Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-logistics-and-supply-chain

Role of lean, agile, resilient, green, and sustainable paradigm in

supplier selection
Harshad Sonar a, *, Angappa Gunasekaran b, *, Swati Agrawal c, Matthew Roy d
a
Operations and Supply Chain Management, Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management (SIOM), Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, Nasik 422101, India
b
School of Business Administration, Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA 17057-4898, USA
c
Economics and Strategy, National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Vihar Lake, Powai, Mumbai 400087, India
d
Center for Civic Engagement, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA 02747-2300, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Kannan Govindan During the new COVID-19 outbreak, companies are looking to sourcing leaders to assist them diversify their
supply base and prepare for a number of situations. In recent days, the role of emerging paradigms, including
Keywords: lean, agile, resilient, green, and sustainability (LARGS) in highly competitive supply chains, has been gaining
Lean momentum. However, there is no research on the LARGS paradigm for sustainable supplier selection in the
Agile
literature. The aim of this paper is to identify important criteria for supplier selection in the LARGS paradigm and
Green
to develop the hierarchical relationship between the criteria. This research has identified 22 key criteria for
Resilient
Sustainable Supply Chain supplier selection in the LARGS paradigm. Data were collected from 12 experts and analysed by interpretive
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) structural modeling (ISM). From the ISM model, it is observed that geographic location is placed at the bottom of
Supplier Selection the hierarchy, showing high driving power and the most important criteria while selecting any supplier. Lead
time also indicates high driving power and organizations must focus on the suppliers’ lead time to improve
product performance and introduce new products faster into the markets. The findings will help the practitioners
and policymakers to formulate supply chain robustness and resilience strategies to diminish supply chain risks
imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The presented model can be assessed as a strategic tool to select a supplier
who considers lean, agile, resilient, green, and sustainable criteria simultaneously to increase supply chain ef­
ficiency and effectiveness. The study is first of its kind to identify supplier selection criteria in LARGS paradigm
and develop hierarchical relationships between them using ISM approach.

1. Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) refers to logistics activities, plan­
ning, and control of material, information, and financial flow internally
and externally between organizations to meet the stakeholder’s re­
quirements (Chen and Paulraj, 2004). Effective business strategies are
required to manage both internal and external challenges in supply
chains and their various stages. In the past few decades, the supply chain
faces various pressures for sustainable business development (Sharma
et al., 2020; Shoukohyar and Seddigh, 2020), including environment,
global sourcing, demand uncertainties, shorter time to market. The long-
term goal to survive during the new COVID-19 outbreak is to thrive in
the “New Normal”. Additionally, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak
has upended various disruptions in the supply chain.
Moreover, due to economies of scale, when selling and procurement
process are rising, companies should pay attention to cost tightening.
Managing all stakeholders in the supply chain is challenging. To cope
with these issues, the enterprise must choose the right supplier that will
help reduce cost and remain competitive by meeting stakeholders’ ex­
pectations effectively and efficiently. The vulnerabilities in the current
supply chain strategies have been revealed that “out-of-the-box” solu­
tions are crucial for the global business environment. Organizations look
to sourcing leaders to help them diversify their supplier base and pre­
pare for a variety of scenarios.
Procurement has evolved over the last few years to include eco­
nomics, environmental and social considerations, and suppliers are the
triggers for the sustainable supply chain (Kannan, 2018b). Selection of
the best supplier is a more complex, multi-criteria decision-making
problem that requires performance evaluation to enhance operational
costs (Hadian et al., 2020; Mohammed et al., 2019). Mohammed et al.,

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: harshad.sonar@siom.in (H. Sonar), aqg6076@psu.edu (A. Gunasekaran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100059
Received 21 February 2022; Received in revised form 23 April 2022; Accepted 24 May 2022
Available online 27 May 2022
2772-3909/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Sonar et al.
(2021) and Ortiz-Barrios et al., (2020) suggested that the supply chain
should include a full range of purchasing, production, marketing,
packaging, and logistics activities from a sustainable perspective.
Various theories and evolving practices are suggested by various re­
searchers (Carvalho et al., 2017; Dey et al., 2019; Digalwar et al., 2020;
Guo et al., 2021; Lucía Sabogal-De La Pava et al., 2021; Vafaeenezhad
et al., 2019) for restructuring the traditional management philosophies
by the integration of lean, agile, resilient, and green supply chain for
sustainable development in this highly competitive environment.
It has been noticed that purchasing managers consider conventional
criteria for supplier selection (Lamba and Singh, 2019). In recent days,
the role of emerging paradigms, including lean, agile, resilient, green,
and sustainability (LARGS) in highly competitive supply chains, has
been gaining more attention from academicians and practitioners
(Pishchulov et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020). Few research studies
(Gupta et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Mohammed et al., 2019, 2021; Ortiz-
Barrios et al., 2020; Tundys et al., 2019; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2021)
discussed the synergies and various combinations of lean, agile, resil­
ient, green, and sustainable (LARGS) paradigm of the supply chain.
However, to remain competitive, companies must consider all supply
chain attributes, including lean, agile, resilient, green, for sustainable
supplier selection to attain long-term corporate success. Carvalho and
Cruz-Machado, (2011) have explained the linkage between the LARGS
paradigm. However, no study considers the LARGS paradigm for sus­
tainable supplier selection using interpretive structural modeling. Thus,
there is a need to address the following research questions (RQ):
RQ1: What are the important criteria required for sustainable sup­
plier selection, and which are the most important criteria?
RQ2: What is the role of the LARGS paradigm and sustainability in
supplier evaluation and selection criteria?
This research attempts to answer these questions identifying
important criteria for supplier selection in the LARGS paradigm. It em­
ploys an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach to develop the
hierarchical relationship between the criteria. The ISM method provides
hierarchy and finds interdependencies and their respective driving and
dependence powers of criteria, which helps decision-makers evaluate
the most important criteria for sustainable supplier selection.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Literature review is
presented in Section 2. Section 3 discusses the detailed methodology of
interpretive structural modeling. Results and discussions are presented
in Section 4 following with the conclusion and future research scope in
Section 5.
2. Overview of related literature
Understanding the level of social, environmental, and economic ef­
fect and viability that your suppliers have has become a vital part of any
organizations supply chain sustainability. Sustainability issues are of
more importance not only just going green and environment friendly,
but it extends from where the raw material is procured to the
manufacturing process and then recyclability of the product or service
(Digalwar et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2019; Pishchulov et al., 2019; Allen
et al., 2021) Nowadays, customers are becoming more aware of the
impact of products or services on the environment. To keep up with this
competitive environment, companies should always strive to demon­
strate their sustainability commitment, allowing them to reap countless
benefits (Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012).
Many different approaches on supplier selection have been used
including deterministic and stochastic optimization, markov chain,
simulation, bayesian networks, among researchers. However, the past
literature did not examine sustainable supplier selection from resilience
and sustainability point of view. Therefore, this work aims to study
supplier selection by integrating lean, agile, resilient, green, and sus­
tainability aspects of the supply chains. Next section discusses detailed
literature related to the lean, agile, resilient, green, and sustainable
(LARGS) paradigm in supplier selection. This section is divided into
2
Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059
subsections: (a) lean supply chain, (b) agile supply chain, (c) resilient
supply chain, (d) green supply chain, and (e) sustainable supply chain.
2.1. Lean supply chain
Taiichi Ohno (1998) developed the lean management principles at
Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan, focusing on waste reduction and
achieving higher profits (Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011). Optimi­
zation of inter-organizational processes directly linked by the upstream
and downstream flow of goods, information, and finance to minimize
the cost and waste (i.e., non-value adding activities) by applying lean
management principles is known as lean supply chain management
(Núñez-Merino et al., 2020). However, the application of lean principles
in the supply-chain context is pretty difficult. It requires greater coor­
dination and cooperation between various players involved in supply
chains. Lean supply chain finds a way to manage variability and effec­
tive utilization of assets to meet customer demand more rapidly (Arif-
Uz-Zaman and Ahsan, 2014; Carvalho et al., 2017; Tortorella et al.,
2017). By responding to customer demands more efficiently, quickly,
and predictably, organizations in a lean supply chain can have more
consumer value (Dey et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020).
2.2. Agile supply chain
Due to changing customer preferences, supply chains must be flex­
ible and respond quickly to market dynamics. In the agile supply chain,
flexibility and fast reconfigurability are the primary focus (Meyer et al.,
2020; Troise et al., 2022). Lean supply chain focuses on waste reduction,
whereas the agile supply chain focuses on coping with the volatile de­
mand and responds rapidly and cost-effectively both in terms of high
volume and high variety (Agarwal et al., 2007; Christopher and Towill,
2000). The supply chain agility depends on delivery speed, quality
improvement, customer satisfaction, cost minimization and service level
improvements (Agarwal et al., 2007; Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2022). The
agile supply chain is based on four constituents: virtual integration,
network-based, process alignment, and market sensitive. Since market
and demand patterns are changing continuously, there is a need to adopt
agile supply chain management to satisfy the end customers and
achieving a competitive advantage. Sharma et al., (2020) suggested a bit
of strategic advice by developing the new competence and open up new
product lines to cope with these volatile market demands.
2.3. Resilient supply chain
Due to the unpredictable and changing world, most organizations
emphasize resilience to cope with the uncertain business environment
(Rajesh, 2017). The ability of a supply chain to deal with unexpected
disruptions is referred to as a resilient supply chain. Supply chain players
must develop responsive capabilities through flexibility and redundancy
to recover from disturbance (Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011).
Rajesh and Ravi, (2015) defined resilient suppliers as “suppliers who can
provide good quality products at economy rates and flexible enough to
accommodate demand fluctuations with shorter lead times over a lower
ambiance of risk without compromising safety and environment practices”.
Thus, the selection of suppliers in a resilient supply chain is an important
strategic level decision. To make supply chain network more resilient,
managers may use one of six major strategies: (i) inventory and capacity
buffer, (ii) manufacturing network diversification, (iii) nearshoring, (iv)
multisourcing, (v) platform, product, or plant harmonization, and (vi)
ecosystem partnerships. The advantages of being a resilient supply chain
are anticipating and acting on the changes in the market and minimizing
the demand risk (Sharma et al., 2020).
2.4. Green supply chain
The green supply chain is becoming a major strategic thrust in
H. Sonar et al. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

business organizations for environmental enhancement, economic per­ Table 1

formance, and competitiveness (Rao and Holt, 2005). It encompasses Criteria and sub-criteria used for supplier selection.
the initiatives to enhance environmental performance, reduce waste and Criteria Sub-criteria References
cost-saving in inbound and outbound logistics, internal supply chain,
Lean Price Mohammed et al., (2019); Mohammed
and reverse logistics to eliminate adverse environmental impacts (Gupta et al., (2021); Liu et al., (2019)
et al., 2019; Rao and Holt, 2005). Changes in government policies like Collaboration with SC Rajesh and Ravi, (2015)
“initiatives on green growth and development in India”, seeks to create actors
evidence through systematic research to aid in the formulation of policy Zero inventory Sharma et al., (2020); Fazlollahtabar
et al., (2011)
decisions and green opportunities at the national levels of the sustain­ Lead time Mohammed et al., (2021); Venkatesh
able supply chain operations. It focuses on various R’s of the supply et al., (2019)
chain, including recycle, remanufacture, reduce, reverse logistics, Geographic location Tham et al., (2020); Ortiz-Barrios et al.,
refurbish etc. Green supply chain provides an opportunity for waste (2020); Tundys et al., (2019); Ahmad and
Mondal, (2019a); Janatyan et al., (2019);
reduction and effective and efficient consumption of resources by
Liu et al., (2019); Kannan, (2018)
minimizing ecological impact and environmental risks by internal sup­ Agile Response rate Pishchulov et al., (2019); Awasthi et al.,
ply chain resources (Carvalho et al., 2017; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; (2018)
Sharma et al., 2020; Benzidia et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019). It involves Capability for new Tundys et al., (2019); Luthra et al., (2017)
various supply chain activities from green purchasing, sustainable value product line
Innovation capability Tusnial et al. (2020); Ortiz-Barrios et al.,
stream mapping, eliminate packaging and implementing recycling ini­ (2020); Venkatesh et al., (2019); Kannan,
tiatives, environment management system, and lifecycle assessment (2018); Çakır, (2017)
tools (Ding et al., 2021; Dehghan-Bonari et al., 2021). The green supply Principle of Sharma et al., (2020)
chain reduces ecological damage and improvises economic profit postponement
Flexibility Mohammed et al., (2021); Venkatesh
without sacrificing competitive priorities (Srivastava, 2007). Green
et al., (2019); Janatyan et al., (2019);
supply chain principles can be applied throughout the entire supply Kannan, (2018); Luthra et al., (2017)
chain by aligning the following principles: (i) cleaner material sourcing After sales service Tham et al., (2020); Janatyan et al.,
and manufacturing, (ii) lower transport emissions, (iii) cleaner ware­ (2019); Kannan, (2018); Girubha et al.,
house operations, (iv) consolidated movement of goods, (v) reduction of (2016)
Information Janatyan et al., (2019)
transit distances, (vi) reduction of volumes, nodes, and total mass
integration
shipped using computerized route planning, and (vii) reuse and Resilient Capability for Sharma et al., (2020)
recycling. unexpected disruptions
Strategic capacity and Sharma et al., (2020)
inventory buffer
2.5. Sustainable supply chain
Capability for mass Lu et al., (2019)
customization
A sustainable supply chain has been gaining the momentum for both Green Capability for reverse Ortiz-Barrios et al., (2020); Moin and
industry and academia. A sustainable supply chain encompasses the logistics Sarwar, (2017); Mavi, (2015)
management of products and services, information, and finance in the Environment Mohammed et al., (2019); Mohammed
management system et al., (2021); Tham et al., (2020);
entire supply chain, considering goals from all three sustainable devel­ Pishchulov et al., (2019); Tundys et al.,
opment dimensions, i.e., economic, environmental, and social (Seuring (2019); Gupta et al., (2019); Liu et al.,
and Müller, 2008). Strategic orientation towards a sustainable supply (2019); Badri Ahmadi et al., (2017);
chain requires cooperation and coordination among the various supply Luthra et al., (2017); Mavi, (2015); Shaw
et al., (2013)
chain players and inter-organizational information sharing for higher
Sustainable value Kannan, (2018); Mavi, (2015)
competitive gains. Carter and Rogers, (2008) defined sustainable supply stream mapping
chain management as “the strategic, transparent integration and achieve­ Sustainable Sustainable product Liu et al., (2019); Kannan, (2018); Badri
ment of an organization’s social, environmental and economic goals in the design Ahmadi et al., (2017)
systemic coordination of key inter-organizational business processes for Lifecycle assessment Liu et al., (2019); Secundo et al., (2017);
system Shaw et al., (2013)
improving the long-term economic performance of the individual and its Reputation Tham et al., (2020); Ahmad and Mondal,
supply chain”. Mohanty, (2018) discussed various enablers for a sus­ (2019b); Secundo et al., (2017)
tainable supply chain, including sustainable product design, lifecycle Long-term relationship Tham et al., (2020); Ahmad and Mondal,
assessment system, adoption of green technology, satisfying the triple (2019a); Kannan, (2018)
bottom line, green logistics, etc. Lucía Sabogal-De La Pava et al., (2021)
proposed a mathematical programming model for sustainable supply
et al., 2020) highlighted the importance of management philosophies
chain design. To maintain a strategic position and long-term competi­
like lean, green, agile, resilient and sustainable (LARGS) to achieve long
tiveness, companies must choose their suppliers by performance evalu­
term success. However, research on integrating lean, agile, green,
ation considering triple bottom line, i.e., economic, environmental, and
resilient, and sustainable (LARGS) paradigm in supplier selection is not
social (Ageron et al., 2012; Digalwar et al., 2020; Kannan, 2018b). The
discussed in the literature. Hence, to fill this research gap, this paper is
sustainable supply chain is now recognized as a central component of
unique that identifies several generic criteria in the LARGS paradigm for
industrial sustainability by minimizing the environmental impacts,
supplier selection, as shown in Table 1. This study adopted interpretive
reducing operating costs, meeting customer needs, and related economic
structural modeling (ISM) approach to develop the hierarchical rela­
criteria (Fallahpour et al., 2017; Mohammed et al., 2018; Panigrahi
tionship between the identified criteria. The steps followed, and detailed
et al., 2019; Taticchi et al., 2013; Fritz et al., 2021; Lahane and Kant,
methodology is discussed in the next section.
2021).
3. Research methodology
2.6. Proposed criteria for supplier selection in LARGE paradigm
This work aims to establish a hierarchical relationship between
Many research studies (Ageron et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2017;
supplier selection criteria in the LARGS paradigm. Several researchers
Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011; Digalwar et al., 2020; Gupta et al.,
(Digalwar et al., 2020; Kamble et al., 2018, 2019,2020; Kannan, 2018a;
2019; Mohammed et al., 2019, 2021; Seuring and Müller, 2008; Sharma

3
H. Sonar et al. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

Table 2 been adopted for this study. A heterogeneous group of experts was
Expert profiles. selected to generalize the findings. We selected experts with a minimum
Sr. No. Position Experience in years of 5 years of experience in supplier selection and evaluation. Murry and
Hammons, (1995) recommended sample size of 5 to 15 experts to obtain
1 Purchasing analyst 5
2 Commodity manager 7 a quality result. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted with
3 Purchasing agent 7 selected experts to develop the contextual relationship between criteria.
4 International logistics manager 6 The interviews were performed during October and November 2021.
5 Sourcing analyst 12 The expert profiles are summarised in Table 2.
6 Systems support manager 10
7 Sourcing analyst 9
8 Supply chain manager 10 3.2. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
9 Purchasing analyst 8
10 Manager-logistics 9 ISM was first developed by the Warfield, (1973), in which a set of
11 Systems support manager 6
factors/criteria of different systems may be represented in a structured
12 Commodity manager 9
manner. It is well known technique for identifying the relationship be­
tween various linked parameters of a complex system (Watson, 1978).
Raut et al., 2021) have been used interpretive structural modelling (ISM) As a result, it helps in understanding inflicting order as well as direction
approach for developing hierarchical relationship between factors. of complicated relationship among factors (Raut et al., 2021). Direct and
Thus, an ISM approach has been employed in this study. The steps fol­ indirect relationships between identified factors can be established
lowed for ISM methodology are discussed next. using the ISM method by developing contextual relationships (Sonar
et al., 2020). Structural relationship between criteria has been devel­
oped in this work using ISM. The detailed steps followed for ISM have
3.1. Expert selection
been adopted from Sonar et al., (2020) and are shown in Fig. 1.
The first stage focused on selecting experts who are willing to
participate in this study. The non-probabilistic sampling method has

Fig. 1. Steps involved in ISM method (modified from Sonar et al., 2020).

4
H. Sonar et al. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

Table 3
Structural self-interaction matrix.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 – A A O O O O A A O V O O A A A O X A A O A
2 – – V O O O O O O O O O O O X O O O X X V V
3 – – – V O O O O A O V A O X A O A A A A O V
4 – – – – O A O V O V V O V V A A O V X V V V
5 – – – – – O X O X A V O O O O A O O O O V V
6 – – – – – – O O O O V V V V V V O X O O O V
7 – – – – – – – O X O V O O O O O O O O O X V
8 – – – – – – – – A O X O O A A O A O O A X A
9 – – – – – – – – – X V O O O O O O O O O V V
10 – – – – – – – – – – O O O O O A O A O O X V
11 – – – – – – – – – – – O O A A A A A A A A A
12 – – – – – – – – – – – – X X O A A A A A O V
13 – – – – – – – – – – – – – X O A A A A A O V
14 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X O X A X O V V
15 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – O X A X O V V
16 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X X A X O V
17 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – O V O V V
18 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – O O V V
19 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – O X V
20 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – V V
21 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – V
22 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1-Price; 2-Collaboration with SC actors; 3-Capability for unexpected disruptions; 4-Capability for new product line; 5-Sustainable value stream; 6-Innovation capa­
bility; 7-Lifecycle assessment system; 8-Long-term relationship; 9-Geographic location; 10-Strategic capacity and inventory buffer; 11-Reputation; 12-Information
integration; 13-Principle of postponement; 14-Sustainable product design; 15-Manufacturing flexibility; 16-Lead time; 17-Capability for reverse logistics; 18-Capa­
bility for mass customization; 19-Environment management system; 20-Response rate; 21-Zero inventory; 22-After sales service.

Table 4
Initial reachability matrix.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
9 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
14 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
15 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
16 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
18 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
20 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3.2.1. Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) 3.2.2. Reachability matrix

A pairwise comparison matrix has been developed for identified 22
criteria. Inputs from industry experts have been taken for developing a
contextual relationship between the criteria. The contextual relation­
ships presenting the pairwise relationships between various criteria can
be described using V, A, X, and O.
V means criteria i lead to criteria j;
A means criteria j lead to criteria i;
X means criteria i and j are interrelated;
O means criteria i and j are unrelated.
All responses were correlated through the consensus method which
is most suitable in this method (Kannan, 2018b; Kulkarni et al., 2019;
Sonar et al., 2020). The SSIM is developed based on the highest fre­
quency assigned to V, A, X, and O, as shown in Table 3.
V, A, X, and O values are substituted by 1 and 0 to develop initial
reachability matrix (Table 4) by adopting following rule.
If the cell (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, the cell (i, j) entry in the
reachability matrix becomes 1, and the cell (j, i) entry becomes 0.
If the cell (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, the cell (i, j) entry in the
reachability matrix becomes 0, and the cell (j, i) entry becomes 1.
If the cell (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, the cell (i, j) entry in the
reachability matrix becomes 1, and the cell (j, i) entry also becomes 1.
If the cell (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, the cell (i, j) entry in the
reachability matrix becomes 0, and the cell (j, i) entry also becomes 0.
The final reachability matrix is developed by introducing the tran­
sitivity to maintain conceptual consistency. After incorporating the
transitivity using MATLAB software, the final reachability matrix is
prepared and presented in Table 5. The driving power and dependence

5
H. Sonar et al. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

Table 5
Final reachability matrix.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Driving power

1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 14
2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
5 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 11
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
7 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 11
8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 9
9 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 14
10 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 11
11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
12 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 13
13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 12
14 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 18
15 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
17 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22
19 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
20 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
21 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 18
22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5
Dependence power 22 11 19 14 12 5 15 22 8 18 22 15 15 16 15 12 13 14 19 10 22 21

power has been calculated by summing up all entries in the rows and
columns.
3.2.3. Level partitions
The final reachability matrix has been used to find reachability set
and antecedent set. Then, the intersection of these sets is derived for all
factors. The factors for which the reachability and intersection sets are
the same are placed at the top-level in the ISM hierarchy, as shown in
Table 6. Remaining levels has been identified by continuing the same
process (Table 7). These levels help in building the final ISM model.
3.2.4. Formation of ISM model
The ISM-based model derived from each level partitions is as shown
in Fig. 2. The ISM model shows the comprehensive relationship between
criteria.
3.2.5. Classification of criterions
The ISM-based model is further classified based on the driving and
dependence powers of each criterion. The driving and dependence
power of each criterion are plotted on the x and y-axis. All criteria are
divided into four clusters, viz. autonomous, dependent, linkage, and
driving cluster, as shown in Fig. 3. For example, criteria 1 has a driving
power of 14 and a dependence power of 22. Thus, criteria 1 is plotted
corresponding to its driving power and dependence power. The in­
ferences based on classification are discussed in the next section.
4. Discussions
Climate changes pose a new risk to the supply chain and hence, needs
to increase their resilience. In the COVID-19 outbreak, most organiza­
tions are looking for long-term solutions to thrive in the “New Normal.”
Most organizations are experiencing disruptions in their supply chain
and operations, including both suppliers and consumers. Companies
need to assess and adapt quickly to changing market demand to sustain
in this volatile market. Organizations must think beyond traditional
philosophies like lean and agile. They should consider re-baselining
their variables by integrating resilient and green practices for a sus­
tainable supply chain. When thinking about the new normal, many
leaders across the industry should take the opportunity to re-evaluate
their operating models by adding flexibility and become less suscepti­
ble to supply risks. Organizations are looking for sourcing leaders to
diversify their supplier bases and prepare for a variety of potential
scenarios. In the aftermath of the crisis, the procurement has quickly
emerged as a critical enabler of strategic agility, shifting from an eco­
nomic focus to environmental and social perspectives. Therefore, to
remain competitive, companies must consider all supply chain attri­
butes, including lean, agile, resilient, green, for sustainable supplier
selection to attain long-term corporate success.
This research attempts to fill this gap by identifying important
criteria in the lean, agile, resilient, green, and sustainable (LARGS)
paradigm for supplier selection and establishing a hierarchical rela­
tionship between them. For this, a list of criteria is identified from the
past literature. The ISM-based model has been used to develop the
interrelationship between criteria, including its driving power and
dependence power. Driving power and dependence power provided
valuable insight regarding the degree of dependency on each other. The
criteria are classified into four clusters, as shown in Fig. 3. The most
significant criteria are placed at the bottom of the hierarchy. From the
ISM model, it is observed that geographic location is placed at the bot­
tom of the hierarchy (Level 8), showing high driving power (Fig. 2) and
the most important criteria while selecting any supplier. This factor is
absent in the study done by Digalwar et al., (2020), but found at the
second level in Tham et al., (2020). For this, a strategic plan must be
initiated for supplier selection focusing on reshoring or near-shoring
production and supply facilities and considering localization issues
versus globalization of supply chains. The criterions placed at the bot­
tom of the hierarchy include geographic location, lead time, innovation
capability, and response rate, drive the other criteria situated above
them. Lead time is placed at level 7, indicating high driving power.
Organizations must focus on the suppliers’ lead time to improve product
performance and introduce new products faster into the markets. This
allows companies to quick respond for volatile market and customer
demand in a short lead time. Level 5 constitutes collaboration with SC
actors, capability for new product line, sustainable product design,
capability for mass customization, capability for reverse logistics, and
manufacturing flexibility. These criterions are important to diversify
product portfolio and enhance the supply chain stability and robustness.
New ways of handling global supply chain and procurement strategies
including supplier selection must be reimagined.
From the perspective of rethinking the supply chain, the role of
digital technologies and coordination mechanisms in the “new normal”
business environment must be explored for the future pandemic-proofed
resilient, robust, and sustainable supply chain. This might be possible by
considering criterions such as information integration, capability for

6
H. Sonar et al. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

unexpected disruptions, deploying environment management systems,

Level
and the principle of postponement (Level 3 criteria). These are the
middle-level criteria that act as a linkage for the whole system and
1

1
generally have high driving and dependence power. The sustainable
value stream is placed at level 4 with low driving and dependence
power. Thus, it does not influence much on the supplier selection pro­
cess. These criteria may possess a weak relationship with other criteria.

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,21,22
Level 1 criteria are treated as highly dependent factors, including price,
long-term relationship, reputation, and zero inventory. If suppliers want
1,3,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,21,22

to maintain a long-term relationship and build a reputation with a

company, they need to concentrate more on the triple bottom line which
includes the social, economic, and environmental aspects.
1,7,8,10,11,18,19,21,22

5. Conclusions, contribution and future research directions

To remain competitive, companies must consider all supply chain

Intersection set

attributes, including lean, agile, resilient, green, for sustainable supplier

1,8,11,21

selection to attain long-term corporate success. However, research on

integrating lean, agile, green, resilient, and sustainable (LARGS) para­
digm in supplier selection is not discussed in the literature. This work
investigated the supplier selection criteria based on the lean, agile,
resilient, green, and sustainable supply chain. To answers the research
questions RQ1, a total of twenty-two criteria are identified from past
academic literature. These sub-criterions are then classified into lean,
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

agile, resilient, green, and sustainable criterions. Next, to answer the

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

RQ2, an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach has been used

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

to develop the hierarchical relationship between the criteria.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

Geographical location and lead time are identified as the most important
1,2,3,4,6,9,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

criteria for supplier selection. Additionally, the driving and dependence

1,2,3,4,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21
1,2,3,4,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

1,2,3,4,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21
2,4,5,7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21
2,3,4,6,9,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

power of each criterion has been identified and grouped into four
2,3,4,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20
1,2,3,4,6,8,9,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

clusters. The results revealed that geographical location is identified as

1,2,4,6,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21
4,5,6,7,9,10,16,17,18,19,20,21
2,4,6,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21

the most important criteria for supplier selection. The criterions placed
at the bottom of the model are geographic location. lead time, innova­
2,3,4,6,15,16,17,18,19,20

tion capability and response rate. This work offers guidance on supplier
4,5,7,9,10,16,18,21

selection by understanding what managers do if they are requested to

integrate any of the paradigm (lean, resilient, green, and agile) along
Antecedent set

with sustainability into their decision making. Organizations face both

1,4,6,16,18

challenges and opportunities when it comes to making sustainability

decisions, decisions on the trade-offs between long-term sustainability
and short-term profitability are hazardous and ambiguous. The theo­
retical contributions, managerial implications and limitations of the
study are discussed below.

5.1. Theoretical contributions

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22
1,2,3,4,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

1,2,3,4,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22

There is growing interest for various disruptions in the supply chain

1,2,3,4,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,22

due to Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Companies needs to integrate

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,21,22
1,3,4,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22

lean, agile, resilient, and green supply chain practices for sustainable
development in this highly competitive environment. Twenty-two
1,3,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,21,22

criteria are identified from extensive literature review. The use of ISM
1,3,4,8,11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,22
1,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,14,18,19,21,22

1,3,8,11,12,13,14,15,17,19,21,22

approach provides a theoretical foundation to the identified criteria. The

ISM hierarchy can help decision-makers evaluate the most important
1,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,19,21,22

1,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,19,21,22

1,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,19,21,22

criteria for sustainable supplier selection to achieve long-term compet­

1,7,8,10,11,18,19,21,22

itiveness. Management clearly understands the hierarchy of the criteria

for selecting suitable suppliers. Accordingly, suitable strategies may be
Reachability set

formulated based on the driving power and dependence power of each

1,8,11,21,22

criterion.
1,8,11,21

This study also contributes by identifying important supplier selec­

Level partition – iteration 1.

tion criteria in the LARGS paradigm. The study is first of its kind to
identify supplier selection criteria in LARGS paradigm and develop hi­
erarchical relationships between them using ISM approach. However,
other factors may be considered which are important in the LARGS
paradigm with different combinations such as (i) integration of lean,
agile, and sustainable; (ii) combination of lean, agile, green, and resil­
Criteria
Table 6

ient; (iii) combination of agile, resilient, green, and sustainable, etc.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

More criteria from inbound and outbound logistics in the LARGS

7
H. Sonar et al. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059

Table 7
Identified levels.
Criteria Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1 1,3,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,21,22 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 1,3,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,21,22 1

2 2,4,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,6,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,14,15,16,17,18,20 5
3 3,4,10,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,20 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 3,4,10,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,20 3
4 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20 5
5 5,7,9 4,5,6,7,9,16,17,18,20 5,7,9 4
6 4,6,16,20, 4,6,16 4,6,16 6
7 5,7,9, 2,4,5,7,9,14,15,16,17,18,20, 5,7,9 4
8 1,7,8,10,11,18,19,21,22 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 1,7,8,10,11,18,19,21,22 1
9 4,9 9 9 8
10 3,5,7,9,10,19 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 3,5,7,9,10,19 3
11 1,8,11,21 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 1,8,11,21 1
12 3,4,12,13,14,15,17,19 2,3,4,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 3,4,12,13,14,15,17,19 3
13 3,12,13,14,15,17,19 2,3,4,6,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20, 3,12,13,14,15,17,19 3
14 2,4,14,15,16,17,18 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,14,15,16,17,18, 5
15 2,4,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,6,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,14,15,16,17,18,20 5
16 4,9,16 4,16 4,16 7
17 2,4,14,15,16,17,18,20, 2,4,6,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,14,15,16,17,18,20 5
18 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20, 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20 2,4,6,9,14,15,16,17,18,20 5
19 2,3,4,5,7,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20, 2,3,4,5,7,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 3
20 4,16,20, 4,6,16,20 4,16,20 6
21 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,21,22 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,21,22 1
22 22 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,22 22 2

Fig. 2. ISM-based model.

paradigm may be considered in the future. Supplier selection criteria
may vary with different organizational levels, for example, strategic,
operational, and tactical levels. On similar lines, criteria may be
different for different production systems.
5.2. Managerial implications
The various managerial implications can be drawn from the findings
of this study. Important managerial implications are as follows:
First, managers of allied businesses may focus on identified supplier
evaluation criteria considering the triple bottom line thrive in the “New
Normal.” This will help them to restrict to enter insignificant suppliers in
the supply chain.
The methodology developed in this study for supplier selection in the
LARGE paradigm can be used by businesses to help them adopt an in­
tegrated system to select the best supplier.
The results presented in this work can help supply chain stakeholders
to formulate supply chain robustness and resilience strategies to
diminish supply chain risks imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study provided an interrelationship between all LARGS para­
digm criteria for sustainable supplier selection to attain long-term
corporate success. This would help practitioners and policymakers to

8
H. Sonar et al.
Fig. 3. Clusters of criterions.
emphasize sourcing strategies.
The presented model can be assessed as a strategic tool to select a
supplier who considers lean, agile, resilient, green, and sustainable
criteria simultaneously to increase supply chain efficiency and effec­
tiveness for expanding the scope of business model.
This study will help organizations assess their suppliers’ pros and
cons under the triple bottom line (social, economic, and environmental)
for performance evaluation to create a greater business value. Based on
this, companies may suggest few improvement areas to their suppliers to
consider sustainability aspects in the supply chain for long-term
competitive advantage and to meet volatile market demand.
Supplier growth is an obvious candidate for improved management
in the business world, rapidly evolving towards an environmentally
conscious supply chain. The hierarchy of different criteria using the ISM
model will give a better picture of suitable supplier selection in a LARGS
paradigm.
5.3. Limitations and future directions
Further studies may be conducted by considering different criteria
among various operational levels and production systems. Among lim­
itations, the identified criteria are from a generic perspective. However,
context-specific supplier selection criteria may provide a distinct
perspective. Another limitation is that data were collected from 8 re­
spondents. Considering the small sample size, a generalization of the
findings to all industrial sectors is not possible. Therefore, further
research is needed considering a large sample size that can improve the
findings via different MCDM methods to establish the relationships.
Moreover, a ranking of different criteria may be obtained using different
MCDM methods like AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and DEMATEL. And
finally, further studies may use structural equation modelling (SEM) to
validate the developed model statistically.
Funding
Not applicable.
Availability of data and material
Not Applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Ethics approval
The authors confirm that none of the material in the paper has been
9
Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059
published or under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Consent to participate and for publication
All the authors listed have approved the manuscript, consented to
participate, and consented for publication.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., 2007. Modeling agility of supply chain. Ind.
Mark. Manage. 36 (4), 443–457.
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., 2012. Sustainable supply management: An
empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ., Elsevier 140 (1), 168–182.
Ahmad, M.T., Mondal, S., 2019a. Dynamic supplier selection approach for mining
equipment company. Journal of Modelling in Management 14 (1), 77–105.
Ahmad, M.T., Mondal, S., 2019b. Dynamic supplier selection through optimal ranking
under two-echelon system. Benchmarking Internat. J. 26 (8), 2574–2607.
Allen, S.D., Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2021. Expanding conceptual boundaries of the sustainable
supply chain management and circular economy nexus. Cleaner Log. Supply Chain 2,
100011.
Arif-Uz-Zaman, K., Ahsan, A.M.M.N., 2014. Lean supply chain performance
measurement. Internat. J. Product. Perform. Manage. 63 (5), 588–612.
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., Gold, S., 2018. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection
using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ., Elsevier B.V. 195,
106–117.
Badri Ahmadi, H., Hashemi Petrudi, S.H., Wang, X., 2017. Integrating sustainability into
supplier selection with analytical hierarchy process and improved grey relational
analysis: a case of telecom industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 90 (9–12),
2413–2427.
Benzidia, S., Makaoui, N. and Bentahar, O. (2021), “The impact of big data analytics and
artificial intelligence on green supply chain process integration and hospital
environmental performance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier
Inc., Vol. 165, p. 120557.
Çakır, S., 2017. Selecting the best supplier at a steel-producing company under fuzzy
environment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 88 (5–8), 1345–1361.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
Moving toward new theory. Internat. J. Phys. Distrib. Log. Manage. 38 (5), 360–387.
Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., 2011. Integrating lean, agile, resilience and green
paradigms in supply chain management (LARG_SCM). Supply Chain Management
27–48.
Carvalho, H., Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Cruz-Machado, V., 2017. Modelling green and
lean supply chains: An eco-efficiency perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Elsevier
B.V. 120, 75–87.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Understanding supply chain management: Critical research
and a theoretical framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (1), 131–163.
Christopher, M., Towill, D.R., 2000. Research note Supply chain migration from lean and
functional to agile and customised. Supply Chain Manage. Internat. J. 5 (4),
206–213.
Dehghan-Bonari, M., Bakhshi, A., Aghsami, A., Jolai, F., 2021. Green supply chain
management through call option contract and revenue-sharing contract to cope with
demand uncertainty. Cleaner Log. Supply Chain 2, 100010.
Dey, P.K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S., Abdelaziz, F.B., 2019. Could lean
practices and process innovation enhance supply chain sustainability of small and
medium-sized enterprises? Business Strat. Environ. 28 (4), 582–598.
Digalwar, A., Raut, R.D., Yadav, V.S., Narkhede, B., Gardas, B.B., Gotmare, A., 2020.
Evaluation of critical constructs for measurement of sustainable supply chain
practices in lean-agile firms of Indian origin: A hybrid ISM-ANP approach. Business
Strat. Environ. 29 (3), 1575–1596.
Ding, J., Chen, X., Sun, H., Yan, W., Fang, H., 2021. Hierarchical structure of a green
supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng., Elsevier Ltd 157, 107303.
Fallahpour, A., Udoncy Olugu, E., Nurmaya Musa, S., Yew Wong, K., Noori, S., 2017.
A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply
chain management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 105, 391–410.
Fazlollahtabar, H., Mahdavi, I., Ashoori, M.T., Kaviani, S., Mahdavi-Amiri, N., 2011.
A multi-objective decision-making process of supplier selection and order allocation
for multi-period scheduling in an electronic market. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 52
(9-12), 1039–1052.
Fritz, M.M., Ruel, S., Kallmuenzer, A. and Harms, R. (2021), “Sustainability management
in supply chains: the role of familiness”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 173, available at:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121078.
Girubha, J., Vinodh, S., Kek, V., 2016. Application of Interpretative Structural Modelling
integrated Multi Criteria Decision Making methods for sustainable supplier selection.
Journal of Modelling in Management 11 (2), 358–388.
Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., 2012. Sustainability of manufacturing and services:
Investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ., Elsevier 140 (1),
35–47.
H. Sonar et al.
Guo, Y., Yu, J., Boulaksil, Y., Allaoui, H., Hu, F., 2021. Solving the sustainable supply
chain network design problem by the multi-neighborhoods descent traversal
algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng., Elsevier Ltd 154, 107098.
Gupta, S., Soni, U., Kumar, G., 2019. Green supplier selection using multi-criterion
decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry.
Comput. Ind. Eng., Elsevier 136 (140), 663–680.
Hadian, H., Chahardoli, S., Golmohammadi, A.M., Mostafaeipour, A., 2020. A practical
framework for supplier selection decisions with an application to the automotive
sector. Int. J. Prod. Res., Taylor & Francis 58 (10), 2997–3014.
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Busso, D. and Yahiaoui, D. (2022), “Towards
agility in international high-tech SMEs: Exploring key drivers and main outcomes of
dynamic capabilities”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier Inc., Vol.
174, p. 121272.
Janatyan, N., Zandieh, M., Tabriz, A.A., Rabieh, M., 2019. A rapid method for
sustainable supplier selection in pharmaceutical distribution companies under
uncertainty circumstance. International Journal of Procurement Management 12 (5),
572–591.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Raut, R.D., 2019. Analysing the implementation barriers
of dual cycling in port container terminal using interpretive structural modeling-
Indian context. Internat. J. Log. Res. Appl. Taylor & Francis 22 (2), 119–137.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Sharma, R., 2018. Analysis of the driving and dependence
power of barriers to adopt industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing industry. Comput.
Ind., Elsevier 101 (May), 107–119.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Sharma, R., 2020. Modeling the blockchain enabled
traceability in agriculture supply chain. Int. J. Inf. Manage., Elsevier 52, 101967.
Kannan, D., 2018a. Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for
the sustainable supplier selection process. Int. J. Prod. Econ., Elsevier B.V. 195,
391–418.
Kannan, D., 2017. (2018b), “Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor
theory for the sustainable supplier selection process”. Int. J. Prod. Econ., Elsevier Ltd
195 (April), 391–418.
Kulkarni, S., Verma, P., Mukundan, R., 2019. Assessing manufacturing strategy
definitions utilising text-mining. Int. J. Prod. Res., Taylor & Francis 57 (14),
4519–4546.
Lahane, S., Kant, R., 2021. Evaluating the circular supply chain implementation barriers
using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP-DEMATEL approach. Cleaner Log. Supply Chain 2,
100014.
Lamba, K., Singh, S.P., 2019. Dynamic supplier selection and lot-sizing problem
considering carbon emissions in a big data environment. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang., Elsevier 144, 573–584.
Li, G., Shao, S., Zhang, L., 2019. Green supply chain behavior and business performance:
Evidence from China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., Elsevier 144, 445–455.
Liu, Y., Eckert, C., Yannou-Le Bris, G., Petit, G., 2019. A fuzzy decision tool to evaluate
the sustainable performance of suppliers in an agrifood value chain. Comput. Ind.
Eng., Elsevier 127, 196–212.
Lu, Z., Sun, X., Wang, Y., Xu, C., 2019. Green supplier selection in straw biomass industry
based on cloud model and possibility degree. J. Cleaner Prod., Elsevier Ltd 209,
995–1005.
Lucía Sabogal-De La Pava, M., Julio Vidal-Holguín, C., Fernando Manotas-Duque, D.,
José Bravo-Bastidas, J., 2021. Sustainable supply chain design considering indicators
of value creation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 157, 107294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2021.107294.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K., Garg, C.P., 2017. An integrated
framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains.
J. Cleaner Prod., Elsevier Ltd 140, 1686–1698.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Agarwal, V., Appolloni, A., Saikouk, T. and Gnanavelbabu, A. (2021),
“Integrating lean and agile practices for achieving global sustainability goals in
Indian manufacturing industries”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Elsevier Inc., Vol. 171, p. 120982.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., Geng, Y., 2013. An ISM approach for
the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Cleaner
Prod., Elsevier Ltd 47, 283–297.
Mavi, R.K., 2015. Green supplier selection: A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ARAS approach.
Internat. J. Services Operations Manage. 22 (2), 165–188.
Meyer, M.M., Glas, A.H., Eßig, M., 2020. Systematic review of sourcing and 3D printing:
make-or-buy decisions in industrial buyer–supplier relationships. Manage. Rev.
Quarterly, Springer International Publishing 71 (4), 723–752. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11301-020-00198-2.
Mohammed, A., Harris, I. and Govindan, K. (2019), “A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach
for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 217 No. May 2017, pp. 171–184.
Mohammed, A., Harris, I., Soroka, A., Naim, M., Ramjaun, T., Yazdani, M., 2021.
Gresilient supplier assessment and order allocation planning. Ann. Oper. Res.,
Springer, US 296 (1–2), 335–362.
Mohammed, A., Setchi, R., Filip, M., Harris, I., Li, X., 2018. An integrated methodology
for a sustainable two-stage supplier selection and order allocation problem.
J. Cleaner Prod. 192, 99–114.
Mohanty, M., 2018. Assessing sustainable supply chain enablers using total interpretive
structural modeling approach and fuzzy-MICMAC analysis. Manage. Environ.
Quality: Internat. J. 29 (2), 216–239.
10
Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain 4 (2022) 100059
Moin, C.J., Sarwar, F., 2017. Maximising the purchaser’s satisfaction through supply
chain upstream management. Internat. J. Operat. Res. 30 (3), 375–390.
Murry, J.W., Hammons, J.O., 1995. Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting
qualitative research. Rev. Higher Educ. 18 (4), 423–436.
Núñez-Merino, M., Maqueira-Marín, J.M., Moyano-Fuentes, J., Martínez-Jurado, P.J.,
2020. Information and digital technologies of Industry 4.0 and Lean supply chain
management: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (16), 5034–5061.
Ortiz-Barrios, M., Cabarcas-Reyes, J., Ishizaka, A., Barbati, M., Jaramillo-Rueda, N., de
Jesús Carrascal-Zambrano, G., 2020. A Hybrid Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Model for Selecting a Sustainable Supplier of Forklift Filters: A Case Study from the
Mining Industry. Ann. Operat. Res., Springer, US 307 (1-2), 443–481. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10479-020-03737-y.
Panigrahi, S.S., Bahinipati, B., Jain, V., 2019. Sustainable supply chain management: A
review of literature and implications for future research. Manage. Environ. Quality:
Internat. J. 30 (5), 1001–1049.
Pishchulov, G., Trautrims, A., Chesney, T., Gold, S. and Schwab, L. (2019), “The Voting
Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to
sustainable supplier selection”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier
B.V., Vol. 211 No. April 2018, pp. 166–179.
Rajesh, R., 2017. Technological capabilities and supply chain resilience of firms: A
relational analysis using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM). Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 118, 161–169.
Rajesh, R., Ravi, V., 2015. Supplier selection in resilient supply chains: A grey relational
analysis approach. J. Cleaner Prod., Elsevier Ltd 86, 343–359.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance? Internat. J. Operations Product. Manage. 25 (9), 898–916.
Raut, R.D., Yadav, V.S., Cheikhrouhou, N., Narwane, V.S., Narkhede, B.E., 2021. Big data
analytics: Implementation challenges in Indian manufacturing supply chains.
Comput. Ind., Elsevier B.V. 125, 103368.
Secundo, G., Magarielli, D., Esposito, E., Passiante, G., 2017. Supporting decision-making
in service supplier selection using a hybrid fuzzy extended AHP approach: A case
study. Business Process Manage. J. 23 (1), 196–222.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. J. Cleaner Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
Sharma, V., Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Narkhede, B.E., Luthra, S., Gokhale, R., 2020.
A systematic literature review to integrate lean, agile, resilient, green and
sustainable paradigms in the supply chain management. Business Strat. Environ.
1–22.
Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S.S., Thakur, L.S., 2013. Global supplier selection
considering sustainability and carbon footprint issue: AHP multi-objective fuzzy
linear programming approach. Internat. J. Operat. Res. 17 (2), 215–247.
Shoukohyar, S., Seddigh, M.R., 2020. Uncovering the dark and bright sides of
implementing collaborative forecasting throughout sustainable supply chains: An
exploratory approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., Elsevier 158, 120059.
Sonar, H., Khanzode, V. and Akarte, M. (2020), “Investigating additive manufacturing
implementation factors using integrated ISM-MICMAC approach”, Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1837–1851.
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature
review. Internat. J. Manage. Rev. 9 (1), 53–80.
Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., Pasqualino, R., 2013. Performance measurement of sustainable
supply chains: A literature review and a research agenda. Internat. J. Product.
Perform. Manage. 62 (8), 782–804.
Tham, T.T., Duc, N.T.T., Dung, T.T.M., Nguyen, H.P., 2020. An integrated approach of
ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier selection. Internat. J. Procurement Manage. 13
(5), 701–735.
Tortorella, G.L., Miorando, R., Marodin, G., 2017. Lean supply chain management:
Empirical research on practices, contexts and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ.,
Elsevier B.V. 193, 98–112.
Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A. and O’Regan, N. (2022), “How can SMEs
successfully navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital
transformation era”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier Inc., Vol.
174, p. 121227.
Tundys, B., Rzeczycki, A., Fernando, Y., 2019. A framework for analysis of the supplier
selection in green supply chain. Internat. J. Product. Quality Manage. 28 (1), 40–67.
Tusnial, A., Sharma, S.K., Dhingra, P., Routroy, S., 2020. Supplier selection using hybrid
multicriteria decision-making methods. Internat. J. Product. Perform. Manage. 70
(6), 1393–1418. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2019-0180.
Vafaeenezhad, T., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Cheikhrouhou, N., 2019. Multi-objective
mathematical modeling for sustainable supply chain management in the paper
industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 135, 1092–1102.
Venkatesh, V.G., Zhang, A., Deakins, E., Luthra, S., Mangla, S., 2019. A fuzzy AHP-
TOPSIS approach to supply partner selection in continuous aid humanitarian supply
chains. Ann. Oper. Res., Springer, US 283 (1–2), 1517–1550.
Warfield, J.N., 1973. Intent Structures. IEEE Trans. SystemsMan Cybern. SMC-3 (2),
133–140.
Watson, R.H., 1978. Interpretive structural modeling-A useful tool for technology
assessment? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 11 (2), 165–185.