J Bus Econ (2013) 83:87–97

DOI 10.1007/s11573-012-0643-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Complex problems with multiple stakeholders:

how to bridge the gap between reality and OR/MS?

Luk N. Van Wassenhove • Maria Besiou

Published online: 8 January 2013

Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract The world becomes increasingly complex and problems tend to be

broader and multidisciplinary. At the same time, OR/MS research seems to be
narrowing down, building even more on analytical models. The flip side is the risk
that OR/MS is increasingly diverging from reality and that its dominant paradigm
becomes insufficient to guide us in understanding and solving complicated real-
world problems. A methodology that allows a broader insight into exploring a
complex system’s behaviour is urgently needed to guide OR/MS analytical models.
We propose system dynamics as a methodology to link reality with the dominant
OR/MS paradigm of narrowly focused and highly analytical models.

Keywords Operations research
Management science
System dynamics

Complexity

JEL Classification Z00

1 Introduction

The world is changing rapidly. People, goods and information travel easily and fast
across state boundaries in a widely interconnected world. We become more familiar
with different cultures and connect to people in ways we could not imagine even a
few years ago. At the same time, we also get connected to companies. These
companies are accountable not only to their typical stakeholders like shareholders

L. N. Van Wassenhove (&)

INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau, France
e-mail: Luk.VAN-WASSENHOVE@insead.edu

M. Besiou
Kuehne Logistics University, Brooktorkai 20, 20457 Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: Maria.Besiou@the-klu.org

123
88 L. N. Van Wassenhove, M. Besiou

for their profitability, or state regulatory authorities, but also to new ones like non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) for their social and environmental profiles and,
of course, to consumers (e.g. through social media). The goals and objectives of
these various groups are not necessarily the same as the companies’ and many times
they are quite different.
Let’s take Nestlé as an example. In 2010 Greenpeace conducted an investigative
report of suppliers of palm oil, a key ingredient for Nestlé and other multinational
food makers and, as a result, targeted Nestlé with a global boycott for destroying the
rainforest. A ‘‘commercial’’ on YouTube in which an employee, while opening a kit
kat candy bar, finds himself eating a blood-spouting orang-utan finger, implied the
apes suffer from clearing forests for palm oil plantations. The ‘‘commercial’’ had
many followers. So even if Nestlé was acting according to the shareholders’ interest,
it was not necessarily acting in the interests of the broader community that
Greenpeace and its followers sought to represent.
Another example is the supply chain of Nike, the international retail sportswear
company. Some decades ago its suppliers were based in developed countries. To
decrease the production cost in the short-run and become more competitive, Nike
moved its supply to developing countries losing some control over its suppliers’
operations. In June 1996 Life magazine showed a young boy with pieces of a Nike
soccer ball around him who would spend most of his day stitching them together for
60 cents. News media (Gevirtz 1996; Ikram 1996), activist groups (including
UNICEF and Sweatshop Watch) and student groups (Duncan 1997) supported union
and NGO protests. Their campaign was also noticed by consumers and regulators
alike (Palazzo and Basu 2007). In the end these stakeholder pressures forced Nike
into establishing a code of conduct on labour and environmental practices
(O’Rourke 2006).
Optimisation models are often accused of being highly stylised representations of
problems that achieve robust results while sacrificing contextual information
(Besiou et al. 2012a). They frequently ignore time delays induced by various
actions, complexity arising from multiple feedbacks caused by typical non-linear
interactions of multiple stakeholders, and may capture a single trade-off but hardly
interconnected ones. Current research is also accused of becoming increasingly
disengaged from real-world applications and not being directly relevant to
practitioners (Sodhi and Tang 2008). Applying operations research (OR)/manage-
ment science (MS) is not always sufficient. Therefore we need to choose a
methodology that will allow us to achieve insights into the big drivers of a complex
system’s behaviour rather than precise solutions to sub-problems that may crop up.
We suggest system dynamics (SD) as a methodology that can link reality with the
OR/MS models.
System dynamics is a powerful methodology for obtaining insights into problems
of dynamic complexity and policy resistance. SD is based on feedback loop/control
theory. Models are developed using differential equations and the results arise
through simulations. Sterman (1991) mentions that ‘‘if the system to be optimised is
relatively static and free of feedback, optimisation may well be the best technique to
use’’. SD can capture the behaviour of dynamic, non-linear systems with feedback
loops, time delays and uncertainty. It can also capture the differences between short-

123
Complex problems with multiple stakeholders 89

term and long-term consequences of an action. It is used to suggest strategies that

can improve the behaviour of a system but it cannot provide optimised solutions.
Forrester introduced SD in the 1960s as a modelling and simulation methodology in
dynamic management problems (Forrester 1961). Since then SD has been applied to
various environmental problems, business policy and strategy (Sterman 2000). SD
can help in providing solutions to complex problems that real-world operations face.
The objective of this paper is threefold; first to show that current academic
research fails to capture all aspects of today’s complexity, second to identify the
characteristics of complex real-world problems and third to suggest a methodology
that could capture this complexity.
In Sect. 2 we present examples of complex real-world problems with multiple
stakeholders with Sect. 3 identifying the characteristics these problems have in
common. Section 4 suggests system dynamics methodology as a precursor of
analytical OR/MS modelling and gives examples of linking reality with OR/MS
research through SD models. Finally, Sect. 5 presents our conclusions.

2 Multi-stakeholder problems

In this section we present three examples of complex real-world problems.

Specifically, Sect. 2.1 presents an example on reverse logistics. Section 2.2 focuses
on humanitarian logistics and Sect. 2.3 on corporate responsibility. The important
thing to keep in mind is that all entail multiple stakeholders and cannot be reduced
to ‘‘maximise profit’’ or indeed maximise any other static single-stakeholder
objective function.

2.1 Reverse logistics: the WEEE case

Technological progress, mass consumption and shortening product lifecycles have

increased worldwide production. More raw materials are used and available landfills
are filling up. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is one of the major
and fastest growing waste streams in the world. In Europe the annual increase of
WEEE is 16–28 % (Cui and Forssberg 2007). In an effort to control disposal of
WEEE, many countries have implemented regulatory measures holding producers
responsible for take-back and recycling. One such regulatory measure is the
European Union (EU) WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC (2002).
In most EU countries producers are held responsible for financing the recovery of
their products either through an individual recycling system or through joining a
producer responsibility organisation (PRO) that organises and finances collection
and recycling activities (Mayers et al. 2011). The PRO can either collect WEEE
directly from consumers or pick up WEEE from the waste streams collected by
municipalities. The implementation of the WEEE Directive faces many challenges
due to multiple stakeholders with conflicting goals.
First, producers would like to access good quality WEEE in order to maximise
revenue from reuse or recycling. However, there is uncertainty regarding the age of
returns (time delay between sales and disposal), their quality and quantity. The

123
90 L. N. Van Wassenhove, M. Besiou

quality of WEEE depends, among others, on transportation. The latter is usually

organised by municipalities who have little or no interest in careful handling.
Furthermore, regulatory measures governing WEEE recovery are different
throughout the world making it hard for producers to comply.
Second, PROs want to maximise profit by increasing the quantity of WEEE
collected and recycled. However, despite stringent environmental regulations
imposed by governments through increased minimum collection and recycling
percentages (WEEE Directive), scavenging by specific social groups is still
considerable (Medina 2000). Scavengers often compete with PROs since they battle
for the same resources (Besiou et al. 2012b). Consumers may also resist returning
their used products for recovery. Another challenge PROs face is the price volatility
of recycled materials which dynamically affects their profitability. So producers,
PROs, municipalities, consumers, scavengers and other stakeholders have conflict-
ing goals.
OR/MS research has mainly focused on sub-systems ignoring some stakeholders.
For example most models of reverse supply chains and official waste streams ignore
scavenging. Therefore, many of these studies cannot capture the impact scavengers
have on the operations of the formal recovery system, like decreased collection
rates. Besiou et al. (2012b) included operations of scavengers in their system
dynamics model and found that they can severely constrain profitability of the
formal waste recovery system. Hence they suggest that a legislation incorporating
scavengers into the formal waste recovery system (instead of either ignoring or
prohibiting their participation) is beneficial for economic, environmental and social
sustainability. The impact of multiple stakeholders with conflicting objectives on
WEEE recovery needs to be further explored with OR/MS models. Clearly, our
example shows that OR/MS models should incorporate scavengers since they
substantially impact outcomes of policies in practice.
In fact, not only practice and research should be linked, but education as well.
Therefore education in OR/MS could also benefit from research that studies the
impact of multiple stakeholders with conflicting objectives on reverse logistics and
sustainability in a broader sense. For example regarding WEEE recovery, from a
pedagogical perspective students could initially analyse the impact of a sub-system
including scavengers on WEEE recovery and then try to capture the key issues with
a parsimonious OR/MS model to derive general design principles or policy
recommendations.

2.2 Humanitarian logistics

International Humanitarian Organisations (IHO) are non-profits providing relief and

humanitarian assistance. Most IHO are based in developed countries, while their
programmes (operations) are usually implemented in developing countries (Staple-
ton et al. 2009). Safety issues, time pressures, staff turnover and high levels of
uncertainty can arise in some locations (Van Wassenhove 2006; Beamon and Balcik
2008). Consequently, IHO are typically decentralised.
Many IHO have a dual mission since they implement relief and development
programmes simultaneously (Besiou et al. 2012a). Relief programmes are

123
Complex problems with multiple stakeholders 91

characterised by short duration (typically 3 to 4 months), urgency (the first weeks of

response are critical) and high uncertainty (demand is stochastic). Therefore, fleet
management for relief operations usually focuses on equity, with higher costs in
order to achieve fast response (Pedraza-Martinez et al. 2011). On the other hand,
development programmes are characterised by long duration (1 year to more than
10 years), low urgency and little uncertainty (Pedraza-Martinez et al. 2010). Since
fleet management for development usually faces budget constraints, it focuses on
cost efficiency to reach more beneficiaries. However, low cost solutions typically
imply longer response times.
IHO are accountable to donors, who provide funding for relief and development
programmes (Jahre and Heigh 2008; Oloruntoba and Gray 2006), and they are also
accountable to the beneficiaries and the international community and not all of them
share the same objectives. Another important challenge IHO face is the increasing
frequency and impact of disasters and their changing nature. For example, in the
Haiti earthquake economic underdevelopment, resource over-utilisation, political
instability and increased urbanisation have increased the impact of the earthquake
(Besiou et al. 2011). The Tohoku disaster clearly illustrated the complex
interrelation between earthquake, tsunami and nuclear incident in a strongly
urbanised region. Along with the increasing impact of disasters, the number of
stakeholders increases as well. There are lots of new stakeholders per disaster who
do not necessarily participate in every relief operation. In Haiti there were more than
1,000 new NGOs. The stakeholders can be local or international humanitarian
organisations, private sector companies, governments, military, local communities,
churches, not to forget the increasing importance and presence of media, including
social media. Consequently, the complexity of implementing and coordinating
efficient relief programmes has greatly increased.
Even though IHO are typically decentralised and implement relief and
development programmes simultaneously existing OR/MS humanitarian logistics
literature has focused on analytical models assuming centrally planned humanitarian
systems, with a focus on either relief or development. Therefore, many of these OR/
MS models are practically irrelevant.
Besiou et al. (2012a) study the IHO dual mission of relief and development
capturing both short-term effects of relief and long-term effects of development
programmes in decentralised, stochastic operations. Using system dynamics they
find that a system characterised by local procurement and a short lead time may take
longer to supply transportation for relief operations than a system with global
procurement and longer lead times. Thus, even if in business logistics research a
decentralised system being closer to the customer has a higher service level than a
centralised one, in decentralised IHO transferring fleet between programmes funded
by different donors is either not allowed or requires the IHO to engage in sometimes
lengthy negotiations with donors. Hence the impact of decentralisation and the
different nature of relief and development need to be further explored with OR/MS
models.
Education in OR/MS could use examples of humanitarian logistics contrasting
them to examples of private logistics companies. From a pedagogical perspective,
using Besiou et al. (2012a) as a starting point, the students could initially try to

123
92 L. N. Van Wassenhove, M. Besiou

explore the impact of the sub-system of decentralisation on the operations of

humanitarian organisations at a conceptual level and then capture the right trade-
offs with parsimonious OR/MS models.

2.3 Corporate responsibility (CR) and stakeholder media

Today’s quick flow of information has made consumers aware of what is happening
around the world and better equipped to fight for a better quality of life.
Expectations are changing and consumers may prefer environmentally friendly
products from companies with a good social and environmental reputation.
Companies increasingly invest in CR strategies under pressure from employees,
consumers and society in general.
Along with changing consumer expectations, one of the outcomes of the financial
crisis is that society should not blindly trust big business. Company CR policies are
being watched by shareholders, financial analysts, consumers, employees, regula-
tors, NGOs, media, and society as a whole. All these stakeholders have conflicting
goals. Shareholders and financial analysts focus mostly on the company’s
profitability. Employees support their interests and oppose for example a factory
closure, even if this would increase a company’s profitability. Regulators increase
legislation, which usually raises the cost of goods or services. NGOs criticise
companies for not being environmentally friendly or not promoting social
sustainability. The media are keen to publish negative news about companies, as
this tends to boost sales. Traditional media are gradually losing power to social
media and media controlled by stakeholder communities and groups (stakeholder
media, see Hunter et al. 2011). Therefore an important challenge to companies in
implementing a CR strategy is to anticipate reactions from (new) stakeholder
groups. OR/MS research has not paid any attention to complex interactions that
arise with the implementation of new CR strategies.
Consider as an example BP PLC, the world’s second-largest oil firm. In 2000 BP
made an announcement branding itself as ‘‘Beyond Petroleum’’ (Hunter et al. 2011)
promising, among others, to produce greener fuels and to install photovoltaic panels
on the roofs of their retailers. With this campaign BP sought to show to the public an
oil firm concerned not only about its own profits but also about the planet’s future.
At the beginning, even if some news media and investors were skeptical towards the
campaign and others ridiculed it, most thought of it as an example of successful and
effective rebranding. However, some environmental groups accused BP of being
dishonest while others were even more aggressive. For example, Greenpeace
redefined BP as ‘‘Burning the Planet’’, occupied one of BP’s arctic drilling
operations, and sought to organise BP’s activist shareholders against management
(Hunter et al. 2011).
BP eventually dropped the ‘‘Beyond Petroleum’’ campaign. This, however, was
not the outcome of reactions of environmental groups, investors and news media but
largely because of the reactions of its own employees and the stakeholder media
they used. A series of accidents at Prudhoe Bay, along with accusations that BP was
failing to meet its own safety and environmental standards, were reported by
employees on their own online media. Soon enough, these reports drew the attention

123
Complex problems with multiple stakeholders 93

of news media and regulators. In 2005, a serious accident at BP’s refinery in Texas
City and an oil spill in Alaska severely damaged the ‘‘Beyond Petroleum’’
campaign.
Besiou et al. (2010) apply system dynamics to understand the interaction of
stakeholders whose opinions and activities affected the ‘‘Beyond Petroleum’’
branding campaign of BP in 2001–2005 (Hunter et al. 2011). The analysis showed a
complex system full of feedback loops where, at different moments, different
stakeholders play a highly visible watchdog function in defence of their own
objectives. These delayed responses of stakeholders made the system even more
complex and it became impossible for the company to regain control. Following this
SD analysis, specific impacts of CR policies could be further explored with targeted
OR/MS models, e.g. to explore when and why employees would turn against their
company and how this could be avoided.
A pedagogical case for the students could also be built from the BP case to be
used in education in OR/MS as a real-world problem that research can tackle. For
example, the students could first try to understand the impact that the employees can
have on a company’s CR strategy at a conceptual level and then to design a
parsimonious OR/MS model to capture some specific trade-offs.

3 Common characteristics of multi-stakeholder problems

In this section we identify common characteristics of the multiple-stakeholder

problems presented in Sect. 2. First, all these problems are characterised by
uncertainty, different factors that change dynamically through time and there are
time delays. Specifically, in the example of reverse logistics (WEEE case, Sect. 2.1)
there is uncertainty regarding the age of the returns (which depends on the usage
period) and their quality and quantity.
Second, problems tend to change dynamically through time. For example in
humanitarian logistics (Sect. 2.2) the frequency and impact of disasters is
increasing. Moreover, there is a large number of different stakeholders that are
changing by disaster.
Finally, problems tend to be much broader involving many stakeholders with
conflicting goals. For example in the CR and stakeholder media case (Sect. 2.3)
companies are at the same time accountable for their decisions not only to their
shareholders, financial analysts and consumers but also to media, employees,
regulators, and NGOs. See summary in Table 1.

4 Using system dynamics as a precursor to building analytical OR/MS models

The dominant OR/MS paradigm is to find optimal solutions for analytical

representations of specific sub-systems of real-world problems. In systems where
the impact of different stakeholders with conflicting goals creating feedback loops
through their dynamic actions is limited, optimisation may indeed be the best
methodology to use. However, today’s real-world problems are increasingly

123
94 L. N. Van Wassenhove, M. Besiou

Table 1 Common characteristics of multi-stakeholders real-world problems

Characteristics Reverse logistics: Humanitarian logistics CR and stakeholder media
the WEEE case

Uncertainty Returns quantity, Timing, place and magnitude of New forms of media
quality and age disaster controlled by stakeholders
Needs of beneficiaries
Dynamics Changing material Increased frequency and impact Changing consumer
prices of disasters expectations
Increased diversity of Changing media landscape
stakeholders (large number, (decreasing power, trust,
changing by disaster, lots of influence of traditional
new ones) media)
Time delays Usage period Time of response Time for reaction
Stakeholders Producers, Beneficiaries, donors and Shareholders, financial
with consumers, international community analysts, consumers, media,
conflicting PROs, employees, regulators,
goals municipalities, NGOs, society
scavengers

characterised by complexity. Consequently, the gap between complex real-world

problems and stylised analytical OR/MS models is widening. System dynamics can
be the link between reality and the OR/MS paradigm by identifying the important
sub-systems that need to be studied through capturing the whole system and
exploring the drivers of behaviour. OR/MS models can then focus on these critical
sub-systems and design optimised solutions (Fig. 1).
Globalisation and the added risks and complexities of multi-stakeholder
problems provide opportunities for doing research on challenging real issues.
Moreover, they call for incorporating more uncertainty, feedbacks and time delays.
In order to fill the gap between reality and OR/MS research or in different words
the gap that lies between the real system and the optimised sub-system, we suggest
using a research approach that would first attempt to capture the ‘‘big picture’’.
System dynamics can capture feedback loops, time delays, and uncertainty in
systems where time is an important element and has been successfully used to study
the behaviour of complex dynamic systems.
We believe that what we propose in Fig. 1 is fundamental. Of course, SD may
not be the unique way to capture complex problems and act as precursor to guide
OR/MS modelling. At the same time one could think of an iterative procedure
instead of the more linear one implied by Fig. 1, where the results of the OR/MS
research can feed back into an SD model. Finally, one should include the test of

Fig. 1 System dynamics

linking reality with OR/MS
Sub-problem:
Complex System view:
OR/MS
problems SD simulation
optimisation
“Explorers” “Designers”
Critical sub-systems Design principles

123
Complex problems with multiple stakeholders 95

reality, i.e. do the recommendations of the OR/MS model work in practice? In this
way, the current dominant OR/MS paradigm of narrowly defined models will be
better anchored in reality since this triangulation ensures that relevant and critical
sub-problems of a larger reality are tackled and recommendations and insights do
indeed work in practice.
A good example is the humanitarian context with decentralisation. Besiou et al.
(2012a) show, using SD, that if the IHO has more relief operations (rather than
development) and the exchange of resources between programs is difficult, then the
higher the decentralisation the worse the service level. Subsequently, Bhattacharya
et al. (2012) build on the results of Besiou et al. (2012a) to develop a stylised
operations economics model that includes the decentralisation and propose policy
guidelines to create a central entity to allocate resources.
In the WEEE example, Karakayali et al. (2012) study the impact of recycling
targets imposed by legislation on the operations of an original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) who develops both manufacturing and remanufacturing
activities. However, their model especially in calculating the total disposal amount
ignores products collected by scavengers. Scavenging decreases returns via official
collection channels making it harder for OEMs to comply and hence to
remanufacture (Besiou et al. 2012b). The OR/MS model of Karakayali et al.
(2012) could be extended to include scavengers and the analysis repeated to detect
at what level of scavenging recommended policies would have to be changed.
Besiou et al. (2010) study, using SD methodology, the ‘‘Beyond Petroleum’’
branding campaign to understand the challenges BP faced. However, the paper did
not explore the cost for BP of losing the war on Beyond Petroleum versus the cost
that would have resulted if they would have tried to control their employees even
more. OR/MS research could help answer this question. In such models, the cost of
leaking information and the cost of offering amenities to their employees (to keep
them satisfied) should be incorporated.

5 Conclusions

Most of today’s problems are dynamic, complex, with multiple feedbacks, and
multiple stakeholders with conflicting objectives. Time delays and uncertainty only
add to the complexity. As Yogi Berra said ‘‘The Future Ain’t What it Used to Be!’’
and we should get ready for that.
To solve these problems, we need further research. However, no analytical
methodology can tackle all of the complexity that real-world problems face. At the
same time, OR/MS research is criticised for increasingly diverging from reality.
OR/MS research focuses on optimising (narrowly defined) sub-systems, rather than
attempting to capture the whole system. Therefore, it is claimed that the findings of
its research cannot inform actual practice in a useful and comprehensive way.
What is needed is a methodology which, by capturing the whole system, would
identify the drivers of specific behaviour and the important sub-systems OR/MS
research should optimise. System dynamics methodology could be one such link as
we have shown with examples.

123
96 L. N. Van Wassenhove, M. Besiou

The objectives of this paper were to: (1) examine whether current academic
research captures all aspects of today’s complexity; (2) identify common
characteristics of complex real-world problems; and (3) suggest a methodology
that could capture the complexity.
To achieve the first objective, in Sect. 2 examples of three complex real-world
problems with multiple stakeholders were presented. Gaps of OR/MS research were
identified as well as examples of SD research that tried to address these gaps. For
each problem examples for education in OR/MS from the pedagogical perspective
were provided.
To achieve the second objective Sect. 3 identified the characteristics these
problems have in common. The main characteristics are the complexity due to
uncertainty, the dynamic nature of the problem and time delays.
To address the third objective, system dynamics methodology is recommended as
a precursor of analytical OR/MS modelling (Sect. 4). SD is appropriate because it
can capture complex feedback loops and time delays. It can therefore suggest
multiple opportunities for analytical models looking for generic design principles or
policy guidelines that would help avoid problems with multiple stakeholders.
In all the three cases, SD and OR/MS analytical models presented form a solid
tandem as suggested by Fig. 1. We hope our paper will generate more discussion
and follow-up research on our central theme.
To conclude, we would like to emphasise that we do not claim this paper to be
either ground-breaking or completely new. Many of the things we describe were
said in one form or another before. There is a large literature on the relevance of
OR/MS as well as on the tendency in scientific research to become increasingly self-
referential and, as a consequence, irrelevant to practice (Sodhi and Tang 2008;
Singhal and Singhal 2012a; Singhal and Singhal 2012b). We avoided this huge
literature on purpose, preferring to simply discuss the current status. Our point is
deceptively simple: problems are becoming more complex while OR/MS research is
focusing on narrower topics, and this happens at an increasing rate. Consequently,
the gap widens and we need to react if we want OR/MS to continue to play an
important role in real-world problem-solving as it did so well in its World War II
origins (Singhal and Singhal 2012a).
We chose to illustrate our key premise with examples of complex multi-
stakeholder problems and to suggest some simple avenues to reverse the trend.
What is proposed does not require OR/MS to change its dominant paradigm but
allows it to remain relevant by focusing its models on critical sub-systems of
complex realities. By producing design principles or policy guidelines OR/MS can
continue to contribute to complexity reduction and management of complex
problems.

References

Beamon BM, Balcik B (2008) Performance measure in humanitarian relief chains. Int J Public Sector
Manag 21(1):4–25

123
Complex problems with multiple stakeholders 97

Besiou M, Hunter ML, Van Wassenhove LN (2010) A crowd of watchdogs: toward a system dynamics
model of media response to corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility initiatives. INSEAD
working paper
Besiou M, Stapleton O, Van Wassenhove LN (2011) System dynamics for humanitarian operations.
J Humanit Logist Supply Chain Manag 1(1):78–103
Besiou M, Pedraza-Martinez AJ, Van Wassenhove LN (2012a) The effect of earmarked funding on fleet
management for relief and development. INSEAD working paper 2012/10/TOM/ISIC
Besiou M, Georgiadis P, Van Wassenhove LN (2012b) Official recycling and scavengers: symbiotic or
conflicting? Eur J Oper Res 218(2):563–576
Bhattacharya S, Hasija S, Van Wassenhove LN (2012) Designing efficient resource procurement and
allocation mechanisms in humanitarian logistics. INSEAD working paper
Cui J, Forssberg E (2007) Characterization of shredded television scrap and implications for materials
recovery. Waste Manage (Oxford) 27:415–424
Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on WEEE.
European Union (13 February 2003)
Duncan C (1997) Activists share information about Nike with Dean Smith. Associated Press Newswires
(31 October)
Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge
Gevirtz L (1996) Reebok invites Nike to stamp out child labor. Reuters News (26 September)
Hunter ML, Van Wassenhove LN, Besiou M, Van Halderen M (2011) The agenda-setting power of
stakeholder media. INSEAD working paper
Ikram T (1996) Nike plant in Pakistan takes aim at child labor. Reuters News (25 November)
Jahre M, Heigh I (2008) Does the current constraint in funding promote failure in humanitarian supply
chains? Supply Chain Forum 9(2):44–54
Karakayali I, Boyaci T, Verter V, Van Wassenhove LN (2012) On the incorporation of remanufacturing
in recovery targets. Working paper, available online: http://people.mcgill.ca/files/tamer.boyaci/
RecoveryTargetsWP.pdf
Mayers CK, Peagam R, France C, Basson L, Clift R (2011) Redesigning the camel: the European WEEE
directive. J Ind Ecol 15(1):4–8
Medina M (2000) Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America. Resour Conserv Recycl 31:51–69
O’Rourke D (2006) Multi-stakeholder regulation: privatizing or socializing global labor standards? World
Dev 34(5):899–918
Oloruntoba R, Gray R (2006) Humanitarian aid: an agile supply chain? Supply chain manag
11(2):115–120
Palazzo G, Basu K (2007) The ethical backlash of corporate branding. J Bus Ethics 73(4):333–346
Pedraza-Martinez AJ, Hasija S, Van Wassenhove LN (2010) An operational mechanism design for fleet
management coordination in humanitarian operations. INSEAD working paper 2010/87/TOM/ISIC
Pedraza-Martinez AJ, Stapleton O, Van Wassenhove LN (2011) Field vehicle fleet management in
humanitarian operations: a case-based approach. J Oper Manag 29:404–421
Singhal K, Singhal J (2012a) Imperatives of the science of operations and supply-chain management.
J Oper Manag 30(3):237–244
Singhal K, Singhal J (2012b) Opportunities for developing the science of operations and supply-chain
management. J Oper Manag 30(3):245–252
Sodhi MS, Tang CS (2008) The OR/MS ecosystem: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Oper Res 56(2):267–277
Stapleton O, Pedraza Martinez AJ, Van Wassenhove LN (2009) Fleet care: servicising in the
humanitarian world. INSEAD case study no. 09/2009-5631
Sterman JD (1991) A skeptic’s guide to computer models. In: Barney GO, Kreutzer WB, Garrett MJ (eds)
Managing a nation: the microcomputer software catalog. Westview Press, Boulder
Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-
Hill, New York
Van Wassenhove LN (2006) Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear. J Oper
Res Soc 57:475–489

123