4.7 Article

Sustainable SC through the complete reprocessing of end-of-life products by manufacturers: A traditional versus social responsibility company perspective

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 233, 期 2, 页码 359-373

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.03.027

关键词

Supply chain; Sustainability; Closed loop; Reverse flow; Reprocess; Green SC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Every item produced, transported, used and discarded within a Supply Chain (SC) generates costs and creates an impact on the environment. The increase of forward flows as effects of market globalization and reverse flows due to legislation, warranty, recycling and disposal activities affect the ability of a modem SC to be economically and environmentally sustainable. In this context, the study considers an innovative sustainable closed loop SC problem. It first introduces a linear programming model that aims to minimize the total SC costs. Environmental sustainability is guaranteed by the complete reprocessing of an end-of-life product, the re-use of components, the disposal of unusable parts sent directly from the manufacturers, with a closed loop transportation system that maximizes transportation efficiency. Secondly, the authors consider the problem by means of a parametrical study, by analyzing the economical sustainability of the proposed CLSC model versus the classical Forward Supply Chain model (FWSC) from two perspectives: Case 1, the 'traditional company perspective', where the SC ends at the customers, and the disposal costs are not included in the SC, and Case 2, the 'social responsibility company perspective', where the disposal costs are considered within the SC. The relative impact of the different variables in the SC structure and the applicability of the proposed model, in terms of total costs. SC structure and social responsibility, are investigated thoroughly and the results are reported at the conclusion of the paper. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据