320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118320]

528. Xiang, F.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, G.; Zuo, Y. Research on ECBOM modeling and energy consumption evaluation based on BOM multi-view transformation. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput.; 2019; 10, pp. 953-967. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-1053-3]

529. Wu, T.; Kung, C.C. Carbon emissions, technology upgradation and financing risk of the green supply chain competition. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2020; 152, 119884. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119884]

530. Xiao, Q.; Chen, L.; Xie, M.; Wang, C. Optimal contract design in sustainable supply chain: Interactive impacts of fairness concern and overconfidence. J. Oper. Res. Soc.; 2020; 72, pp. 1505-1524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2020.1727784]

531. Sheu, J.B. Bargaining framework for competitive green supply chains under governmental financial intervention. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2011; 47, pp. 573-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.12.006]

532. Koh, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Tseng, C. Cross-tier ripple and indirect effects of directives WEEE and RoHS on greening a supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2012; 140, pp. 305-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.008]

533. Saxena, L.K.; Jain, P.K.; Sharma, A.K. Tactical supply chain planning for tyre remanufacturing considering carbon tax policy. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2018; 97, pp. 1505-1528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1972-3]

534. Asrawi, I.; Saleh, Y.; Othman, M. Integrating drivers’ differences in optimizing green supply chain management at tactical and operational levels. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2017; 112, pp. 122-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.08.018]

535. Banaeian, N.; Mobli, H.; Fahimnia, B.; Nielsen, I.E.; Omid, M. Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2018; 89, pp. 337-347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.02.015]

536. Xie, G.; Yue, W.; Wang, S. Risk based selection of cleaner products in a green supply chain. Pac. J. Optim.; 2012; 8, pp. 473-484.

537. Chung, C.J.; Wee, H.M. Short life-cycle deteriorating product remanufacturing in a green supply chain inventory control system. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2011; 129, pp. 195-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.09.033]

538. Cucchiella, F.; Koh, L.; Björklund, M.; Martinsen, U.; Abrahamsson, M. Performance measurements in the greening of supply chains. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J.; 2012; 17, pp. 330-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770510609015]

539. Lee, C.; Lam, J.S.L. Managing reverse logistics to enhance sustainability of industrial marketing. Ind. Mark. Manag.; 2012; 41, pp. 589-598. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.006]

540. Sharma, B.; Clark, R.; Hilliard, M.R.; Webb, E.G. Simulation Modeling for Reliable Biomass Supply Chain Design Under Operational Disruptions. Front. Energy Res.; 2018; 6, 100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00100]

541. Thurston, M.; Eckelman, M.J. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from university purchases. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2011; 12, pp. 225-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371111148018]

542. Lee, K.H.; Cheong, I.M. Measuring a carbon footprint and environmental practice: The case of Hyundai Motors Co.(HMC). Ind. Manag. Data Syst.; 2011; 111, 961. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635571111144991]

543. Shen, B.; Liu, S.; Zhang, T.; Choi, T.M. Optimal advertising and pricing for new green products in the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 233, pp. 314-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.022]

544. Tang, J.; Ji, S.; Jiang, L. The design of a sustainable location-routing-inventory model considering consumer environmental behavior. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8030211]

545. Adhitya, A.; Halim, I.; Srinivasan, R. Decision support for green supply chain operations by integrating dynamic simulation and LCA indicators: Diaper case study. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2011; 45, pp. 10178-10185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es201763q] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029393]

546. Dey, P.K.; Cheffi, W. Green supply chain performance measurement using the analytic hierarchy process: A comparative analysis of manufacturing organisations. Prod. Plan. Control; 2013; 24, pp. 702-720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.666859]

547. Sundarakani, B.; De Souza, R.; Goh, M.; Wagner, S.M.; Manikandan, S. Modeling carbon footprints across the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2010; 128, pp. 43-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.01.018]

548. Sheu, J.B.; Chen, Y.J. Impact of government financial intervention on competition among green supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2012; 138, pp. 201-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.024]

549. Outmal, I.; Kamrani, A.; Abouel Nasr, E.S.; Alkahtani, M. Modeling and performance analysis of a closed-loop supply chain using first-order hybrid Petri nets. Adv. Mech. Eng.; 2016; 8, 168781401664958. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1687814016649584]

550. Hong, Z.; Wang, H.; Gong, Y. Green product design considering functional-product reference. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2019; 210, pp. 155-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.008]

551. Soylu, K.; Dumville, J.C. Design for environment: The greening of product and supply chain. Marit. Econ. Logist.; 2011; 13, pp. 29-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/mel.2010.19]

552. Xie, Y.; Breen, L. Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: A cross boundary approach. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.; 2012; 17, pp. 40-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212195]

553. Chen, M.K.; Tai, T.W.; Hung, T.Y. Component selection system for green supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl.; 2012; 39, pp. 5687-5701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.102]

554. Su, J.C.; Chu, C.H.; Wang, Y.T. A decision support system to estimate the carbon emission and cost of product designs. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.; 2012; 13, pp. 1037-1045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12541-012-0135-y]

555. Allaoui, H.; Guo, Y.; Sarkis, J. Decision support for collaboration planning in sustainable supply chains. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 229, pp. 761-774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.367]

556. Giarola, S.; Zamboni, A.; Bezzo, F. Environmentally conscious capacity planning and technology selection for bioethanol supply chains. Renew. Energy; 2012; 43, pp. 61-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.12.011]

557. Wang, H.F.; Hsu, H.W. A closed-loop logistic model with a spanning-tree based genetic algorithm. Comput. Oper. Res.; 2010; 37, pp. 376-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2009.06.001]

558. Byrne, P.J.; Heavey, C.; Ryan, P.; Liston, P. Sustainable supply chain design: Capturing dynamic input factors. J. Simul.; 2010; 4, pp. 213-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jos.2010.18]

559. Anbuudayasankar, S.; Ganesh, K.; Lenny Koh, S.; Mohandas, K. Unified heuristics to solve routing problem of reverse logistics in sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Syst. Sci.; 2010; 41, pp. 337-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207720903326944]

560. Wang, F.; Lai, X.; Shi, N. A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain network design. Decis. Support Syst.; 2011; 51, pp. 262-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.020]

561. Büyüközkan, G.; Berkol, Ç. Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated analytic network process and goal programming approach in quality function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl.; 2011; 38, pp. 13731-13748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.171]

562. Chaabane, A.; Ramudhin, A.; Paquet, M. Designing supply chains with sustainability considerations. Prod. Plan. Control; 2011; 22, pp. 727-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.543554]

563. Paksoy, T.; Bektaş, T.; Özceylan, E. Operational and environmental performance measures in a multi-product closed-loop supply chain. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2011; 47, pp. 532-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.12.001]

564. Wee, H.M.; Lee, M.C.; Yu, J.C.; Edward Wang, C. Optimal replenishment policy for a deteriorating green product: Life cycle costing analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2011; 133, pp. 603-611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.001]

565. Walther, G.; Schatka, A.; Spengler, T.S. Design of regional production networks for second generation synthetic bio-fuel—A case study in Northern Germany. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2012; 218, pp. 280-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.09.050]

566. Chaabane, A.; Ramudhin, A.; Paquet, M. Design of sustainable supply chains under the emission trading scheme. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2012; 135, pp. 37-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.025]

567. Tavella, E.; Hjortso, C.N. Enhancing the design and management of a local organic food supply chain with soft systems methodology. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev.; 2012; 15, pp. 47-68.

568. Paksoy, T.; Pehlivan, N.Y.; Özceylan, E. Fuzzy multi-objective optimization of a green supply chain network with risk management that includes environmental hazards. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J.; 2012; 18, pp. 1120-1151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.707940]

569. Elhedhli, S.; Merrick, R. Green supply chain network design to reduce carbon emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2012; 17, pp. 370-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.02.002]

570. Özkır, V.; Başlıgıl, H. Modelling product-recovery processes in closed-loop supply-chain network design. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2012; 50, pp. 2218-2233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.575092]

571. Jamshidi, R.; Ghomi, S.F.; Karimi, B. Multi-objective green supply chain optimization with a new hybrid memetic algorithm using the Taguchi method. Sci. Iran.; 2012; 19, pp. 1876-1886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.07.002]

572. Abdallah, T.; Diabat, A.; Simchi-Levi, D. Sustainable supply chain design: A closed-loop formulation and sensitivity analysis. Prod. Plan. Control; 2012; 23, pp. 120-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.591622]

573. Longo, F. Sustainable supply chain design: An application example in local business retail. Simulation; 2012; 88, pp. 1484-1498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0037549712458983]

574. Jain, S.; Lindskog, E.; Andersson, J.; Johansson, B. A hierarchical approach for evaluating energy trade-offs in supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2013; 146, pp. 411-422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.03.015]

575. Wang, X.; Chan, H.K. A hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS approach to assess improvement areas when implementing green supply chain initiatives. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2013; 51, pp. 3117-3130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.754553]

576. BüYüKöZkan, G.; ÇIfçI, G. An integrated QFD framework with multiple formatted and incomplete preferences: A sustainable supply chain application. Appl. Soft Comput.; 2013; 13, pp. 3931-3941. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2013.03.014]

577. Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I. Issue on supply chain of renewable energy. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2013; 76, pp. 774-780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.081]

578. Shaw, K.; Shankar, R.; Yadav, S.S.; Thakur, L.S. Modeling a low-carbon garment supply chain. Prod. Plan. Control; 2013; 24, pp. 851-865. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.666878]

579. Özkır, V.; Başlıgil, H. Multi-objective optimization of closed-loop supply chains in uncertain environment. J. Clean. Prod.; 2013; 41, pp. 114-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.013]

580. De Rosa, V.; Gebhard, M.; Hartmann, E.; Wollenweber, J. Robust sustainable bi-directional logistics network design under uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2013; 145, pp. 184-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.033]

581. Sahay, N.; Ierapetritou, M. Supply chain management using an optimization driven simulation approach. AIChE J.; 2013; 59, pp. 4612-4626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.14226]

582. Chiu, M.C.; Teng, L.W. Sustainable product and supply chain design decisions under uncertainties. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.; 2013; 14, pp. 1953-1960. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12541-013-0265-x]

583. Sazvar, Z.; Mirzapour Al-e Hashem, S.; Baboli, A.; Jokar, M.A. A bi-objective stochastic programming model for a centralized green supply chain with deteriorating products. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2014; 150, pp. 140-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.023]

584. Martínez-Guido, S.I.; González-Campos, J.B.; del Río, R.E.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M.; Nápoles-Rivera, F.; Serna-González, M.; El-Halwagi, M.M. A multiobjective optimization approach for the development of a sustainable supply chain of a new fixative in the perfume industry. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng.; 2014; 2, pp. 2380-2390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/sc500409g]

585. Tseng, S.C.; Hung, S.W. A strategic decision-making model considering the social costs of carbon dioxide emissions for sustainable supply chain management. J. Environ. Manag.; 2014; 133, pp. 315-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.023] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24412595]

586. Pishvaee, M.S.; Razmi, J.; Torabi, S.A. An accelerated Benders decomposition algorithm for sustainable supply chain network design under uncertainty: A case study of medical needle and syringe supply chain. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2014; 67, pp. 14-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.04.001]

587. Baud-Lavigne, B.; Agard, B.; Penz, B. Environmental constraints in joint product and supply chain design optimization. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2014; 76, pp. 16-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.07.014]

588. Treitl, S.; Nolz, P.C.; Jammernegg, W. Incorporating environmental aspects in an inventory routing problem. A case study from the petrochemical industry. Flex. Serv. Manuf. J.; 2014; 26, pp. 143-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10696-012-9158-z]

589. Correll, D.; Suzuki, Y.; Martens, B.J. Logistical supply chain design for bioeconomy applications. Biomass Bioenergy; 2014; 66, pp. 60-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.036]

590. Masoumik, S.M.; Abdul-Rashid, S.H.; Olugu, E.U.; Raja Ghazilla, R.A. Sustainable supply chain design: A configurational approach. Sci. World J.; 2014; 2014, 897121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/897121]

591. Wang, M.; Wu, J.; Kafa, N.; Klibi, W. Carbon emission-compliance green location-inventory problem with demand and carbon price uncertainties. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2020; 142, 102038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102038]

592. Xia, L.; Bai, Y.; Ghose, S.; Qin, J. Differential game analysis of carbon emissions reduction and promotion in a sustainable supply chain considering social preferences. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2020; 310, pp. 257-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03838-8]

593. Gao, J.; Xiao, Z.; Wei, H.; Zhou, G. Dual-channel green supply chain management with eco-label policy: A perspective of two types of green products. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2020; 146, 106613. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106613]

594. Jemai, J.; Chung, B.D.; Sarkar, B. Environmental effect for a complex green supply-chain management to control waste: A sustainable approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 277, 122919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122919]

595. da Silva, C.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; Carvalho, A. Environmental monetization and risk assessment in supply chain design and planning. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 270, 121552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121552]

596. Porkar, S.; Mahdavi, I.; Maleki Vishkaei, B.; Hematian, M. Green supply chain flow analysis with multi-attribute demand in a multi-period product development environment. Oper. Res.; 2020; 20, pp. 1405-1435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-0382-5]

597. Wang, J.; Wan, Q.; Yu, M. Green supply chain network design considering chain-to-chain competition on price and carbon emission. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2020; 145, 106503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106503]

598. Li, Q.; Xiao, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Xu, X.; Chai, C. Impact of carbon permit allocation rules on incentive contracts for carbon emission reduction. Kybernetes; 2018; 49, pp. 1143-1167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2018-0169]

599. Heydari, J.; Rafiei, P. Integration of environmental and social responsibilities in managing supply chains: A mathematical modeling approach. Comput. Ind. Eng.; 2020; 145, 106495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106495]

600. Henriques, A.A.; Fontes, M.; Camanho, A.; Silva, J.G.; Amorim, P. Leveraging logistics flows to improve the sludge management process of wastewater treatment plants. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 276, 122720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122720]

601. Sathiya, V.; Chinnadurai, M.; Ramabalan, S.; Appolloni, A. Mobile robots and evolutionary optimization algorithms for green supply chain management in a used-car resale company. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 9110-9138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01015-2]

602. Tao, Y.; Wu, J.; Lai, X.; Wang, F. Network planning and operation of sustainable closed-loop supply chains in emerging markets: Retail market configurations and carbon policies. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2020; 144, 102131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102131]

603. Oke, D.; Mukherjee, R.; Sengupta, D.; Majozi, T.; El-Halwagi, M. On the optimization of water-energy nexus in shale gas network under price uncertainties. Energy; 2020; 203, 117770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117770]

604. Sundarakani, B.; Pereira, V.; Ishizaka, A. Robust facility location decisions for resilient sustainable supply chain performance in the face of disruptions. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2020; 32, pp. 357-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2019-0333]

605. Gilani, H.; Sahebi, H.; Oliveira, F. Sustainable sugarcane-to-bioethanol supply chain network design: A robust possibilistic programming model. Appl. Energy; 2020; 278, 115653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115653]

606. Kabadurmus, O.; Erdogan, M.S. Sustainable, multimodal and reliable supply chain design. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2020; 292, pp. 47-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03654-0]

607. Pakseresht, M.; Shirazi, B.; Mahdavi, I.; Mahdavi-Amiri, N. Toward sustainable optimization with stackelberg game between green product family and downstream supply chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2020; 23, pp. 198-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.009]

608. Huang, L.; Zhen, L.; Yin, L. Waste material recycling and exchanging decisions for industrial symbiosis network optimization. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 276, 124073. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124073]

609. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Technical Report Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021.