Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Product carbon footprint across sustainable supply chain

Bin He a, *, Yongjia Liu a, Lingbin Zeng b, Shuai Wang a, Dong Zhang a, Qianyi Yu a
a
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Manufacturing and Robotics, School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, Shanghai University, PR China
b
Shanghai Aerospace System Engineering Institute, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As the supply chain has an important impact on product carbon footprint (PCF), it is a crucial issue to
Received 30 January 2019 estimate PCF across sustainable supply chain (SSC). As the current researches always focus on the
Received in revised form calculation approaches for carbon footprint at the design and manufacturing stages, they lack the pre-
3 September 2019
scriptiveness and carbon-specific accounting guidance needed to produce consistent PCF, and most of the
Accepted 5 September 2019
Available online 9 September 2019
existing PCF models fail in the SSC. The contribution of this paper is a systematic PCF model for all the
activities across SSC. After the introduction of the supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model, SSC
^ as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo activities are discussed one by one in detail. As the decisions made during the SSC network have
Almeida extensive impacts on PCF, it is important to estimate PCF with SSC stage. This paper also proposed the
detail calculation model for each stage of SSC, including plan, source, make, deliver, return, and enable
Keywords: stage. PCF in SSC of a water and fertilizer irrigation machine is given as an example to demonstrate the
Product carbon footprint proposed methodology.
Sustainable supply chain © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Product life cycle
SCOR
Sustainable design

1. Introduction accident investigation (Metta and Badurdeen, 2013). However, it is

As the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) could reform
climate patterns (He et al., 2018a), manufacturing begins to
consider product carbon footprint (PCF) across sustainable supply
chain (SSC) (He et al., 2020). Measuring the environmental impacts,
PCF is a total measure of GHGs across SSC (ISO/TS 14067, 2013). PCF
was one of the most widely used environmental indicators, which
had emerged as a method for assessing GHGs emissions from goods
and services (He et al., 2018b). SSC is also an important topic in
cleaner production and intelligent manufacturing (Seuring and
Muller, 2008). It is important to improve the sustainability for
manufacturing with PCF reduction across SSC (He et al., 2018b). As
the calculation of PCF is one of the foundations for sustainable
manufacturing (Hilpert et al., 2011), this paper focused on the
modeling PCF across SSC.
The current PCF model across SSC could be basically classified
into qualitative one and quantitative one. The qualitative one in-
cludes intuitive method, such as brainstorming process (Giannakis
and Papadopoulos, 2016); and inductive method, such as checklists
(Hopkins and Blanco, 2010); and deductive method, such as
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mehebin@gmail.com (B. He).
not reliable enough with inaccurate information in SSC. Thus, many
researchers put forwards mixed approaches integrated with
quantitative and qualitative ones.
Rothenberg et al. (2001) proposed four benchmarks, including
buffer minimization, environmental management, work system,
and human resource management. Hugo and Pistikopoulos (2005)
discussed a SSC network model for product life cycle (PLC). Hervani
et al. (2005) developed SSC performance measurement tools to
include an environmental balanced scorecard. Melo et al. (2009)
conducted a literature review on SSC network design.
Sundarakani et al. (2010) recommended various ways to minimize
PCF across SSC, which also depends on the procurement frequency
of the raw material from suppliers (Benjaafar et al., 2010).
Sundarakani et al. (2010) developed a PCF across SSC. Kronborg
(2012) brought PCF knowledge with green supply chain manage-
ment. Chaabane et al. (2012) developed a mixed-integer linear
programming-based model for SSC. A knowledge system for SSC
was also developed (Taticchi et al., 2013). Yue et al. (2013) proposed
a PLC optimization method for SSC considering function, economic,
and environmental aspects. Martí et al. (2015) proposed a model for
supply chain network design with uncertainty. Lampert et al. (2015)
developed an effective PCF structural equation model. He and Gu
(2016) put forward sustainable design synthesis with product

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118320
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

Nomenclature LijSR1:5 transport distance of the jth transport object in the ith
transport mode of Source-Return
AklM1:3 quantity of the lth energy consumed in the kth test MsM1:3 respective number of l in the kth test process
CijtS1:2 emission coefficient (EC) of the tth greenhouse gas MijM1:7 quantity of the jth energy consumed for recycling the
(GHG) with the jth energy source for receiving the ith ith material
product NsS1:2 respective number of j in the ith product of Receive
Cijt S1:3 EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy to verify the ith Product
product NsS1:3 respective number of j in the ith product of Verify
CijtS1:4 EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source to tranfer Product
the ith product NsS1:4 respective number of j in the ith product of Transfer
CijtM1:3 EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source in the ith Product
manufacturing process NsM1:3 respective number of j in the ith manufacturing
CkltM1:3 EC of the tth GHG with the lth energy source process of Produce and Test
consumed in the kth test NsM1:4 respective number of j in the ith packaging process of
CijtM1:4 EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source with the Make-to-Stock
ith packaging process NsM1:7 respective number of j in the ith material of Waste
CijtM1:7 EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source Disposal
consumed for recycling the ith material NsD1:X respective number of j in the ith packaging process of
CijtD1:X EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source Deliver Stocked Product
consumed in the ith packaging process NsD1:12 respective number of j in the ith transport mode of
CijktD1:12 EC of the tth GHG with the kth energy source Ship Product
consumed by the jth transport object in the ith NsSR1:2 respective number of j in the ith Disposition Defective
transport mode of Deliver Product
CijtSR1:2 EC of the tth GHG for the jth energy source used to NsSR1:5 respective number of j in the ith transport mode of
handle the ith defective product Return Defective Product
CijktSR1:5 EC of the tth GHG with the kth energy source NsDR1:3 respective number of j in the ith Receive Defective
consumed by the jth transport object in the ith Product (includes verify)
transport mode of Source-Return NsDR1:4 respective number of j in the ith Transfer Defective
CijtDR1:3 EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source used to Product
receive and check the ith defective product PsS1:1 respective number of i in the ith Schedule Product
CijtDR1:4 EC of the tth GHG emitted by the jth energy source Delivery
used to transfer the ith defective product PijS1:2 quantity of the jth energy for receiving the ith product
EIijkD1:12 energy intensity of the ith transport mode, that is, the PsS1:2 respective number of i in the ith Receive Product
energy consumption per unit of distance produced by PijS1:3 quantity of the jth energy consumed to verify the ith
the transportation of the jth object using the kth product
energy-powered transport in the ith transport mode PsS1:3 respective number of i in the ith Verify Product
EIijkSR1:5 energy intensity of the ith transport mode PijS1:4 quantity of the jth energy to tranfer the ith product
GWPT global warming potential (GWP) of the tth GHG PsS1:4 respective number of i in the ith Transfer Product
GitS1:1 the tth GHG for scheduling the ith product delivery PsM1:1 respective number of i in the ith Schedule Production
GitM1:1 the tth GHG from the ith product planned for Activities
production PijM1:3 quantity of the jth energy consumed in the ith
GitM1:5 the tth GHG for promoting the ith product manufacturing process
GitM1:7 equivalent emission of the ith material relative to the PsM1:3 respective number of i in the ith manufacturing
tth gas process of Produce and Test
GitD1:X the tth GHG for planning the ith product delivery PijM1:4 quantity of the jth energy consumed in the ith
route packaging process of Make
GitD4:2 tth GHG for receiving the ith products PsM1:4 respective number of i in the ith packaging process
GitD4:3 the tth GHG for picking the ith products from PsM1:5 respective number of i in the ith Stage Product
backroom PsM1:7 respective number of i in the ith material of Waste
GitD4:4 the tth GHG for stocking the ith products into shelf Disposal
GitD4:5 the tth GHG for filling the ith products in shopping PsD1:X respective number of i in the ith product delivery
cart route of Deliver Stocked Product
GitD4:7 the tth GHG for delivering the ith products and/or PsD1:X respective number of i in the ith packaging process of
installing the ith products Deliver Stocked Product
GitSR1:1 the tth GHG for validating the status of the ith PijD1:X quantity of the jth energy consumed in the ith
defective product packaging process of Deliver
GitSR1:4 the tth GHG for scheduling the transportation of the PsD1:12 respective number of i in the ith transport mode of
ith defective product Ship Product
GitDR1:2 the tth GHG for planning to receive the ith defective PsD4:2 respective number of i in the ith Receive Product at
product Store
LijD1:12 transport distance of the jth transport object in the ith PsD4:3 respective number of i in the ith Pick Product from
transport mode of Deliver backroom
PsD4:4 respective number of i in the ith products into shelf
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320
PsD4:5 respective number of i in the ith products in shopping
cart
PsD4:7 respective number of i in the ith products and/or
installing the ith products
PsSR1:1 respective number of i in the ith identify defective
product condition
PijSR1:2 quantity of the jth energy consumed for handling the
ith defective product
PsSR1:2 respective number of i in the ith Disposition Defective
Product
PsSR1:4 respective number of i in the ith Schedule Defective
Product Shipment
PsSR1:5 respective number of i in the ith transport mode of
Return Defective Product
PsDR1:2 respective number of i in the ith Schedule Defective
Return Receipt
PijDR1:3 quantity of the jth energy consumed for receiving and
checking the ith defective product
PsDR1:3 respective number of i in the ith Receive Defective
Product(includes verify)
PijDR1:4 quantity of the jth energy consumed for tranferring
the ith defective product
PsDR1:4 respective number of i in the ith Transfer Defective
Product
RAiM1:7 proportion of the ith recycled product in the raw
material
SsS1:2 respective number of t in the ith Receive Product
SsS1:3 respective number of t in the ith Verify Product
SsS1:4 respective number of t in the ith Transfer Product
SsM1:1 respective number of t in the ith product planned for
production
SsM1:3 respective number of i in the ith manufacturing
process of produce and test, j in the ith manufacturing
process of produce and test, k in the kth test of
produce and test and l in the kth test process
SsM1:4 respective number of i in the ith packaging process
and j in the ith packaging process of Make-to-Stock
SsM1:5 respective number of t in the ith Stage Product
SsM1:7 respective number of t in the tth gas of Waste Disposal
SsD1:X respective number of t in the ith product delivery
route
environmental footprint (PEF), including PCF and product water
footprint, etc. Gharaei and Pasandideh (2017) proposed optimiza-
tion approach to SSC. Moradinasab et al. (2018) discussed a multi-
objective SSC. How and Lam (2018) proposed multi-echelon
biomass supply chain synthesis with economic, environmental
and social dimensions. He et al. (2019c) used underactuated
mechanisms to achieve low carbon footprint with less energy
through less actuators.
Büyüko€ zkan and Berkol (2011), Büyüko € zkan and Cifci (2013)
proposed quality function deployment (QFD)-base SSC, and
examined the components and elements of SSC management and
how they served as a foundation for an evaluation framework.
Taticchi et al. (2015) reviewed the existing literature related to
decision-support tools and performanced measurement for SSC.
Sitek and Wikarek (2015) described a hybrid framework for
modeling and optimization of decision problems in SSC manage-
ment. Bazan et al. (2015) proposed repairable inventory integrated
with PCF. Bing et al. (2015) put forward reverse logistics for supply
chain redesign. Blanco et al. (2016) discussed issues in the green
manufacturing and product recovery. Gopal and Thakkar (2016)
analyzed SSC management practices of automotive industry and
3
SsD1:X respective number of t in the ith packaging process of
Deliver Stocked Product
SsD1:12 respective number of i in the ith transport mode of
Ship Product, j in the ith transport mode of Ship
Product and k in the ith transport mode of Ship
Product
SsD4:2 respective number of t in the ith Receive Product at
Store
SsD4:3 respective number of t in the ith Pick Product from
backroom
SsD4:4 respective number of t in the ith products into shelf
SsD4:5 respective number of t in the ith products in shopping
cart
SsD4:7 respective number of t in the ith products and/or
installing the ith products
SsSR1:1 respective number of t in the ith Identify Defective
Product Condition
SsSR1:2 respective number of t in the ith Disposition Defective
Product
SsSR1:4 respective number of t in the ith Schedule Defective
Product Shipment
SsSR1:5 respective number of i in the ith transport mode of
Return Defective Product, j in the ith transport mode
of Return Defective Product and k in the ith transport
mode of return defective product
SsDR1:2 respective number of t in the ith Schedule Defective
Return Receipt
SsDR1:3 respective number of t in the ith Receive Defective
Product(includes verify)
SsDR1:4 respective number of t in the ith Transfer Defective
Product
TsM1:3 respective number of k in the kth test of Produce and
Test
TsD1:12 respective number of k in the ith transport mode of
Ship Product
TsSR1:5 respective number of k in the ith transport mode of
Return Defective Product
TijD1:12 quantity of the jth transport object in the ith transport
mode of Deliver
TijSR1:5 quantity of the jth transport object in the ith transport
mode of Source-Return
identified key factors for its successful implementation. He et al.
(2016) also proposed low-carbon architecture of products. An
effective SSC structure could be obtained through QFD (Rajeev et al.,
2017). He and Hua (2017) proposed feature-based integrated
product model for low-carbon conceptual design. The low-caron
product design (He et al., 2015), design evaluation for PEF (He
et al., 2018c), digital twin-driven sustainable manufacturing (He
and Bai, 2019) have been proposed. Go  mez-Luciano et al. (2018)
reviewed SSC management for supplies markets. Gao et al. (2018)
proposed underactuated mechanism for light weight to reduce
PCF. He et al. (2019a) put forward product sustainability assessment
for PLC. He et al. (2019b) discussed PEF assessment for PLC.
In summary, these approaches are used to deal with PCF for SSC.
Those SSC activities involve the transformation of resources into a
product and to the customer. It is an important strategy for
manufacturing to integrating PCF into SSC. The current approaches
always focused on the aspects from designer and manufacturers,
while supplier aspects are rarely explored (Lenzen et al., 2007),
which always lack the prescriptiveness and carbon-specific ac-
counting guidance needed to produce consistent PCF. As a result,
the above methods could not provide specific guidance on
4 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

achieving PCF in SSC for PLC. (2) sS1.2

The contribution of this paper is a systematic PCF model across
SSC for PLC. After the introduction of the supply chain operations The PCF EsS1:2 is
reference (SCOR) model, the specific SSC activities are discussed
PX X
sS1:2 N X
sS1:2 S
one by one in detail. As the decision-making during the SSC sS1:2

network have extensive impacts on PCF, it is important to estimate

EsS1:2 ¼ PijS1:2 *CijtS1:2 *GWPt (2)
i¼1 j¼1 t¼1
PCF with SSC stage for PLC. This paper also proposed the detailed
calculation model for each stage of SSC, including plan, source,
where PijS1:2 is the quantity of the jth energy for receiving the ith
make, deliver, return, and enable stage. The remainder of this paper
product, Cijt S1:2 is the emission coefficient (EC) of the tth GHG with
is organized as follows. By using the supply chain operations
the jth energy source for receiving the ith product, and PsS1:2 , NsS1:2 ,
reference model (SCOR), the paper proposes the product carbon
and SsS1:2 are the respective number of respective elements.
footprint model for all the activities in SSC one by one in Section 2.
Section 3 provides an example to demonstrate. Section 4 concludes
(3) sS1.3
this paper.
The PCF EsS1:3 is
2. Modeling product carbon footprint across SCOR-based
sustainable supply chain PX X
sS1:3 N X
sS1:3 S sS1:3

EsS1:3 ¼ PijS1:3 *CijtS1:3 *GWPt (3)

Proposed by Supply Chain Council, which is the world's largest i¼1 j¼1 t¼1
non-profit organization for supply chain, SCOR is a standard model
to evaluate SSC in manufacturing (Supply Chain Council (SCC), where PijS1:3 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed to verify the
2017). SCOR could provide a distinctive framework that combines ith product, CijtS1:3 is the EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy to
all activities into a supply chain network (Stewart, 1997). SCOR has verify the ith product, and PsS1:3 , NsS1:3 , and SsS1:3 are the respective
the role of strengthening the communication among supply chain number of the respective elements.
participants and improving the effectiveness of supply chain
management. Huan et al. (2004) discussed the importance of de- (4) sS1.4
livery reliability, flexibility and responsiveness, cost and assets for
SCOR, while highlighting the needs for supply chain network The PCF EsS1:4 is
optimization.
PX X
sS1:4 N X
sS1:4 S sS1:4
As shown in Fig. 1, SCOR contains six different processes,
EsS1:4 ¼ PijS1:4 *CijtS1:4 *GWPt (4)
including Plan (denoted as sP), Source (denoted as sS), Make
i¼1 j¼1 t¼1
(denoted as sM), Deliver (denoted as sD), Return (denoted as sSR
and sDR), and Enable (denoted as sE). where PijS1:4 is the quantity of the jth energy to tranfer the ith
product, CijtS1:4 is the EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy source to
2.1. Plan tranfer the ith product, and PsS1:4 , NsS1:4 , and SsS1:4 are the respective
number of the respective elements.
As shown in Fig. 2, the process of customer aggregate demand
and supply should be determined to formulate specific plans for (5) sS1.5
Supply Chain, Source, Make, Deliver and Return. It is always
negligible PCF, since there are always little PCF during the plan It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during the
stage. stage.

2.2. Source 2.2.2. Source make-to-order product (denoted as sS2 model)

The activity sS2 includes sS2.1, sS2.2, sS2.3, sS2.4, and sS2.5, as
In this process, suitable raw materials and services are required shown in Fig. 3.
to meet Make and Deliver requirements. For sS2.1, sS2.2, sS2.3, sS2.4, and sS2.5, the PCF EsS2:1 , EsS2:2 ,
EsS2:3 , EsS2:4 , EsS2:5 , are similar with EsS1:1 , EsS1:2 , EsS1:3 , EsS1:4 , EsS1:5 ,
2.2.1. Source stocked product (denoted as sS1 model) respectively. The formulas are shown in the section of sS1.1, sS1.2,
The activity sS1 includes sS1.1, sS1.2, sS1.3, sS1.4, and sS1.5, as sS1.3, sS1.4, and sS1.5, respectively.
shown in Fig. 3.
2.2.3. Source engineer-to-order product (denoted as sS3 model)
(1) sS1.1 The activity sS3 includes sS3.1, sS3.2, sS3.3, sS3.4, sS3.5, sS3.6,
and sS3.7, as shown in Fig. 3.
The PCF EsS1:1 is

PX
(1) sS3.1, sS3.2
X
sS1:1 NsS1:1

EsS1:1 ¼ GitS1:1 *GWPt (1)

i¼1 t¼1
where Git S1:1 is the tth GHG for scheduling the ith product delivery,
GWPt is the global warming potential (GWP) of the tth GHG (same
as below), and PsS1:1 and NsS1:1 are the respective number of the
respective elements. Each of GHGs has GWP relative to CO2, such as
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, has GWP relative to CO2
(PAS-2050, 2011). For example, the GWP of methane (CH4) is 25.
It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during these
stages.
(2) sS3.3, sS3.4, sS3.5, sS3.6, sS3.7
The PCF EsS3:3, EsS3:4 , EsS3:5 , EsS3:6 , and EsS3:7 are similar with
EsS1:1 , EsS1:2 , EsS1:3 ,
EsS1:4 and EsS1:5 , respectively. The formulas for calculation are
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 5

Plan sP3 Plan Make

sP1 Plan Supply
sP4 Plan Deliver
Chain
sP2 Plan Source sP5 Plan Return

Customers
Suppliers

Source Make Deliver

sS1 Source Stocked sD1 Deliver Stocked

sM1 Make-to-Stock
Product Product
sS2 Source Make-to- sD2 Deliver Make-
sM2 Make-to-Order to-Order
Order Product
sS3 Source Product
sM3 Engineer-to- sD3 Deliver
Engineer-to-
Order Engineer-to-
Order Product
Order Product
sD4 Deliver Retail
Product

Source Return Deliver Return

sSR1 Source Return sDR1 Deliver Return

Defective Product Defective Product
sSR2 Source Return sDR2 Deliver Return
MRO Product MRO Product
sSR3 Source Return sDR3 Deliver Return
Excess Product Excess Product

Enable Plan Source Make Deliver Return

sE1 Manage Supply Chain Business Rules sE7 Manage Supply Chain Network
sE2 Manage Supply Chain Performance sE8 Manage Supply Chain
sE3 Manage Supply Chain Data and Regulatory Compliance
Information sE9 Manage Supply Chain Risk
sE4 Manage Supply Chain Human sE10 Manage Supply Chain
Resources Procurement
sE5 Manage Supply Chain Assets sE11 Manage Supply Chain
sE6 Manage Supply Chain Contracts Technology

Fig. 1. SCOR model (Adapted from (Supply Chain Council (SCC), 2017)).

shown in the section of sS1.1, sS1.2, sS1.3, sS1.4, and sS1.5, sM1.6, and sM1.7, as shown in Fig. 4.
respectively.
(1) sM1.1
2.3. Make
The PCF EsM1:1 is
The process of converting raw materials into a state to meet
customer needs. PX
sM1:1 SX
sM1:1

EsM1:1 ¼ GitM1:1 *GWPt (5)

i¼1 t¼1
2.3.1. Make-to-stock (denoted as sM1 model)
The activity sM1 includes sM1.1, sM1.2, sM1.3, sM1.4, sM1.5,
6 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

sP1 Plan Supply

sP2 Plan Source sP3 Plan Make
Chain

sP1.1: Identify, Prioritize and sP2.1: Identify, Prioritize and sP3.1: Identify, Prioritize and
Aggregate Supply Aggregate Product Aggregate Production
Chain Requirements Requirements Requirements
sP1.2: Identify, Prioritize and sP2.2: Identify, Assess and sP3.2: Identify, Assess and
Aggregate Supply Aggregate Product Aggregate Production
Chain Resources Resources Resources
sP3.3: Balance Production
sP1.3: Balance Supply Chain sP2.3: Balance Product
Resources with
Resources with SC Resources with
Production
Requirements Product Requirements
Requirements
sP1.4: Establish and
sP2.4: Establish Sourcing sP3.4: Establish Production
Communicate Supply
Plans Plans
Chain Plans

sP4 Plan Deliver sP5 Plan Return

sP4.1: Identify, Prioritize and

sP5.1: Assess and Aggregate
Aggregate Delivery
Return Requirements
Requirements
sP4.2: Identify, Assess and sP5.2: Identify, Assess and
Aggregate Delivery Aggregate Return
Resources Resources
sP4.3: Balance Delivery
sP5.3: Balance Return
Resources and
Resources with Return
Capabilities with
Requirements
Delivery Requirements
sP5.4: Establish and
sP4.4: Establish Delivery
Communicate Return
Plans
Plans

Fig. 2. Plan model.

sS1 Source Stocked sS2 Source Make-to- sS3 Source Engineer-

Product Order Product to-Order Product

sS1.1: Schedule Product sS2.1: Schedule Product sS3.1: Identify Sources of

Deliveries Deliveries Supply
sS3.2: Select Final Supplier
sS1.2: Receive Product sS2.2: Receive Product
and Negotiate
sS3.3: Schedule Product
sS1.3: Verify Product sS2.3: Verify Product
Deliveries

sS1.4: Transfer Product sS2.4: Transfer Product sS3.4: Receive Product

sS1.5: Authorize Supplier sS2.5: Authorize Supplier

sS3.5: Verify Product
Payment Payment

sS3.6: Transfer Product

sS3.7: Authorize Supplier

Payment

Fig. 3. Source model.

where Git M1:1 is the tth GHG from the ith product planned for pro- (2) sM1.2
duction, and PsM1:1 and SsM1:1 are the respective number of the
respective elements. It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 7

sM3 Engineer-to-
sM1 Make-to-Stock sM2 Make-to-Order
Order

sM1.1: Schedule Production sM2.1: Schedule Production sM3.1: Finalize Production

Activities Activities Engineering
sM2.2: Issue Sourced/In- sM3.2: Schedule Production
sM1.2: Issue Material
Process Product Activities
sM3.3: Issue Sourced/In-
sM1.3: Produce and Test sM2.3: Produce and Test
Process Product

sM1.4: Package sM2.4: Package sM3.4: Produce and Test

sM2.5: Stage Finished

sM1.5: Stage Product sM3.5: Package
Product
sM1.6: Release Product to sM2.6: Release Finished sM3.6: Stage Finished
Deliver Product to Deliver Product
sM3.7: Release Product to
sM1.7: Waste Disposal sM2.7: Waste Disposal
Deliver

sM3.8: Waste Disposal

Fig. 4. Make model.

stage.
PX
sM1:5 SX
sM1:5

EsM1:5 ¼ GitM1:5 *GWPt (8)

(3) sM1.3
i¼1 t¼1

The PCF EsM1:3 is where GitM1:5 is the tth GHG for promoting the ith product, and
PsM1:5 and SsM1:5 are the respective number of the respective
0 elements.
SX
sM1:3 PX X
sM1:3 NsM1:3 TX
sM1:3

EsM1:3 ¼ @ PijM1:3 *CijtM1:3 þ (6) sM1.6

t¼1 i¼1 j¼1 k¼1
1
MX
sM1:3 It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this
 AklM1:3 *CkltM1:3 A*GWPt (6) stage.
l¼1
(7) sM1.7
where PijM1:3 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed in the ith
manufacturing process, CijtM1:3 is the EC of the tth GHG with the jth The PCF EsM1:7 is
energy source in the ith manufacturing process, AklM1:3 is the 0 0 1
quantity of the lth energy consumed in the kth test, CkltM1:3 is the EC SX
sM1:7 PX
sM1:7 NX
sM1:7

of the tth GHG with the lth energy source consumed in the kth test, EsM1:7 ¼ @ @ MijM1:7 *CijtM1:7  GitM1:7 *RAiM1:7 A
and PsM1:3 , NsM1:3 , TsM1:3 , MsM1:3 and SsM1:3 are the respective t¼1 i¼1 j¼1
1
number of the respective elements.
 AGWPt
(4) sM1.4
(9)
The PCF EsM1:4 is
where MijM1:7 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed for recy-
cling the ith material, CijtM1:7 is the EC of the tth GHG with the jth
PX X
sM1:4 NsM1:4 SX
sM1:4 energy source consumed for recycling the ith material, Git M1:7 is the
EsM1:4 ¼ PijM1:4 *CijtM1:4 *GWPt (7) equivalent emission of the ith material relative to the tth gas, RAiM1:7
i¼1 j¼1 t¼1
is the proportion of the ith recycled product in the raw material, and
PsM1:7 , NsM1:7 , and SsM1:7 are the respective number of the respec-
where PijM1:4 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed in the ith
tive elements.
packaging process, CijtM1:4 is the EC of the tth GHG with the jth
energy source with the ith packaging process, and PsM1:4 , NsM1:4 and
SsM1:4 are the respective number of the respective elements. 2.3.2. Make-to-order (denoted as sM2 model)
The activity sM2 includes sM2.1, sM2.2, sM2.3, sM2.4, sM2.5,
(5) sM1.5 sM2.6, and sM2.7, as shown in Fig. 4.
For sM2.1, sM2.2, sM2.3, sM2.4, sM2.5, sM2.6, and sM2.7, the PCF
The PCF EsM1:5 is EsM2:1 , EsM2:2 , EsM2:3 , EsM2:4 , EsM2:5 , EsM2:6 , and EsM2:7 are similar with
8 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320
sD1 Deliver Stocked
Product
sD1.1: Process Inquiry
and Quote
sD1.2: Receive, Enter, and
Validate Order
sD1.3: Reserve Inventory
and Determine
Delivery Date
sD1.4: Consolidate Orders
sD1.5: Build Loads
sD1.6: Route Shipments
sD1.7: Select Carriers and
Rate Shipments
sD1.8: Receive Product from
Source or Make
sD1.9: Pick Product
sD1.10: Pack Product
sD1.11: Load Vehicle &
Generate Shipping
Docs
sD1.12: Ship Product
sD1.13: Receive and Verify
Product by
Customer
sD1.14: Install Product
sD1.15: Invoice
sD4 Deliver Retail
Product
sD4.1: Generate Stocking
Schedule
EsM1:1 , EsM1:2 , EsM1:3 , EsM1:4 , EsM1:5 , EsM1:6 , and EsM1:7 , respectively.
The formulas are shown in the section of sM1.1, sM1.2, sM1.3, sM1.4,
sM1.5, sM1.6, and sM1.7, respectively.
2.3.3. Engineer-to-Order (denoted as sM3 model)
The activity sM3 includes sM3.1, sM3.2, sM3.3, sM3.4, sM3.5,
sM3.6, sM3.7, sM3.8, as shown in Fig. 4.
(1) sM3.1
It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this
stage.
(2) sM3.2, sM3.3, sM3.4, sM3.5, sM3.6, sM3.7, sM3.8
sD2 Deliver Make-to- sD3 Deliver Engineer-
Order Product to- Order Product
sD2.1: Process Inquiry sD3.1: Obtain and Respond
and Quote to RFP/RFQ
sD2.2: Receive, Configure, sD3.2: Negotiate and Receive
Enter and lidate Order Contract
sD2.3: Reserve Inventory sD3.3: Enter Order, Commit
and Determine Resources & Launch
Delivery Date Program
sD2.4: Consolidate Orders sD3.4: Schedule Installation
sD2.5: Build Loads sD3.5: Build Loads
sD2.6: Route Shipments sD3.6: Route Shipments
sD2.7: Select Carriers and sD3.7: Select Carriers &
Rate Shipments Rate Shipments
sD2.8: Receive Product from sD3.8: Receive Product from
Source or Make Source or Make
sD2.9: Pick Product sD3.9: Pick Product
sD2.10: Pack Product sD3.10: Pack Product
sD2.11: Load Product & sD3.11: Load Product &
Generate Shipping Generate Shipping
Docs Docs
sD2.12: Ship Product sD3.12: Ship Product
sD2.13: Receive and Verify sD3.13: Receive and Verify
Product by Product by
Customer Customer
sD2.14: Install Product sD3.14: Install Product
sD2.15: Invoice sD3.15: Invoice
sD4.2: Receive Product
sD4.5: Fill Shopping Cart
at Store
sD4.3: Pick Product
sD4.6: Checkout
from backroom
sD4.4: Stock Shelf sD4.7: Deliver and/or install
Fig. 5. Deliver model.
The PCF EsM3:2, EsM3:3 , EsM3:4 , EsM3:5 , EsM3:6 , EsM3:7 , and EsM3:8 is
similar with EsM1:1 , EsM1:2 , EsM1:3 , EsM1:4 , EsM1:5 , EsM1:6 , and EsM1:7 ,
respectively. The formulas for calculation are shown in the section
of sM1.1, sM1.2, sM1.3, sM1.4, sM1.5, sM1.6, and sM1.7, respectively.
2.4. Deliver
The process of delivering a product or service to a customer.
2.4.1. Deliver stocked product (denoted as sD1 model)
The activity sD1 includes sD1.1, sD1.2, sD1.3, sD1.4, sD1.5, sD1.6,
sD1.7, sD1.8, sD1.9, sD1.10, sD1.11, sD1.12, sD1.13, and sD1.15, as
shown in Fig. 5.
(1) sD1.2, sD1.4, sD1.15
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 9

It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during these The PCF EsD2:3, EsD2:9 , EsD2:10 , EsD2:11 , and EsD2:14 are similar with
stages. EsD1:3 , EsD1:9 , EsD1:10 , EsD1:11 , and EsD1:14 , respectively. The formulas
for calculation are shown in the section sD1.3, sD1.9, sD1.10, sD1.11,
(2) sD1.1, sD1.5, sD1.6, sD1.7, sD1.8, sD1.13 and sD1.14, respectively.

PX
sD1:X SX
sD1:X
(4) sD2.12
EsD1:X ¼ GitD1:X *GWPt (10)
i¼1 t¼1
The PCF EsD2:12 is similar with EsD1:12 . The formula for its
As an instance of equation, in PCF for sD1.6, where GitD1:X is the calculation is shown in the section of sM1.12.
tth GHG for planning the ith product delivery route, and PsD1:X and
SsD1:X are the respective number of the respective elements.
2.4.3. Deliver engineer-to-order product (denoted as sD3 model)
(3) sD1.3, sD1.9, sD1.10, sD1.11, sD1.14 The activity sD3 includes sD3.1, sD3.2, sD3.3, sD3.4, sD3.5, sD3.6,
sD3.7, sD3.8, sD3.9, sD3.10, sD3.11, sD3.12, sD3.13, and sD3.15, as
PX X
sD1:X NsD1:X SX
sD1:X
shown in Fig. 5.
EsD1:X ¼ PijD1:X *CijtD1:X *GWPt (11)
i¼1 j¼1 t¼1
(1) sD3.1, sD3.2, sD3.3, sD3.4, sD3.15
As an instance of equation, in the PCF calculation of D1.10, where
PijD1:X is the quantity of the jth energy consumed in the ith pack- It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during these
aging process, CijtD1:X is the EC of the tth GHG with the jth energy stages.
source consumed in the ith packaging process, and PsD1:X , NsD1:X ,
and SsD1:X are the respective number of the respective elements. (2) sD3.5, sD3.6, sD3.7, sD3.8, sD3.13

(4) sD1.12 The PCF EsD3:5, EsD3:6 , EsD3:7 , EsD3:8 , and EsD3:13 are similar with
EsD1:5 , EsD1:6 , EsD1:7 , EsD1:8 , and EsD1:13 , respectively. The formulas for
The PCF EsD1:12 is calculation are shown in the section of sD1.5, sD1.6, sD1.7, sD1.8,
0 and sD1.13, respectively.
SX
sD1:12 PX
sD1:12 NX
sD1:12

EsD1:12 ¼ @
(3) sD3.9, sD3.10, sD3.11, sD3.14
t¼1 i¼1 j¼1
1
TX
sD1:12 The PCF EsD3:9, EsD3:10 , EsD3:11 , and EsD3:14 are similar with EsD1:9 ,
 TijD1:12 *LijD1:12 *EIijkD1:12 *CijktD1:12 AGWPt EsD1:10 , EsD1:11 , and EsD1:14 , respectively. The formulas for calculation
k¼1 are shown in the section of sD1.9, sD1.10, sD1.11, and sD1.14,
(12) respectively.

where TijD1:12 is the quantity of the jth transport object in the ith (4) sD3.12
transport mode, LijD1:12 a is the transport distance of the jth trans-
port object in the ith transport mode, EIijk D1:12 is the energy in- The PCF EsD3:12 is similar with EsD1:12 . The formula for its
tensity of the ith transport mode, that is, the energy consumption calculation is shown in the section of sM1.12.
per unit of distance produced by the transportation of the jth object
using the kth energy-powered transport in the ith transport mode,
CijktD1:12 is the EC of the tth GHG with the kth energy source 2.4.4. Deliver-retail-product (denoted as sD4 model)
consumed by the jth transport object in the ith transport mode, and The activity sD4 includes sD4.1, sD4.2, sD4.3, sD4.4, sD4.5, sD4.6,
PsD1:12 , NsD1:12 , TsD1:12 , and SsD1:12 are the number of the respective and sD4.7, as shown in Fig. 5.
elements.
(1) sD4.1

2.4.2. Deliver make-to-order product (denoted as sD2 model)

It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this
The activity sD2 includes sD2.1, sD2.2, sD2.3, sD2.4, sD2.5, sD2.6,
stage.
sD2.7, sD2.8, sD2.9, sD2.10, sD2.11, sD2.12, sD2.13, and sD2.15, as
shown in Fig. 5.
(2) sD4.2

(1) sD2.2, sD2.4, sD2.15

The PCF EsD4:2 is

It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during these PX X
sD4:2 SsD4:2
stages. EsD4:2 ¼ GitD4:2 *GWPt (13)
i¼1 t¼1
(2) sD2.1, sD2.5, sD2.6, sD2.7, sD2.8, sD2.13
where Git D4:2 is the tth GHG for receiving the ith products, and
The PCF at this step EsD2:1 , EsD2:5 , EsD2:6 , EsD2:7 , EsD2:8 , and EsD2:13 PsD4:2 and SsD4:2 are the respective number of the respective
are similar with EsD1:1 , EsD1:5 , EsD1:6 , EsD1:7 , EsD1:8 , and EsD1:13 , elements.
respectively. The formulas for calculation are shown in the section
of sD1.1, sD1.5, sD1.6, sD1.7, sD1.8, and sD1.13, respectively. (3) sD4.3

(3) sD2.3, sD2.9, sD2.10, sD2.11, sD2.14 The PCF EsD4:3 is

10 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

PX X
sD4:3 S sD4:3 PX
sSR1:1 SX
sSR1:1

EsD4:3 ¼ GitD4:3 *GWPt (14) EsSR1:1 ¼ GitSR1:1 *GWPt (18)

i¼1 t¼1 i¼1 t¼1

where Git D4:3 is the tth GHG for picking the ith products from where GitSR1:1 is the tth GHG for validating the status of the ith
backroom, and PsD4:3 and SsD4:3 are the respective number of the defective product, and PsSR1:1 and SsSR1:1 are the number of the
respective elements. respective elements.

(4) sD4.4 (2) sSR1.2

The PCF EsD4:4 is The PCF EsSR1:2 is

PX X
sD4:4 S sD4:4 PX
sSR1:2 NX
sSR1:2 SX
sSR1:2

EsD4:4 ¼ Git D4:4 *GWPt (15) EsSR1:2 ¼ PijSR1:2 *CijtSR1:2 *GWPt (19)
i¼1 t¼1 i¼1 j¼1 t¼1

where GitD4:4 is the tth GHG for stocking the ith products into shelf, where PijSR1:2 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed for
and PsD4:4 and SsD4:4 are the respective number of the respective handling the ith defective product, CijtSR1:2 is the EC of the tth GHG
elements. for the jth energy source used to handle the ith defective product,
and PsSR1:2 , NsSR1:2 , and SsSR1:2 are the number of the respective
(5) sD4.5 elements.

The PCF EsD4:5 is (3) sSR1.3

PX X
sD4:5 S sD4:5
It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this
EsD4:5 ¼ GitD4:5 *GWPt (16)
stage.
i¼1 t¼1

where GitD4:5 is the tth GHG for filling the ith products in shopping (4) sSR1.4
cart, and PsD4:5 and SsD4:5 are the respective number of the
respective elements. The PCF EsSR1:4 is

PX
sSR1:4 SX
sSR1:4
(6) sD4.6 EsSR1:4 ¼ GitSR1:4 *GWPt (20)
i¼1 t¼1
It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this
stage. where GitSR1:4 is tth GHG for scheduling the transportation of the ith
defective product, and PsSR1:4 , and SsSR1:4 are the respective number
(7) sD4.7 of the respective elements.

The PCF EsD4:7 is (5) sSR1.5

PX X
sD4:7 S sD4:7
The PCF EsSR1:5 is
EsD4:7 ¼ GitD4:7 *GWPt (17)
i¼1 t¼1 0
SX
sSR1:5 PX
sSR1:5 NX
sSR1:5

EsSR1:5 ¼ @
where GitD4:7 is the tth GHG for delivering the ith products and/or
t¼1 i¼1 j¼1
installing the ith products, and PsD4:7 and SsD4:7 are the respective 1
number of the respective elements. TX
sSR1:5

 TijSR1:5 *LijSR1:5 *EIijkSR1:5 *CijktSR1:5 AGWPt (21)

2.5. Return
The process is used to deal with unqualified products or services
to suppliers and for customer treatment to return unqualified
goods or services to the enterprise. This stage could be divided into
two parts: the return of raw materials to suppliers (Source) and
product to enterprises (Deliver).
2.5.1. Source
2.5.1.1. Source-return-defective-product (denoted as sSR1 model).
The activity sSR1 includes s SR1.1, s SR1.2, s SR1.3, s SR1.4, and s
SR1.5, as shown in Fig. 6.
(1) sSR1.1
The PCF EsSR1:1 is
k¼1
where TijSR1:5 is the quantity of the jth transport object in the ith
transport mode, LijSR1:5 is the transport distance of the jth transport
object in the ith transport mode, EIijkSR1:5 is the energy intensity of
the ith transport mode, that is, the energy consumption per unit of
distance produced by the transportation of the jth object using the
kth energy-powered transport in the ith transport mode, CijktSR1:5 is
the EC of the tth GHG with the kth energy source consumed by the
jth transport object in the ith transport mode, and SsSR1:5 , PsSR1:5 ,
NsSR1:5 , and TsSR1:5 are the number of the respective elements.
2.5.1.2. Source return MRO product (denoted as sSR2 model).
The activity sSR2 includes sSR2.1, sSR2.2, sSR2.3, sSR2.4, and sSR2.5,
as shown in Fig. 6.
For sSR2.1, sSR2.2, sSR2.3, sSR2.4, and sSR2.5, the PCF EsSR2:1,
EsSR2:2 , EsSR2:3 , EsSR2:4 , and EsSR2:5 are similar with EsSR1:1 , EsSR1:2 ,
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 11

Source Return

sSR1 Source Return

sSR2 Source Return sSR3 Source Return
Defective
MRO Product Excess Product
Product

sSR1.1: Identify Defective sSR2.1: Identify MRO sSR3.1: Identify Excess

Product Condition Product Condition Product Condition
sSR1.2: Disposition sSR2.2: Disposition MRO sSR3.2: Disposition
Defective Product Product Excess Product
sSR1.3: Request Defective sSR2.3: Request MRO sSR3.3: Request Excess
Product Return Return Product Return
Authorization Authorization Authorization
sSR1.4: Schedule Defective sSR2.4: Schedule MRO sSR3.4: Schedule Excess
Product Shipment Shipment Product Shipment
sSR1.5: Return Defective sSR2.5: Return MRO sSR3.5: Return Excess
Product Product Product

Deliver Return

sDR1 Deliver Return

sDR2 Deliver Return sDR3 Deliver Return
Defective
MRO Product Excess Product
Product

sDR1.1: Authorize Defective sDR2.1: Authorize MRO sDR3.1: Authorize Excess

Product Return Product Return Product Return
sDR1.2: Schedule Defective sDR2.2: Schedule MRO sDR3.2: Schedule Excess
Return Receipt Return Receipt Return Receipt
sDR1.3: Receive Defective
sDR2.3: Receive MRO sDR3.3: Receive Excess
Product
Product Product
(includes verify)
sDR1.4: Transfer Defective sDR2.4: Transfer MRO sDR3.4: Transfer Excess
Product Product Product

Fig. 6. Return model.

EsSR1:3 , EsSR1:4 , and EsSR1:5 , respectively. The formula for its calcula- (2) sDR1.2
tion is shown in the section of sSR1.1, sSR1.2, sSR1.3, sSR1.4, and
sSR1.5, respectively. The PCF EsDR1:2 is

PX
sDR1:2 SX
sDR1:2

2.5.1.3. Source Return Excess Product (denoted as sSR3 model). EsDR1:2 ¼ GitDR1:2 *GWPt (22)
The activity sSR3 includes s SR3.1, s SR3.2, s SR3.3, s SR3.4, and s i¼1 t¼1
SR3.5, as shown in Fig. 6.
For sSR3.1, sSR3.2, sSR3.3, sSR3.4, and sSR3.5, the PCF EsSR3:1, where GitDR1:2 is the tth GHG for planning to receive the ith defective
EsSR3:2 , EsSR3:3 , EsSR3:4 , and EsSR3:5 are similar with EsSR1:1 , EsSR1:2 , product, and PsDR1:2 , and SsDR1:2 are the number of the respective
EsSR1:3 , EsSR1:4 , and EsSR1:5 , respectively. The formulas for calculation elements.
are shown in the section of sSR1.1, sSR1.2, sSR1.3, sSR1.4, and sSR1.5,
respectively. (3) sDR1.3

The PCF EsDR1:3 is

2.5.2. Deliver
PX
sDR1:3 NX
sDR1:3 SX
sDR1:3
2.5.2.1. Deliver Return Defective Product (denoted as sDR1). EsDR1:3 ¼ PijDR1:3 *CijtDR1:3 *GWPt (23)
The activity sDR1 includes sDR1.1, sDR1.2, sDR1.3, sDR1.4, and i¼1 j¼1 t¼1
sDR1.5, as shown in Fig. 6.
where PijDR1:3 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed for
(1) sDR1.1 receiving and checking the ith defective product, CijtDR1:3 is the EC of
the tth GHG with the jth energy source used to receive and check the
It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF during this ith defective product, and PsDR1:3 , NsDR1:3 and SsDR1:3 are the number
stage. of the respective elements.
12 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

(4) sDR1.4 The PCF at this step EsDR2:1 , EsDR2:2 , EsDR2:3 , and EsDR2:4 is similar
with EsDR1:1 , EsDR1:2 , EsDR1:3 , and EsDR1:4 , respectively. The formulas
The PCF EsDR1:4 is for calculation are shown in the section of sDR1.1, sDR1.2, sDR1.3,
and sDR1.4, respectively.
PX
sDR1:4 NX
sDR1:4 SX
sDR1:4

EsDR1:4 ¼ PijDR1:4 *CijtDR1:4 *GWPt (24)

i¼1 j¼1 t¼1 2.5.2.3. Deliver return excess product (named as sDR3 model).
The activity sDR3 includes sDR3.1, sDR3.2, sDR3.3, sDR3.4, and
where PijDR1:4 is the quantity of the jth energy consumed for tran- sDR3.5, as shown in Fig. 6.
ferring the ith defective product, CijtDR1:4 is the EC of the tth GHG For sDR3.1, sDR3.2, sDR3.3, and sDR3.4, the PCF EsDR3:1, EsDR3:2 ,
emitted by the jth energy source used to transfer the ith defective EsDR3:3 , and EsDR3:4 are similar with EsDR1:1 , EsDR1:2 , EsDR1:3 , and
product, and PsDR1:4 , NsDR1:4 , and SsDR1:4 are the respective number EsDR1:4 , respectively. The formulas for calculation are shown in the
of the respective elements. section of sDR1.1, sDR1.2, sDR1.3, and sDR1.4, respectively.

2.6. Enable
2.5.2.2. Deliver return MRO product (denoted as sDR2 model).
The activity sDR2 includes sDR2.1, sDR2.2, sDR2.3, and sDR2.4, as The process is used to manage and regularize the affairs in the
shown in Fig. 6. supply chain, such as Business Rules, Performance, as shown in
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. It is always negligible PCF, since there are little PCF
(1) sDR2.1, sDR2.2, sDR2.3, sDR2.4 during this stage.

sE1 Manage Supply sE2 Manage Supply sE3 Manage Supply

Chain Business Chain Chain Data and
Rules Performance Information

sE1.1: Gather Business Rule sE3.1: Receive Maintenance

Requirements
sE1.2: Interpret Business
Rule Requirement
sE1.3: Document Business
Rule
sE1.4: Communicate
Business Rule
sE1.5: Release/Publish
Business Rule
sE2.1: Initiate Reporting
Request
sE3.2: Determine/Scope
sE2.2: Analyze Reports
Work
sE3.3: Maintain Content /
sE2.3: Find Root Causes
Code
sE2.4: Prioritize Root Causes sE3.4: Maintain Access
sE2.5: Develop Corrective
sE3.5: Publish Information
Actions

sE1.6: Retire Business Rule sE2.6: Approve & Launch sE3.6: Verify Information

sE4 Manage Supply

sE5 Manage Supply sE6 Manage Supply
Chain Human
Chain Assets Chain Contracts
Resources

sE4.1: Identify Skills / sE5.1: Schedule Asset

sE6.1: Receive Contract /
Resource Management
Contract Updates
Requirement Activities
sE4.2: Identify Available sE6.2: Enter and Distribute
sE5.2: Take Asset Off-line
Skills / Resources Contract
sE4.3: Match Skills / sE5.3: Inspect and sE6.3: Activate / Archive
Resources Troubleshoot Contract
sE4.4: Determine Hiring / sE6.4: Review Contractual
sE5.4: Install and Configure
Redeployment Performance
sE4.5: Determine Training / sE5.5: Clean, Maintain and sE6.5: Identify Performance
Education Repair Issues / Opportunities
sE4.6: Approve, Prioritize sE5.6: Decommission and sE6.6: Identify Resolutions /
and Launch Dispose Improvements
sE6.7: Select, Prioritize and
sE5.7: Inspect Maintenance Distribute
Resolutions
sE5.8: Reinstate Asset

Fig. 7. sE1-sE6 of Enable model.

 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 13

sE8 Manage Supply

sE7 Manage Supply sE9 Manage Supply
Chain Regulatory
Chain Network Chain Risk
Compliance

sE7.1: Select Scope and sE8.1: Monitor Regulatory

sE9.1: Establish Context
Organization Entities
sE8.2: Assess Regulatory
sE7.2: Gather Input and Data sE9.2: Identify Risk Events
Publications
sE8.3: Identify Regulatory
sE7.3: Develop Scenarios sE9.3: Quantify Risks
Deficiencies
sE7.4: Model / Simulate
sE8.4: Define Remediation sE9.4: Evaluate Risks
Scenarios
sE8.5: Verify / Obtain
sE7.5: Project Impact sE9.5: Mitigate Risk
License

sE7.6: Select and Approve sE8.6: Publish Remediation

sE7.7: Develop Change

Program
sE10 Manage Supply sE11 Manage Supply
Chain Chain
sE7.8: Launch Change
Program
Procurement Technology

sE11.1: Define Supply Chain

sE10.1: Develop Strategy and
Technology
Plan
Requirements
sE10.2: Pre-Procurement / sE11.2: Identify Technology
Market Test and Solution
Market Engagement Alternatives
sE11.3: Define / Update
sE10.3: Develop
Supply Chain
Procurement
Technology
Documentation
Roadmap
sE10.4: Supplier Selection to sE11.4: Select Technology
Participate Solution
sE11.5: Define and Deploy
sE10.5: Issue ITT / RFQ
Technology Solution
sE10.6: Bid / Tender sE11.6: Maintain and
Evaluation and Improve Technology
Validation Solution
sE10.7: Contract Award and sE11.7: Retire Technology
Implementation Solution

Fig. 8. sE7-sE11 of Enable model.

In the methodology section, each module has a corresponding
PCF calculation formula. This paper optimizes each formula. Cor-
responding weight coefficients are added in the formulas to make
the calculation results more accurate.
3. Application
3.1. Background
In this paper, a water and fertilizer irrigation machine for agri-
cultural engineering is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed methodology. The water and fertilizer irrigation machine
is an intelligent irrigation machine to mix water and fertilizer at the
proper ratio with the real-time status from sensors. It is one of the
most effective ways to improve the utilization ratio of water and
fertilizer.
As shown in Fig. 9, these products generally adopt EC/pH
comprehensive control and time control technology to achieve the
purpose of automatic fertilizer matching, uniform fertilizer and
fertilizer application, and improve the yield, quality and economic
benefit of the crops. It is foreseeable that the application of water
fertilizer irrigation machine would be more and more extensive in
the future. Although the water-fertilizer irrigation machine is a
single product, it contains mechanical transmission, control parts,
etc. It has more complicated processability and various types of
parts. It needs to consider various processes such as processing
plan, raw material collection, manufacturing, etc. With the idea of
intelligent agriculture and green agriculture, cleaner and efficient
water and fertilizer irrigation has received more and more atten-
tion from people and requires corresponding hardware support.
Therefore, it is necessary to study PCF across SSC for the water and
fertilizer irrigation machine.
3.2. Plan
The entire Plan module has very little PCF. PCF of each stage of
sP1 could be obtained by calculation. Although the PCF are small,
PCF could be still retained to preserve the accuracy of the model, as
shown in Table 1.
Similarly, PCF of sP2, sP3, sP4, and sP5 are shown in Table 1,
14 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

Table 2
Spray agitator PCF (kg CO2e) of source in SSC.

Process Sub-process Item PCF

Source sS1 sS1.1 0.785

sS1.2 2.430
sS1.3 18.212
Irrigation sS1.4 3.128
centrifugal pump sS1.5 0
sS2 sS2.1 0.324
Valve sS2.2 0.824
sS2.3 1.653
sS2.4 0.912
sS2.5 0
sS3 sS3.1 0.125
pH sensor,
sS3.2 0.283
Irrigation
sS3.3 0.437
water tank EC sensor sS3.4 0.782
sS3.5 1.596
sS3.6 0.873
sS3.7 0

Water and
fertilizer pump Acid pump Lye pump Table 3
The electric energy consumption (kW$h) of verifying these thirteen productions.
Solenoid valve Step V-EEC Step V-EEC Step V-EEC

1 1.6 6 0.7 11 3.3

2 1.4 7 2.6 12 1.2
Water and Acid 3 1.4 8 2.5 13 1.3
Lye tank
fertilizer tank tank 4 1.4 9 2.5
5 0.8 10 2.5
Fig. 9. Fertilizer irrigation machine system.

The main components of the water and fertilizer irrigation

Table 1 machine include irrigation water tank, water and fertilizer tank,
PCF (kg CO2e) of plan in SSC.
acid tank, lye tank, pH sensor, EC sensor, irrigation centrifugal
Process Sub-process Item PCF pump, water and fertilizer pump, acid pump, lye pump, spray
Plan sP1 sP1.1 0.024 agitator, various types of valves and pipes, as shown in Fig. 9.
sP1.2 0.063 Therefore, PsS1:3 is calculated as 13.
sP1.3 0.071 The PCF at this step EsS1:3 is calculated as Eq. (3). In this process,
sP1.4 0.054 the quality of the above-mentioned parts needs to be tested. In the
sP2 sP2.1 0.031
detection process, the energy used is mainly electricity. So NsS1:3 is
sP2.2 0.057
sP2.3 0.083 1. As shown in Table 3, the electric energy consumption of verifying
sP2.4 0.049 these thirteen productions (V-EEC) respectively are 1.6 kW h,
sP3 sP3.1 0.041 1.4 kW h, 1.4 kW h, 1.4 kW h, 0.8 kW h, 0.7 kW h, 2.6 kW h, 2.5 kW h,
sP3.2 0.061
2.5 kW h, 2.5 kW h, 3.3 kW h, 1.2 kW h, 1.3 kW h. There are very few
sP3.3 0.091
sP3.4 0.062 other types of gases produced during the verify product. Only the
sP4 sP4.1 0.034 emissions of CO2 are calculated. So the SsS1:3 is 1. The value of GWPt
sP4.2 0.058 is 1 when gas t is CO2. And its EC Cijt is 0.785 kg/kW$h. Therefore,
sP4.3 0.043 the PCF of verifing the accessories that water and fertilizer irriga-
sP4.4 0.049
tion machine needs is
sP5 sP5.1 0.032
sP5.2 0.059
sP5.3 0.041 EsS1:3 ¼ 18:212 ðkgCO2e Þ (25)
sP5.4 0.025
Fig. 10 shows the percentage of PCF of accessories for water and
fertilizer irrigation machines in the verification process. According
respectively. to Fig. 10, the PCF of verifing the spray agitator that water and
fertilizer irrigation machine needs the most. The PCF of verifing the
EC sensor needs the least one.
3.3. Source

When purchasing parts, it is only necessary to purchase sup-

pliers’ inventory products. The PCF in sS1 are mainly considered.
And sS1.3 in sS1 module occupies the main PCF. All PCF in sS2 and
sS3 are relatively small relative to PCF in sS1.
3.3.1. sS1
The following is an example of sS1.3 in sS1 module to illustrate
the process of calculating PCF. The PCF of sS1 is shown in Table 2.
3.3.2. sS2 and sS3
The PCF of the entire sS2 and sS3 modules are relatively small.
The PCF of each stage of sS2 and sS3 could be obtained by calcu-
lation. The PCF are small and could be ignored. But here, the PCF is
still retained to preserve the accuracy of the model. The PCF of sS2
and sS3 is shown in Table 2.
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 15

Fig. 10. The percentage of PCF of accessories for water and fertilizer irrigation machines in the verification process.

3.4. Make Table 4

PCF (kg CO2e) of make in SSC.
The water and fertilizer irrigation machine is universally stan- Process Sub-process Item PCF
dardized and does not require the design of a production plan for
Make sM1 sM1.1 1.245
specific needs. Therefore, PCF in sM1 is mainly calculated. And sM1.2 0
sM1.3 in sM1 occupies the major PCF. The PCF in sM2 and sM3 are sM1.3 56.599
relatively small compared to the PCF in sM1. sM1.4 6.456
sM1.5 3.128
sM1.6 0
3.4.1. sM1 sM1.7 4.125
The following takes sM1.3 in sM1 module as an example to sM2 sM2.1 0.137
sM2.2 0
illustrate the process of calculating the PCF. The PCF of sM1 is
sM2.3 5.371
shown in Table 4. sM2.4 0.581
The produce and test process of the water and fertilizer irriga- sM2.5 0.307
tion machine includes the assembly and testing of the irrigation sM2.6 0
sM2.7 0.415
water tank, the assembly and testing of the water and fertilizer
sM3 sM3.1 0.085
tank, the assembly and testing of the acid tank, the assembly and sM3.2 0.108
testing of the lye tank, the assembly and testing of the pH sensors, sM3.3 0
the assembly and testing of the EC sensors, the assembly and sM3.4 4.217
testing of the irrigation centrifugal pump, the assembly and testing sM3.5 0.431
sM3.6 0.294
of the water and fertilizer pumps, the assembly and testing of the
sM3.7 0
acid pump, the assembly and testing of the lye pump, the assembly sM3.8 0.362
and testing of the spray agitator, the assembly of the various types
of valves, the assembly of the pipes. And finally test the perfor-
mance of the whole machine. In summary, the assembly and testing
Hence, Cijt ¼ 0.785, Cklt ¼ 0.785.
process has thirteen processes and fourteen test steps. Therefore,
PsM1:3 is 13 and TsM1:3 is 14. The PCF at this step EsM1:3 is calculated
as Eq. (6). Table 5
The energy needed in the process of production is mainly Energy consumption in the process of production and the process of test.
electric energy and gasoline. As shown in Table 7, the energy
Step P-EEC (kW$h) P-GC (L) T-EEC (kW$h)
needed in the test is mainly electric energy. In the process of pro-
duction, the electric energy consumption (P-EEC) and the gasoline 1 3.2 0.7 0.7
2 2.7 1.4 1.3
consumption (P-GC) in the 13 steps are shown in Table 5. In the 3 2.7 1.4 1.3
process of test, the electric energy consumption (T-EEC) in the 13 4 2.7 1.4 1.3
steps is also shown in Table 5. There are very few other types of 5 1.4 1.1 0.5
gases produced during the produce and test. 6 1.4 1.1 0.5
7 3.6 1.6 1.6
The value of GWPt is 1 when gas t is CO2. The carbon emission
8 4.1 0.5 1.8
formula is 9 4.1 0.5 1.8
10 4.1 0.5 2.2
CO2 emissions (kg) ¼ electricity consumption * 0.785 (26) 11 5.7 1.3 1.4
12 2.6 0.6 1.1
13 2.7 0.4 3.1
CO2 emissions (kg) ¼ gasoline consumption * 0.785 (27)
16 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

Fig. 11. The percentage of PCF required to consume electrical energy during the production of a water and fertilizer irrigation machine.

Fig. 12. The percentage of PCF required to consume gasoline during the production of the water and fertilizer irrigation machine.

Therefore, the PCF of the water and fertilizer irrigation machine

assembly and testing process is

EsM1:3 ¼ 56:599 ðkg CO2e Þ

Fig. 11 shows the percentage of PCF required to consume elec-
trical energy during the production of a water and fertilizer irri-
gation machine. According to the figure, the assembly and testing of
the spray agitator requires the most PCF. The assembly and testing
of the pH sensors and the assembly and testing of the EC sensors
requires the least PCF.
Fig. 12 shows the percentage of PCF required to consume gaso-
line during the production of the water and fertilizer irrigation
machine. According to the figure, the assembly and testing of the
irrigation centrifugal pump requires the most PCF. The assembly of
the pipes requires the least PCF. Fig. 13. The percentage of PCF required to consume electrical energy during the testing
Fig. 13 shows the percentage of PCF required to consume of the water and fertilizer irrigation machine.
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320 17

Table 6
PCF (kg CO2e) of deliver in SSC.

Process Sub-process Item PCF Process Sub-process Item PCF

Deliver sD1 sD1.1 0.786 Deliver sD2 sD2.12 12.397

sD1.2 0 sD2.13 0.021
sD1.3 0.984 sD2.14 0.033
sD1.4 0 sD2.15 0
sD1.5 0.452 sD3 sD3.1 0.062
sD1.6 0.328 sD3.2 0
sD1.7 0.557 sD3.3 0.084
sD1.8 2.786 sD3.4 0
sD1.9 3.124 sD3.5 0.041
sD1.10 3.258 sD3.6 0.029
sD1.11 1.258 sD3.7 0.046
sD1.12 148.601 sD3.8 0.241
sD1.13 0.235 sD3.9 0.392
sD1.14 0.349 sD3.10 0.338
sD1.15 0 sD3.11 0.143
sD2 sD2.1 0.095 sD3.12 11.313
sD2.2 0 sD3.13 0.013
sD2.3 0.098 sD3.14 0.027
sD2.4 0 sD3.15 0
sD2.5 0.034 sD4 sD4.1 0.097
sD2.6 0.023 sD4.2 0.145
sD2.7 0.041 sD4.3 0.087
sD2.8 0.107 sD4.4 0.131
sD2.9 0.318 sD4.5 0.061
sD2.10 0.334 sD4.6 0.071
sD2.11 0.127 sD4.7 0.095

electrical energy during the testing of the water and fertilizer irri- 3.5.2. sD2, sD3 and sD4
gation machine. According to Fig. 13, the assembly of the pipes The PCF of the entire sD2, sD3 and sD4 modules are relatively
requires the most PCF. The assembly and testing of the pH sensors small. The PCF of each stage of sD2, sD3, and sD4 could be obtained
and the assembly and testing of the EC sensors require the least PCF. by calculation. The PCF are small and could be ignored. Its PCF is still
retained based on the accuracy of the data.
The PCF of sD2, sD3, and sD4 are shown in Table 6, respectively.
3.4.2. sM2 and sM3
The PCF of the entire sM2 and sM3 modules are relatively small.
3.6. Return
The PCF of each stage of sM2 and sM3 could be obtained by
calculation. The PCF are small and could be ignored. But here, the
For water and fertilizer irrigation machines, Source Return
PCF is still retained to preserve the accuracy of the model. The PCF
Excess Product and Deliver Return Defective Product need to be
of sM2 and sM3 is shown in Table 4.
Table 7
PCF (kg CO2e) of return in SSC.
3.5. Deliver Process Sub-process Item PCF

Return sSR1 sSR1.1 0.021

The Deliver module is the same as Make module. The water and sSR1.2 0.063
fertilizer irrigation machine is universally standardized. Therefore, sSR1.3 0
the PCF in sD1 is mainly calculated. The (sD1.12) Ship Product in sD1 sSR1.4 0.011
occupies a major PCF. The PCF in sD2, sD3, and sD4 are relatively sSR1.5 3.746
sSR2 sSR2.1 0.013
small compared to the PCF in sD1, and the effect is small.
sSR2.2 0.067
sSR2.3 0
sSR2.4 0.012
3.5.1. sD1 sSR2.5 2.463
The following takes sD1.12 in sD1 as an example to illustrate the sSR3 sSR3.1 0.279
sSR3.2 0.739
process of calculating PCF. The PCF of sD1 is shown in Table 6.
sSR3.3 0
The PCF at this step EsD1:12 is calculated as Eq. (12). The trans- sSR3.4 0.128
portation of a water and fertilizer irrigation machine from Shanghai sSR3.5 39.45
to Beijing is used as an example, therefore Tij ¼ 1 and NsD1:12 ¼ 1. sDR1 sDR1.1 0
The transport vehicle is the freight car and PsD1:12 ¼ 1. The energy sDR1.2 0.348
sDR1.3 161.124
consumed is gasoline and TsD1:12 ¼ 1. The distance from Shanghai sDR1.4 13.412
to Beijing is about 1262 km and Lij ¼ 1262. The truck of 8 ton grade sDR2 sDR2.1 0
is 0.15L per km oil consumption and EIijk ¼ 0:15. The EC of gasoline sDR2.2 0.057
is 0.785 and Cijkt ¼ 0:785. Therefore, the PCF of water and fertilizer sDR2.3 4.213
sDR2.4 0.178
irrigation machine transportation process with Eq. (12) is
sDR3 sDR3.1 0.023
sDR3.2 0.036
EsD1:12 ¼ 148:601 ðkgCO2 eÞ (28) sDR3.3 2.371
sDR3.4 0.174
18 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

Table 8 3.6.1. sSR1 and sSR2

PCF (kg CO2e) of enable in SSC. PCF of the entire sSR1 and sSR2 modules are relatively small. PCF
Process Sub-process Item PCF Process Sub-process Item PCF of each stage of sSR1 and sSR2 could be obtained by calculation. PCF
Enable sE1 sE1.1 0.013 Enable sE6 sE6.5 0.026
are small and could be ignored. But here, PCF is still retained to
sE1.2 0.021 sE6.6 0.024 preserve the accuracy of the model. PCF of sSR1 and sSR2 is shown
sE1.3 0.014 sE6.7 0.019 in Table 7.
sE1.4 0.026 sE7 sE7.1 0.017
sE1.5 0.017 sE7.2 0.027
sE1.6 0.016 sE7.3 0.029
3.6.2. sSR3
sE2 sE2.1 0.015 sE7.4 0.023 The sSR3 submodule occupies the major PCF in sSR module.
sE2.2 0.027 sE7.5 0.027 However, the sSR3.5 almost occupies the PCF of the entire sub-
sE2.3 0.013 sE7.6 0.028 module in the sSR3 submodule. PCF of each stage of the submodule
sE2.4 0.027 sE7.7 0.024
sSR3 could be obtained by calculation, as shown in Table 7.
sE2.5 0.019 sE7.8 0.021
sE2.6 0.018 sE8 sE8.1 0.018
sE3 sE3.1 0.012 sE8.2 0.028 3.6.3. sDR1
sE3.2 0.026 sE8.3 0.026 The sDR1 submodule occupies the major PCF in the sDR module.
sE3.3 0.014 sE8.4 0.027
However, sDR1.3 almost occupies the PCF of the entire submodule
sE3.4 0.023 sE8.5 0.025
sE3.5 0.014 sE8.6 0.022 in the sDR1 submodule. PCF of each stage of the submodule sDR1
sE3.6 0.020 sE9 sE9.1 0.016 could be obtained by calculation, as shown in Table 7.
sE4 sE4.1 0.021 sE9.2 0.020
sE4.2 0.025 sE9.3 0.024
3.6.4. sDR2 and sDR3
sE4.3 0.018 sE9.4 0.028
sE4.4 0.026 sE8.5 0.023 PCF of the entire sDR2 and sDR3 modules are relatively small.
sE4.5 0.013 sE10 sE10.1 0.027 PCF of each stage of sDR2 and sDR3 could be obtained by calcula-
sE4.6 0.025 sE10.2 0.021 tion. PCF are small and could be ignored. But here, PCF is still
sE5 sE5.1 0.023 sE10.3 0.019
retained to preserve the accuracy of the model. PCF of sDR2 and
sE5.2 0.024 sE10.4 0.025
sE5.3 0.017 sE10.5 0.024
sDR3 is shown in Table 7.
sE5.4 0.029 sE10.6 0.028
sE5.5 0.020 sE10.7 0.014 3.7. Enable
sE5.6 0.026 sE11 sE11.1 0.023
sE5.7 0.021 sE11.2 0.027
sE5.8 0.019 sE11.3 0.031
This module subdivides many submodules. The process would
sE6 sE6.1 0.019 sE11.4 0.030 also generate PCF, but its PCF are small and have little impact on the
sE6.2 0.021 sE11.5 0.021 overall supply. But here, PCF is still retained to preserve the accu-
sE6.3 0.023 sE11.6 0.017 racy of the model. PCF of each stage of sE1 to sE11 could be obtained
sE6.4 0.025 sE11.7 0.015
by calculation. PCF of sE1, sE2, sE3, sE4, sE5, sE6, sE7, sE8, sE9, sE10,
and sE11 are shown in Table 8, respectively.

calculated in the modules involved in the Return process. There-
fore, PCF in sSR3 and sDR1 are mainly calculated. PCF in sSR1, sSR2,
sDR2, and sDR3 are small compared to PCF in sSR3 and sDR1, and
the impact is small.
3.8. Comparisons
Fig. 14 shows the PCF required and their percentage for the six
steps of Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, Return, and Enable. Among
them, the Return link requires the most PCF. PCF required for the
Plan and Enable links is minimal and negligible.

Fig. 14. PCF required and their percentage for each link.
 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320
Fig. 15. Five scenarios of PCF in SSC.
Based on the above calculation data, the total PCF of SSC of water
and fertilizer irrigation machine could be calculated as 474.306 kg
CO2e. In the future mechanization and intelligent agricultural pro-
duction, water and fertilizer irrigation machines would play an
important role. Assuming that the world demand for water and
fertilizer irrigation machine is 107 , the total PCF of SSC is 4:743
109 kg CO2e. Such a huge amount of CO2 would have a great impact
on the environment. We need to study the production of water and
fertilizer irrigation machines.
In the above description, a new PCF calculation model for supply
chain is proposed based on supply chain planning, raw materials,
manufacturing, transportation, return, and enable in PLC of the
water and fertilizer irrigation machine supply chain. A total of five
programs has been formed. In the planning module, reasonable
scheduling of production procurement plans could help reduce
ineffective work. In the raw material modules, reasonable pro-
curement plans could reduce the number of purchases. For
example, in the above production and test modules, PCF of the new
solution were reduced by 18.29%, 20.90%, 21.96%, and 16.86%
compared to the original four solutions. In the marine product
module, the production machine and production tester are prop-
erly allocated, making the planning and management of enterprise
management more reasonable. In order to increase production ef-
ficiency, PCF of the new program are reduced by 11.67%, 12.14%,
12.57%, and 10.31% compared with the original four of the above
production and test modules. In the marine product module, it
could effectively reduce PCF by arranging reasonable transportation
plans, transportation routes, and clean energy. In receiving defec-
tive products (including verification), the PCF of the new program
were reduced by 9.44%, 10.25%, 10.78%, and 8.89% compared with
the previous four options. In the return and enable modules,
reasonable plans have less energy consumption. In summary,
rational allocation of manpower and material resources could
improve machine production efficiency and reduce energy con-
sumption. Reasonable and efficient production management plan,
clean energy would help design better life cycle of products pro-
duction program and reduce PCF of SSC.
As shown in Fig. 15, by comparing PCF of the original four sce-
narios with the data of scenario 5, the PCF were reduced by 14.92%,
15.80%, 16.20%, and 13.96%. Scenario 5 is the optimal one. From a
qualitative perspective, the SCOR model provides a standard format
19
to facilitate communication. It is a useful tool for senior manage-
ment of a firm to design and reconfigure its supply chain to achieve
desired performance. From the perspective of quantitative analysis,
PCF in SSC guided by SCOR model is also optimized a lot. Take the
water and fertilizer irrigation machine in this paper as an example.
Among the three main PCF modules, the corresponding PCF de-
creases significantly after the introduction of SCOR model. It is very
important to research PCF of the supply chain model, which helps
to reduce resource waste and environmental protection.
4. Conclusions and future works
As GHGs emissions could arouse climate change, manufacturing
have the responsibility to reduce product carbon footprint. It is the
foundation to modeling PCF across SSC for the reducation of PCF.
The contribution of this paper is a systematic product carbon
footprint model across sustainable supply chain for product life
cycle. After the introduction of SCOR model, the specific SSC ac-
tivities are established one by one in detail. As the decision-making
during the SSC network have extensive impacts on PCF, it is
important to estimate PCF across SSC. This paper proposed the
detailed PCF model for each stage of SSC, including plan, source,
make, deliver, return, and enable stage. The water and fertilizer
irrigation machine is used to demonstrate the proposed
methodology.
Many future works are necessary in the following research. The
calculation accuracy of PCF is necessary to SSC. It is difficult to deal
with the uncertain information in SSC, with many aspects uncertain
information in PLC, for example, the energy consumed for receiving
the product. It is also needed in the future to focus on the research
of SSC design itself, as PCF could be deeply influenced during the
design stage. As PCF is one of the factors in PEF, which is a
comprehensive evaluation to the environmental impact, it is also
necessary to focus on the SSC for PEF in the future.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51675319) and Shanghai Science and
Technology Commission Project (No. 16391902502).
20 B. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118320

References Hervani, A., Helms, M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green supply
chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 12, 330e353.
Hilpert, H., Thoroe, L., Schumann, M., 2011. Real-time data collection for product
Bazan, E., Jaber, M.Y., Saadany, A.M., 2015. Carbon emissions and energy effects on
carbon footprints in transportation processes based on OBD2 and smartphones.
manufacturingeremanufacturing inventory models. Comput. Ind. Eng. 88,
In: The 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1e10.
307e316.
Hopkins, M.S., Blanco, E., 2010. The four-point supply chain checklist: how sus-
Benjaafar, S., Li, Y., Daskin, M., 2010. Carbon Footprint and the Management of
tainability creates new opportunity. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 51 (4), 65e69.
Supply Chains: Insights from Simple Models. Working Paper. University of
How, B.S., Lam, H.L., 2018. Sustainability evaluation for biomass supply chain syn-
Minnesota. http://www.isye.umn.edu/faculty/pdf/beyada-10-02-10-final.pdf.
thesis: novel principal component analysis (PCA) aided optimisation approach.
Bing, X., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., Chaabane, A., van der Vorst, J., 2015. Global reverse
J. Clean. Prod. 189, 941e961.
supply chain redesign for household plastic waste under the emission trading
Huan, Samuel H., Sheoran, Sunil K., Wang, Ge, 2004. A review and analysis of supply
scheme. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 28e39.
chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manag. 9 (1), 23e29.
Blanco, C., Caro, F., Corbett, C.J., 2016. The state of supply chain carbon footprinting:
Hugo, A., Pistikopoulos, E.N., 2005. Environmentally conscious long-range planning
analysis of CDP disclosures by US firms. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1189e1197.
€zkan, G., Berkol, C., 2011. Designing a sustainable supply chain using an and design of supply chain networks. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (15), 1471e1491.
Büyüko
ISO/TS 14067, 2013. Greenhouse GaseseCarbon Footprint of
integrated analytic network process and goal programming approach in quality
ProductseRequirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication.
function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11), 13731e13748.
€zkan, G., Cifci, G., 2013. An integrated QFD framework with multiple Kronborg, J.J., 2012. Product carbon footprint developments and gaps. Int. J. Phys.
Büyüko
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 42 (4), 338e354.
formatted and incomplete preferences: a sustainable supply chain application.
Lampert, P., Soode, E., Menrad, K., 2015. The carbon-conscious-consumer? A causal
Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (9), 3931e3941.
model for the product carbon footprint of asparagus at the consumer stage. Int.
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A., Paquet, M., 2012. Design of sustainable supply chains
J. Con. Stud. 39 (3), 269e280.
under the emission trading scheme. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (1), 37e49.
Lenzen, M., Murray, J., Sack, F., Wiedmann, T., 2007. Shared producer and consumer
Gao, Z.G., Zeng, L.B., He, B., Luo, T., Zhang, P.C., 2018. Type synthesis of non-
responsibility theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 61, 27e42.
holonomic spherical constraint underactuated parallel robotics. Acta Astro-
Martí, J.M.C., Tancrez, J.S., Seifert, R.W., 2015. Carbon footprint and responsiveness
naut. 152, 509e520.
trade-offs in supply chain network design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 166, 129e142.
Gharaei, A., Pasandideh, S.H.R., 2017. Modeling and optimization of four-level in-
Melo, M.T., Nickel, S., Saldanha-da-Gama, F., 2009. Facility location and supply chain
tegrated supply chain with the aim of determining the optimum stockpile and
management e a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 196 (2), 401e412.
period length: sequential quadratic programming. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 34 (7),
Metta, H., Badurdeen, F., 2013. Integrating sustainable product and supply chain
529e541.
design: modeling issues and challenges. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 60 (2),
Giannakis, M., Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Supply chain sustainability: a risk manage-
438e446.
ment approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 455e470.
mez-Luciano, C.A., Domínguez, F.R.R., Gonza lez-Andres, F., De Meneses, B.U.L., Moradinasab, N., Amin-Naseri, M.R., Behbahani, T.J., Jafarzadeh, H., 2018. Compe-
Go
tition and cooperation between supply chains in multi-objective petroleum
2018. Sustainable supply chain management: contributions of supplies markets.
green supply chain: a game theoretic approach. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 818e841.
J. Clean. Prod. 184, 311e320.
PAS-2050, 2011. The Guide to PAS 2050, How to Carbon Your Product Footprint,
Gopal, P.R.C., Thakkar, J., 2016. Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical
Identify Hotspots and Reduce Your Emission in the Supply Chain.
investigation on Indian automobile industry. Prod. Plan. Contr. 27 (1), 49e64.
Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S., Govindan, K., 2017. Evolution of sustainability in
He, B., Bai, K.J., 2019. Digital twin-driven sustainable intelligent manufacturing: a
supply chain management: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 299e314.
review. Adv. Manuf. (in press).
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F., Maxwell, J., 2001. Lean, Green, and the Quest for superior
He, B., Gu, Z., 2016. Sustainable design synthesis for product environmental foot-
environmental performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 228e243.
prints. Des. Stud. 45, 159e186.
Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
He, B., Hua, Y., 2017. Feature-based integrated product model for low-carbon con-
sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699e1710.
ceptual design. J. Eng. Des. 28 (6), 408e432.
Sitek, P., Wikarek, J., 2015. A hybrid framework for the modelling and optimisation
He, B., Wang, J., Huang, S., Wang, Y., 2015. Low-carbon product design for product
of decision problems in sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res.
life cycle. J. Eng. Des. 26 (10e12), 321e339.
53 (21), 6611e6628.
He, B., Tang, W., Huang, S., Hou, S., Cai, H., 2016. Towards low-carbon product ar-
Stewart, G., 1997. Supply-chain operations reference model (SCOR): the first cross-
chitecture using structural optimization for lightweight. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
industry framework for integrated supply-chain management. Logist. Inf.
Technol. 83 (5e8), 1419e1429.
Manag. 10 (2), 62e67.
He, B., Niu, Y.C., Hou, S.C., Li, F.F., 2018a. Sustainable design from functional domain
Sundarakani, B., Souza, R.D., Goh, M., Wagner, S.M., Manikandan, S., 2010. Modeling
to physical domain. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1296e1306.
carbon footprints across the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (1), 43e50.
He, B., Pan, Q.J., Deng, Z.Q., 2018b. Product carbon footprint for product life cycle
Supply Chain Council (SCC), 2017. Supply chain operations reference model. V.12.0).
under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 549e472.
Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., Pasqualino, R., 2013. Performance measurement of sustain-
He, B., Xiao, J., Deng, Z., 2018c. Product design evaluation for product environmental
able supply chains: a literature review and a research agenda. Int. J. Product.
footprint. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3066e3080.
Perform. Manag. 62 (8), 782e804.
He, B., Luo, T., Huang, S., 2019a. Product sustainability assessment for product life
Taticchi, P., Garengo, P., Nudurupati, S.S., Tonelli, F., Pasqualino, R., 2015. A review of
cycle. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 238e250.
decision-support tools and performance measurement and sustainable supply
He, B., Shao, Y.W., Wang, S., Gu, Z.C., Bai, K.J., 2019b. Product environmental foot-
chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53 (21), 6473e6494.
prints assessment for product life cycle. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 446e460.
Yue, D., Kim, M.A., You, F., 2013. Design of sustainable product systems and supply
He, B., Wang, S., Liu, Y.J., 2019c. Underactuated robotics: a review. Int. J. Adv. Robot.
chains with life cycle optimization based on functional unit: general modeling
Syst. 16 (4), 1e29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881419862164.
framework, mixed-integer nonlinear programming algorithms and case study
He, B., Li, F.F., Cao, X.Y., Li, T.Y., 2020. Product sustainable sesign: a Review from the
on hydrocarbon biofuels. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 1 (8), 1003e1014.
environmental, economic, and social aspects. ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.