Chapter 8

The Impact of Cluster Involvement on

Supply Chain Sustainability Performance:
Introducing the Sustainability/Involvement
Index
Mona Ali Ali

Abstract
The main problem addressed by this research is the current debate between
the negative and positive effects of industrial clusters. This debate is a result
of gaps between theoretical implications and empirical evidence in both the
classical agglomeration theory and the agglomeration lifecycle theory. The
purpose of this study is to propose a framework for developing an index
measuring both organizational cluster involvement and organizational sup-
ply chain including the three pillars (economic, social, and environmental).
Furthermore, the index acts as a quantitative predictor of the stages of the
life cycle of industrial clusters. Adopting a case study methodology, the
applicability of the index development framework is demonstrated. First,
cross-sectional exploratory interviews are performed to locate items
measuring the three pillars of organizational sustainability within Egyptian
communication industry. Second, an explanatory, cross-sectional approach
is applied gathering data from eight professionals related to involvement and
supply chain sustainability of their organizations. Analytical hierarchical
process is used for weighting and aggregating individual item metrics into
two indicators (Saaty, 1980). Measuring, managing, and controlling capa-
bilities of organization’s supply chains outweighs the need to manage risks.
The proposed framework aids firms within a cluster in making timely deci-
sions about what needs addressing to improve supply chain sustainability
performance. Hence, all environmental, social, and economic capabilities
can be effectively monitored and controlled.

Industry Clusters and Innovation in the Arab World, 225–257

Copyright © 2023 Mona Ali Ali
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
doi:10.1108/978-1-80262-871-520231010
226 Mona Ali Ali

Keywords: Supply chain sustainability; cluster involvement; agglomeration;

telecommunication; AHP; index development

Introduction
Agglomeration or industrial clustering is the placement of interdependent orga-
nizations within close proximity to each other. The topic of industrial clusters in
the economic realm has been an important research area in development studies
since the 1970s (Kaya & Koc, 2018). The classical agglomeration theory proposes
that having interdependent organization in close proximity to each other would
increase their overall performance (Jackson, Bekele, & Randall, 2006). One of the
claimed reasons behind increased organizational performances within industrial
clusters is the optimization of the supply chain functions (Wang, Lin, & Shi,
2021). This claim has been met with both positive and negative responses espe-
cially when supply chain sustainability performance is the main concern. On a
positive note, considering economic sustainability, “The combination of the two
(Agglomeration and Supply chain management) can effectively increase the
competitive advantage of industries so as to enhance regional economic com-
petitiveness” (Han, 2009).
Supply chain efficiency has been shown to increase in industrial clusters due to
(1) increased collaboration and shared effects between enterprises at each node of
supply chain, and (2) industrial clusters reduce interenterprise transaction costs
and improve operational efficiency of supply chains (Han, 2009). Other studies
found positive relationships between agglomeration and green development (Xie
& Li, 2021). These studies are in accord with the classical agglomeration theory,
which claims that agglomerations yields positive returns. On a negative note,
although increasing the efficiency of supply chains increases the overall perfor-
mance of the organizations, sometimes increasing the efficiency of supply chains
interferes with the social and environmental impacts of these supply chains. Some
studies argue against industrial agglomeration, claiming that over-agglomeration
can cause negative repercussions on social and environmental sustainability
(Kaya & Koc, 2018). As an example, the clothing industry recently had to deal
with many challenges in regard to its supply chain structure (Freise & Seuring,
2015). “There have been many reports of unacceptable working conditions and
environmental or ethical burdens through production and along the supply chain.
Unacceptable working conditions such as child labor, safety issues in factories,
forced labor, and low minimum wages are issues as present as environmental
concerns” (Freise & Seuring, 2015). These reports are an indication of the
negative effects of efficient supply chains in an attempt to maximize performance
and pose the following question: Does agglomeration affect sustainability in any
way and defy the classical agglomeration theory?
The telecommunication industry is one that adopted agglomeration world-
wide. From Texas to Egypt, telecom companies have chosen to locate near each
other to harvest the benefits of innovative agglomeration, which was introduced
in Silicon Valley (Rossell & Walker, 1998). The telecommunication industry is
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 227

mainly focused on both profitability and growth. This is due to the volatility of
the technological sector due to fast-developing technologies and high competition
(Chen et al., 2021). This focus on profitability and growth within the telecom-
munication industry is inherited in their supply chains as well and poses a risk on
both environmental and social aspects of the telecom supply chains. Particularly
in developing countries, it is found that “economic, safety, and health precautions
in telecommunications supply chain operations are often limited, which create
problems” (Chen et al., 2021). In the past decade, there have been some efforts in
trying to understand the risks, drivers, and barriers of implementing sustainability
within the telecommunication supply chains. A brief description of these efforts is
provided by Nalluria and Chena (2022). However, “the existing literature focuses
on the individual dimension of risk assessment in the telecommunication supply
chains” (Li, Han, Zhang, Zhang, & Zhang, 2020). In practice, usually supply
chain sustainability is introduced as early as the bidding phase. Deutsche Telekom
(DT), a leading German telecom provider, informs their suppliers and service
providers that they need to do business responsibly and transparently. The
company insists on high social and environmental standards in these relationships
worldwide. DT implements different measures that improve sustainability efforts
along their supply chain.
It begins with the bid phase where they weight sustainability at 10% of overall
acceptance of bidders, which creates strong incentives for suppliers to offer more
sustainable products and services. DT also resorts to strict code of conducts and
physical audits. If the supplier fails to comply, the results could lead to termi-
nation of relationship (Deutsche Telecom, 2022). Chunghwa Telecom (CT), the
largest telecom provider in Taiwan, also incorporates sustainability measures into
their supply chain. It adopts a conclusive sustainability framework, which ensures
that all suppliers comply with their social and environmental codes. It also
maintains regular audits after tendering. After the audits, CT rates and ranks their
suppliers due to their performance and awards highest rated suppliers using a
mixture of bonuses and priority status (Chunghwa Telecom, 2022). Unfortu-
nately, the majority of telecom industry manages supply chain sustainability on a
transactional and punitive basis, where suppliers are rewarded if they comply and
are punished if they do not comply. The basis of this framework is initiated by the
telecom customer, not the supplier, and depends on three main factors, namely
collaboration, communication, and measurement (Raza, Ramish, & Khaliq-Ur-
Rehman, 2022). This transactional punitive method is not sustainable in its core
since different companies have different codes of conduct for suppliers. A specific
supplier could have different levels of compliance depending on the punitive
actions of its buyers. Therefore, in a specific agglomerate, there are no unified
codes or values.
Egypt is one of the countries that has set a specific vision for sustainability in
alignment with the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals. The Egypt
Vision 2030 is a “unified long-term political, economic, and social vision. More
specifically, the vision sets a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% from the
energy sector, including Oil & Gas (O&G), by 2030 compared to 2016 levels. This
translates into immense pressures on the industries to improve operational effi-
ciency, productivity, and worker safety; maintain cybersecurity; and, at the same
228 Mona Ali Ali

time, reduce environmental impact” (Osman, 2022). Egypt is also a country that
has adopted agglomeration for telecom industries set in the Smart Village of Giza.
Ericsson is one of the companies located in the Smart Village. In an online
interview, Ayub Osman (Head of Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility at
Ericsson Middle East and Africa) mentioned the efforts that Ericsson MEA
adopts to comply with Egypt’s 2030 vision. Ericsson embraced strategies such as
minimizing waste, increasing reuse and recycling rates, design for recovery,
adopting 5G operations, as well as assuring social development. The strategies
adopted have resulted in an achieved 36% of energy savings surpassing the
companies’ approved target of 35% (Osman, 2022). Although this achievement is
notable, yet it is not comprehensive and does not reflect a measure of total supply
chain sustainability within Smart Village. The main problem is that there is no
unified measure to use in order to assess the effect of these strategies in an
agglomeration context. The above discussion highlights the gap between theo-
retical and empirical impacts of agglomeration.
This chapter discusses the topic further by exploring the effect of agglomera-
tion on organizational supply chain sustainability performance in an easy yet
comprehensive measurable index. Not only is this subject quite novel but also no
official efforts have been made to lay down some common grounds as a reference
for comparability. This study provides a tool used for measuring the impact of
agglomeration on supply chain sustainability as one of the returns of agglomer-
ation. It offers researchers and practitioners a method to help settle this quandary.
By using the framework provided, researchers and practitioners will have a clear
ground to approach, evaluate, and compare their results using a holistic frame-
work for sustainability assessment in supply chains. By unifying the methods
used, it would be easier to approach an answer. This study also introduces a
holistic tool incorporating all pillars of supply chain sustainability including
social, environmental, and economic measures.

Literature Review
The argument proposed in this study is that by quantitatively measuring how
involved a company is in an industrial cluster (a measure of agglomeration) as
well as measuring the performance of supply chains (a measure of return), the
impact of agglomeration could be mapped. By mapping the impact of agglom-
eration on a specific performance factor, the stages of the agglomeration life cycle
could be clarified. A framework for measuring this impact is proposed and tested.
Frameworks are built on theoretical models. This is to ensure the validity of the
tools used within the framework, especially if the framework is used for assess-
ment and measurement of a specific variable. In order to achieve the objective of
this study, the main theories related to agglomeration, sustainable supply chains,
and the effects of agglomeration on supply chain sustainability are explored.
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 229

The Definition of Industrial Clusters

Industrial clusters is not an infant subject. There have been many efforts for
defining what an industrial cluster is. From an economic point of view, industrial
clusters are defined as being “networks of production of strongly interdependent
firms (including specialized suppliers) along with knowledge producing agents
(universities, research institutes, engineering companies)” (Roelandt & Hertog,
1998). The industrial cluster subject is a product of the classical agglomeration
theory, which was first introduced by Marshal in 1890 (Jackson et al., 2006).
According to Marshall, agglomeration has various advantages. These advantages
usually arise from localization economies, specifically a concentration of
specialized skilled workers, availability of raw materials and production
requirements, and technological spillovers. “This triad of localization advantages
first pointed out by Marshal has been at the core of the discussion on industry
clustering and agglomeration ever since and usually lead to positive returns”
(Roelandt & Hertog, 1998).
However, some scholars argue that the returns of agglomeration are not lin-
early constant and that (as of) any product industry industrial agglomerations (as
well) have life cycles. Potter and Watts (2011) argue that Marshall’s agglomera-
tion economies create greater economic performance and increase returns at the
start of the industry life cycle, but decline economic performance and diminish
returns during the later stages of the industry life cycle (Potter & Watts, 2011). In
the same study, the authors argue, “Despite this theoretical convergence, the
literature on the evolution of industries and that concerning the evolution of
agglomerations have remained largely separate from one another” (Potter &
Watts, 2011). This study adds to the vast literature of geographical economics by
providing a quantitative empirical tool in a form of an index mapping one of the
returns of agglomeration, namely supply chain sustainability performance. This
tool will act as a base where the evolution of agglomeration studies could
converge.

Typology of Industrial Clusters Based on Forces of Agglomeration

Before moving on to defining the items of the tool proposed, it is important to
understand the different types of agglomerations. Different types of agglomera-
tions yield different types of returns. The type of forces pushing agglomeration
distinguishes agglomerations. Forces of agglomeration, or clustering, are what
force different companies to locate in or near agglomerates. There are two
distinctive forces causing agglomeration, localization and urbanization forces
(Table 8.1). Localization forces are about firms choosing to cluster in specific
locations because of the regional advantages associated with this location, such as
access to inputs or resources; an example is the presence of cheap fertile land for
agriculture or forests for wood. Copycat organizations locate near already
established organizations to gain access to inputs as well. Hence, agglomeration
based on localization generates clusters of firms producing similar products. “As
more and more firms agglomerate in industry clusters, the regional advantages to
230 Mona Ali Ali

locating in these industry clusters increase as firms share knowledge and labor
pools in addition to inputs” (Zipper, 2020). On the other hand, urbanization
forces are agglomerations forced by across-industry attraction. An organizational
presence acts as a magnet to organizations in other industries. Urbanization
agglomeration advantages are numerous such as the development of large,
miscellaneous cities, with many job offerings and services. Another advantage is
the presence of different products and services, which form a network of supply
facilitating the transportation of goods across the value chain. “An example of
urbanization economies is when firms, especially corporate headquarters, cluster
in cities to share firms that provide business services like marketing, accounting
and legal services” (Zipper, 2020).

Table 8.1. Different Forces of Agglomeration.

Type of Force Reason to Type of Product Advantage of Example
of Agglomerate Agglomeration
Agglomeration
Localization Benefits from Similar products Advantages Silicon
concentrating and benefits Valley
near on an Detroit
same-industry industry level
organizations in only
the city
Urbanization Benefits from the Complementary Advantages New
concentration of products and benefits York
across-industry on a City
firms in the city metropolitan
level

This typology provides the boundaries of the study. It also sheds a light on
what to expect as returns from agglomerations based on localization versus those
based on urbanization. Hence, clarifying the returns of agglomeration for each
type. As an example, in supply chain social sustainability, the employment item
was not included in this study because creating jobs is an output of urbanization
agglomeration, not localization.

Industrial Clusters Involvement

One of the main tools used to calculate the involvement–supply chain sustain-
ability index is the agglomerate involvement tool. The involvement of an orga-
nization in an industrial cluster is a result of two interdependencies mainly known
as the traded and untraded interdependencies (Seo, Ode, & Ali, 2015). Tallman,
Jenkins, Henry, and Pinch (2004) argues that traded interdependencies are on a
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 231

more formal level and exist when there is a traded supply chain relationship
between organizations. “These relationships exist when clustering organizations
are combined by an economic value chain, including licensing, alliances, acqui-
sitions or R&D collaboration which occur formal exchanges of knowledge” (Seo
et al., 2015). On the other hand, untraded interdependences occur outside of the
economic value chain (Storper, 1997). Table 8.2 summarizes the main differences
between both interdependencies.
Industrial cluster involvement has been used in literature before to account for
clustering as an independent variable. Industrial cluster involvement was used to
measure the effect of industrial clustering on product innovation (Niu, 2016).
Industrial clustering involvement was used as well to measure the effect of

Table 8.2. Traded Versus Untraded Interdependencies.

Interdependency Focus Factor Items
Type
Traded Economic Usually Contractual agreement
benefits and exogenous Supply chain
efficiency factors partnership
Product imitation
Interorganizational
strategic alliance
Joint economic
activities
Transaction cost
Development of core
resource and capability
Untraded Social and Usually Shared cultural
cultural endogenous background
interactions factors Supportive institutes
and research centers
Government support
Social networking
Collaboration for
innovation
Knowledge exploration
and exploitation
Exchange of resource
and capability
Source: Adopted from Seo et al. (2015).
232 Mona Ali Ali

clustering on firm performance (Seo et al., 2015). Both studies used a Likert scaled
questionnaire to measure involvement encompassing the abovementioned items.
In this study, industrial clustering involvement is consequently used as a variable
measuring agglomeration.

Sustainable Supply Chains

Supply chain management is defined to encompass “the close relationship
between all the entities playing a role in the overall production process through
procuring raw material, processing subassemblies to packaging finished products”
(Drake, Lee, & Hussein, 2013). Scholars have been trying to find models and
theories assessing efficient processes embedded in supply chains. A comprehensive
review of quantitative models assessing supply chain efficiency is provided by
Lima-Juniora and Carpinetti (2017). In the past few decades, there has been two
main paradigm shifts when it comes to competitiveness of organizations. The first
shift is moving from competing on an organizational level to competing on a
supply chain performance level. The second shift is moving from competing on a
supply chain performance level to competing on a sustainable supply chain per-
formance level (Sroufe & Melnyk, 2017) (Fig. 8.1).

Competition based on supply chain

Competition based on organization Competition based on supply chain
sustainability

Fig. 8.1. Paradigm Shifts in Organization Competitiveness.

Supply chain sustainability with its three dimensions, economic, environ-

mental, and social, is making sure that current needs and wants are met without
compromising the needs and wants of future generations (Kaya & Koc, 2018).
Competing through sustainable supply chains does not only encompass the
environmental aspect of sustainability, rather “it is an overall sustainability as
measured in terms of the firm’s ability to reduce waste, improve profitability,
generate strategic competitive advantages, recognize emerging social issues while
ensuring that it is safe and treats its employees well” (Sroufe & Melnyk, 2017).
Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) as defined by Bentahar and
Benzidia as “the integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions
into the management of intra- and inter-organizational flows, through innovative
and collaborative approaches, with the objective of creating sustainable value”
(Govindan, Rajeev, Padhi, & Pati, 2020).

Sustainable Supply Chain Performance Measures

Since the objective of this study is to measure sustainability in a supply chain
context, both quantitative and qualitative measures will be considered. The
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 233

literature is vast with sustainable supply chain performance measures and

frameworks (Sopadang, Wichaisri, & Banomyong, 2017). These frameworks
evaluate the sustainability performance of supply chains using approaches such as
balanced scorecard (BSC), supply-chain operations reference (SCOR), data
envelopment analysis (DEA), and analytical hierarchical process (AHP) (Qorri,
Mujkića, & Kraslawski, 2017). A holistic literature review of sustainable supply
chain performance measures is provided by Qorri et al. (2017). Narimissa,
Kangarani-Farahani, and Molla-Alizadeh-Zaverdehi (2019) argue that in the vast
literature of sustainable supply chain performance measures, most studies are not
comprehensive in means that they cover all three pillars of sustainability. Qorri
et al. (2017) argue that in the literature, the methods used to incorporate all three
pillars of sustainable supply chain performance into one indicator is not unified
and unclear. As a result of this gap, this study identifies the most important
indicators of sustainable supply chains mentioned in the literature. Table 8.3
displays some commonly used indicators based on the literature:

Table 8.3. Sustainable Supply Chain Indicators.

Indicator Chardine-Baumann Narimissa Kazancoglu, Rezaee
and Botta-Genoulaz et al. Kazancoglu, and (2018)
(2014) (2019) Sagnak (2018)
Economic pillar
Reliability √ √
Responsiveness √ √
Flexibility √ √
Quality √ √
Cost √ √ √
Customer √ √
satisfaction
Return goods √
Supplier √
evaluation
Information √ √
Revenue √ √ √
Environmental pillar
Green supply √ √ √ √
chain/waste
Reverse logistics √ √ √
and recycle
Environmental √ √ √ √
management
234 Mona Ali Ali

Table 8.3. (Continued)

Indicator Chardine-Baumann Narimissa Kazancoglu, Rezaee
and Botta-Genoulaz et al. Kazancoglu, and (2018)
(2014) (2019) Sagnak (2018)
Pollution control √ √ √ √
Emissions √ √
Energy √ √
consumptions
Toxic chemicals √ √
Social Pillar
Occupational √ √
health
Staff training √
Working √ √ √ √
environment/
culture
Supplier √ √
evaluation on
social aspect
Employment √
Nondiscrimination √ √ √
Ethics √ √
Social √ √
responsibility
projects
Fair competition √ √
Customer issues √

Moreover, the measures will be allocated in reference to the appropriateness of

their use in specific supply chains, meaning that only measures that are relevant to
the specific field, agglomeration type and relevance, will be used. To maintain
validity, measures that are used only once were eliminated.

Analytical Hierarchical Methodology in Supply Chain Sustainability Performance

The AHP is a structured method established by Thomas L. Saaty of the Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh for evaluating the weights of criteria and subcriteria deter-
mining their relative importance (Millet & Saaty, 2000). AHP integrates expert
judgment by using the geometric means of individual responses. As a result, it
promotes the active participation of experts, which helps managers evaluate the
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 235

relative importance of criteria in multidecision situations, allowing managers to

employ management judgments (Belhadi, Touriki, & Elfazazi, 2019). With
distinct capabilities such as ease of operation, simultaneous evaluation of tangible
and intangible criteria ability to measure consistency, structuring hierarchy of
main criteria and subcriteria, and an acceptable number of matrixes for evalua-
tion, AHP has been used in many disciplines (Harputlugil, 2018). It not only
produces clear, understandable, and uncomplicated results but also allows for
effective decision-making in complex situations. One of the applications of AHP
is developing a sustainability index based on multiple criteria. The deployment of
AHP in developing a multicriterion sustainability index has been adopted in many
disciplines such as in water sustainability (Bui et al., 2019), sustainability of
manufacturing companies (Harik, Hachem, Medini, & Bernard, 2015), as well as
supply chain sustainability (Mastrocinque, Ramı́rez, Honrubia-Escribano, &
Pham, 2020). This study adds to the vast literature by introducing a holistic
approach, obtaining a supply chain sustainability index within an industrial
cluster context.

The Effect of Industrial Clusters on Supply Chain Sustainability

The literature mentions that both supply chain performance on a microeconomic
level and industrial clusters on a macroeconomic level, although two different
areas of studies, are somewhat intertwined (Tolossa, Beshah, Kitaw, Mangano, &
Marco, 2013). Although research on the effect of industrial clusters on supply
chain is vast and full of resources, the research on the effect of industrial clusters
on sustainability is yet emergent. Some studies argue that there is a negative effect
associated with industrial clusters relative to sustainability. “Environmental
pollution, resource shortages and other issues have led to a serious lack of
coordination among aspects of the social economy and in the relationship
between humans and nature that has restricted sustainable industrial develop-
ment” (Brock & Taylor, 2010 as cited in Ren, Tian, & Zhang, 2022). In a study,
790 papers were analyzed to find the recurring industrial clustering effects
(Koshcheev, Tretiakova, & Ngoc, 2021). The results showed five key negative
clustering effects summarized in Table 8.4:

Table 8.4. Effect of Industrial Clusters on Sustainability (Social and

Economic).
Effect Interpretation
Lock-in effect Potential focus of clustered firms on local
contracts, which often leads to a lack of flexibility
and, therefore, disability to adapt to external
market changes.
Vulnerability to Clustered firms develop their specialization within
specialization effect a value-added chain, to increase quality of the
final product. However, in doing so, they decrease
the economic flexibility of the whole region
industrial system.
236 Mona Ali Ali

Table 8.4. (Continued)

Effect Interpretation
Overconcentration effect Clustering attracts small- and medium-sized firms
to the living points, associated with an industrial
cluster. This process increases competition within
the cluster area. A high rate of competition may
decrease the ability of small- and medium-sized
firms to survive. This tendency often results in
negative dynamics of regional social and
economic growth indices.
Blocking effect Clustered firms often create entry barriers for new
entrants. In the medium term, it may turn some
regional markets into oligopoly or even monopoly
structures.
Self-sufficiency syndrome The reliance of clustered firms on their previous
effect experience and successful practices, applied in the
past. In the medium term, it decreases region
innovation capacity.
Source: Adopted from (Koshcheev et al., 2021).

From the similarities between Table 8.4 outputs and Tables 8.1 and 8.2 out-
puts, it could be argued that supply chain sustainability is one of the returns of
agglomeration. Such as any of the returns of agglomeration, supply chain sus-
tainability has its fair share of debate. Ren et al. (2022) conducted a study
exploring the effect of industrial clusters and environmental sustainable efficiency
using a three-stage simultaneous equation model. The results show that industrial
clusters – especially in China – increased emissions of industrial sulfur dioxide,
industrial soot, and industrial wastewater pollutants. Kaya and Koc (2018) argue
that over-agglomeration results in undesired negative effects impeding the eco-
nomic, social, and environmental development any further, even causing irre-
versible social and environmental issues. They tested their argument through a
case study of Istanbul through the time period of 50 years. The results show that
over-agglomeration in Istanbul created significant economic, environmental, and
social imbalances. There is no generic framework measuring the effect of indus-
trial clusters on supply chain sustainability. This study intends to fill in this gap.

The Research Problem

The main research problem is the lack of a generic tool acting as a basis to
measure the timely effect of agglomeration on return. There is a gap between
theoretical models of agglomeration such as the classical agglomeration model
and empirical evidence of return. There is also another gap between the theory of
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 237

cluster life cycles and the empirical tools used to measure the dynamics of the
cluster life cycle. Hence the main research questions are:

• What are the items included in a generic tool to measure supply chain
sustainability?
• What are the items included in a generic tool to measure cluster involvement?
• Could the current timely effect of agglomeration on a specific return be
captured in an index?

The main purpose of this research is to develop a framework (model and tool)
that could be used generically to assess the timely impact of industrial clusters on
supply chain sustainability performance through an index. This is achieved in a
scientifically valid and thoroughly reliable process. This tool is intended to answer
the questions provided in this research in an attempt to understand how industrial
cluster involvement affects social, economic, and environmental sustainability in
a supply chain context. To demonstrate the applicability of the tool, it is used to
examine the effect of industrial involvement of different members of a telecom-
munication industrial cluster in Egypt on supply chain sustainability.
The research objectives are as follows:

• Develop a tool to measure the timely economic, social, and environmental

sustainability aspects of the organization supply chain as a measure of
agglomeration return.
• Develop a tool to measure the timely industrial cluster involvement of orga-
nizations within the industrial cluster.
• Develop a framework to assess the relation between industrial cluster
involvement of organizations and supply chain sustainability of organizations.
• Demonstrate the applicability of the framework using a case study.

The Research Methodology

This study is based on a systematic methodology structure, which is ordered as
follows: research objectives, research design, research scope, data collection
techniques, sampling, and data analysis techniques. With regard to the aims, the
research is considered basic since the objectives are generic and the output of the
study could be used in any context. As for the research design, both exploratory
and explanatory methods are used in a case study setting. The researcher inter-
ference is minimal within a noncontrived setting. The time horizon is cross
sectional. The unit of analysis is employees in the supply chain function within
companies located in Smart Village, which is the research scope.
In regard to the data collection techniques, secondary data are collected
through a comprehensive literature review on supply chain sustainability mea-
sures and items. The researcher also conducted a literature review on industrial
cluster involvement measures. Further review of literature on the effect of
238 Mona Ali Ali

industrial clusters on supply chain sustainability is performed. A pool of items for

both supply chain sustainability performance and cluster involvement is devel-
oped. The items that are only used once are eliminated since it does not meet the
applicability criteria. Structured interviews are used to eliminate unimportant
items from the pool. Further structured interviews are used as a tool for testing
the framework. Pairwise comparison questions are conducted to collect primary
data about the importance of each item in the tool, while Likert scale closed-
ended questions are conducted to assess the actual timely performance of each
item in the tool.
As for sampling, there are 180 local and multinational companies within Smart
Village, Egypt. In an effort to calculate the number of senior employees in the
field of supply chain, some companies were asked to convey the number of senior
employees with the title: COO, procurement manager, supply manager, and
logistics manager. The average number of employees was two per company.
Applying simple mathematics a population of 360 employees was achieved. The
sampling technique used was convenience sampling because of constraints in both
time and resources. Ten interviewees are approached, out of which only eight
were useable interviews. Eight interviews is a reasonable number for AHP anal-
ysis. Some studies even used as low as five interviews (Luthra, Mangla, Xu, &
AliDiabat, 2016; Nunes, Dey, Bennett, Shaw, & Pasutham, 2009).
Regarding the analysis techniques, the study adopted a qualitative and
quantitative approach. This type of research can be demonstrated by the use of
group interview and mathematical methods. Thus, this work intends to oper-
ationalize a method for evaluating the timely effect of agglomeration on a specific
return (supply chain sustainability) using both research types. AHP is applied to
develop the final index. There are numerous additional methods, like ELECTRE
and TOPSIS, that have been presented to solve the multicriterion decision-making
or indexing problem. However, AHP is suggested as a better tool in comparison
to others due to its wide applicability and ease in use (Harputlugil, 2018; Luthra
et al., 2016). The advantage of this method is that it handles both qualitative and
quantitative data effectively (Yap, Ho, & Yee, 2016). The stages proposed by
Saaty (Saaty, 1980) for using the AHP method are followed. There are three main
phases in the AHP model methodology, namely structuring the problem (Step 1),
comparative judgments (steps 2–7), and priority analysis (Step 8).

Framework Development
A framework is a predefined systematic approach for testing or assessing a set of
factors. In this research, one of the main objectives is to develop a framework for
the assessment of industrial involvement on the supply chain performance of
individual cluster within the industrial cluster. Fig. 8.2 presents the steps tested
throughout this research.
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 239

Create a heirarchical model

Find measures for both
for both supply chain
variables (Supply chain Find a specific industrial
sustainability performance
sustainability and cluster cluster to measure
and industrial cluster
involvement_
involvement individually.

Propose items to Eliminate items which were create pairwise closed

interviewees to check deemed inappropriate to ended interview quesons
appropriateness the cluster for all appropriate items

Analyze the pairwise

creat performance
quesons using the AHP Calculate the means for the
measurement quesons for
method for both heirarchys performance measures
all items (likert scale)
to acheive weights.

mulply the performance

Divide the supply chain
by the weights for each
sustainability performance
measure to obtain a
by the industrial cluster
performance index for both
performance to find the
supply chain sustainability
sustainability involvement
and industrial cluster
rao.
involvement

Fig. 8.2. Framework.

In order to test the applicability if the proposed framework, the above

framework will be tested in a case study setting through the following three
phases:

Structuring the Problem

Step 1: Model Development
In this step, the theoretical knowledge deduced from the literature is combined in
two separate models to be tested. The main variables are industrial cluster
involvement and supply chain sustainability performance. The supply chain
performance is actually deduced by how well the supply chain performs
economically, socially, and environmentally; hence, the economic, environmental,
and social performance of the supply chain act as mediators of importance
between the items tested and total supply chain sustainability performance. Fig.
8.3 presents the model for supply chain sustainability to be tested:
240 Mona Ali Ali

Supply chain
sustainability
performance index

Economic Environmental Social

Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability

Fig. 8.3. Model Formulation.

Fig. 8.4 presents the model for industrial cluster involvement to be tested:

Industrial cluster
involvement
index

Cost Product Formal strategic Informal social Knowledge

Subcontracng Supply chain Research
minimizaon imitaon allience interacon exploraon

Fig. 8.4. Industrial Cluster Involvement Model.

Comparative Judgment
Step 2: Operationalization of Variables
The variable industrial involvement is the independent variable. There have been
studies that operationalized this variable before. Therefore, in order to avoid
reinventing the wheel, the same items used by Seo et al. (2015) are used to
measure this variable (Table 8.5).

Table 8.5. Operationalization of Industrial Cluster Involvement Based on

Seo et al. (2015).
Variable Dimension Operational Definition Measurement Items
Industrial Traded Firms’ economic (1) Reduction of
Cluster Interdependences transactions formed transactional
Involvement through direct and cost
indirect business (2) Engagement in
relationships with subcontracting
other organizations (3) Supply chain
within an industrial partnership
cluster (4) Widespread
product
imitation
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 241

Table 8.5. (Continued)

Variable Dimension Operational Definition Measurement Items
(5) Formal stra-
tegic alliance
(6) Development of
core resources
and capabilities
Untraded Firms’ noneconomic (1) Informal, social
interdependences interactions formed interactions
through social and with other
supportive organizations
relationships with (2) Government
other organizations support
with an industrial (3) Knowledge
cluster exploration and
exploitation in
the cluster
(4) Supportive
institutes such
as universities
and research
centers
(5) Exchanges of
resources and
capabilities
with others
(6) Collaborations
to facilitate
innovations

The variable supply chain sustainability is operationalized to the items pro-

vided in Table 8.3. Items that have been not used frequently in the literature will
be eliminated. An interval scale is used for responses. The scale ranges from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) are used.

Step 3: Introducing Smart Village in Egypt

The framework was tested on an actual industrial cluster in Giza, Egypt, between
the time period of February to March 2022. The Smart Village was founded in
November 2001 as a public–private partnership (PPP) investment with a mandate
to establish and manage a branded chain of technology clusters and business
242 Mona Ali Ali

parks (The smart village Egypt, 2012). The mission of the Smart Village in Giza,
Egypt, is promoting and facilitating entrepreneurship, innovation, creativity, and
use of information technology–enabled services (ITeS) to creates a better world.
Their vision is to build, manage, and operate multipurpose ecosystems on quality,
collaboration, and trust to the satisfaction of all stakeholders (The smart village
Egypt, 2012). Spread over 3 million m2, Smart Village Cairo is Egypt’s first
operational information technology cluster and business park. The prime devel-
opment accommodates multinational and local companies, governmental and
financial organizations, educational institutions, and research and development
centers.
There are 45,0001 professionals working everyday within Smart Village
Egypt, including call centers operating 24/7. The Smart Village includes 1651
multinational and national companies, 10 government organizations and
authorities, 10 foreign and local training, research and development labs, 1m1
square meters of operational office space, as well as 2,5001 persons working in
services and supporting functions (The smart village, 2016).
The communication industry involves the limited businesses along with the
supply chain. Fig. 8.5 shows the higher-level supply chain structure in the
communication industry.

Component suppliers Equipment providers Service providers Consumers

• Suppliers • Hardware • Telecom • Enterprises

• Contractors • OEM • Internet • Consumers
• Distributers

Fig. 8.5. Communication Supply Chain. Source: Adopted from

Ahmad and Saifudin (2014).

The communication industry contributes a high percentage of shares of eco-

nomic activities. Therefore, in order to maintain the competitiveness of com-
panies, supply chain needs to be manage accordingly (Ahmad & Saifudin, 2014).
In this study only the two middle supply chain players in the telecom industry are
included, since the component suppliers and consumers are both outside the
geographical scope of the industrial cluster.

Steps 4–5: Item Allocation

For the suitability of the tool, a number of 10 professionals are contacted, out of
which only 8 were ready to participate in the study. They were shown the different
items used to measure both the industrial cluster involvement and the supply
chain sustainability performance measures. Some of the items required a lot of
explanation because professionals are unaware of the topic. The following is a
representation of all the items, which seemed appropriate and are used for the
development of the final tool:
Table 8.6. Items Used After Professionals Were Consulted.
Sustainable supply chain Economic Reliable products Involvement Cost minimization of final product
performance index High-quality products
Minimized product cost
Information sharing
Environmental Minimum waste
Green products usage
Reverse logistics usage
Firm environmental
regulation enforcement
Subcontracting other companies in
cluster
Involved in the supply chain of
other companies in cluster
Product imitation of other
companies in cluster
Formal strategic alliance
Informal social interaction
Informal support
Knowledge Exploration

Impact of Cluster Involvement

Emission reduction Research
encouragement
Pollution Innovation
Social Health care
Healthy working
environment
Nondiscrimination rules
enforcement
Investment in knowledge
and skills
Social responsibility

243
projects
244 Mona Ali Ali

Step 6: Create Pairwise Closed-Ended Interview Questions to Assess all

Appropriate Items Importance
Pairwise comparison interviews were used to assess the importance of both the
sustainability items and the cluster involvement items. The proposed scale used by
Saaty (1980) is used. A 9 implies that an item is 9 times as important as the other
item in the pairwise question. Hence, the other item in the pairwise comparison
receives 1/9. A 7 means that the item is 7 times as more important that the other
item included in the pairwise comparison and the other items receives 1/7. A 3
means that the item is 3 times as important as the other item in comparison and
the other items receives 1/3. A 1 means that both items are equal in importance as
compared to one another. The interviewees were asked to rate their company’s
performance on the same items as well.

Step 7: Create Likert Scale to Assess all Appropriate Items Performance

For the same items deduced in Table 8.6, a performance tool is developed using a
Likert scale from 1–5. A score of 1 means that the performance of the company is
very low in this item while the score of 5 means the performance of the company is
very high.

Priority Analysis
Step 8: Calculate Importance Weight Using AHP
In this step, the output achieved from the structured interviews is used to achieve
the relative importance of each item in the models proposed. The weights for the
economic, environmental, and social factors are calculated first using the method
proposed by Saaty (1980) as explained in the study by Coyle (2004). AHP is a
method, assisting in “decomposing, organizing and analyzing a complex problem.
It converts the problem undertaken in to a hierarchical structure consisting of
various definite levels, such as goal, criteria and sub-criteria” (Luthra et al., 2016).
Other methods could be used such as DEA and TOPSIS, but AHP is much
simpler in the analysis and calculation (Luthra et al., 2016).
The first level is the relative importance of all three sustainability factors
(economic, environmental, and social). Table 8.7 summarizes the results obtained
by AHP after the pairwise comparison analysis:

Table 8.7. AHP Output 1.

First Level Economic Environmental Social Eigenvector
Economic 1 7 9 0.785391188
Environmental 0.142857143 1 3 0.14881507
Social 0.111111111 0.333333333 1 0.065793742
ƛ 5 3.08 CR 5 0.069 1
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 245

The results are consistent with a consistency ration 5 0.069. The results show
that economic sustainability is the highest with a relative importance of 0.785.
The least important is the social sustainability factor with a relative importance of
0.065. The items within each factors are compared using pairwise comparison as
well. The below are the AHP output for the factors relating to economic supply
chain sustainability (Table 8.8):

Table 8.8. AHP Output 2.

Economic Reliability Quality Cost Information Eigenvector
Sharing
Reliability 1 3 1 9 0.42002405
Quality 0.33333333 1 3 7 0.29971448
Cost 1 0.33333333 1 9 0.242501
Information 0.11111111 0.14285714 0.11111111 1 0.03776048
sharing
ƛ max 5 CR 5 1
4.48 0.178

Reliability is the most important economic factor for this case; information
sharing was the least important factor. The consistency ration is slightly higher
than 0.1, which is the threshold as proposed by Saaty, 1980. Nevertheless, in this
case, it is not significantly higher so there was no need for another round of
interviews. A CR as high as 0.9 indicates that the results are not significant as
explained in the study by Coyle (2004). Table 8.9 shows the AHP output for the
environmental factors leading to supply chain sustainability:
Considering the environmental factors, the highest item was reverse logistics
and the lowest was perception of being part of the problem. The consistency
ration indicates that the results are valid. Table 8.10 provides the AHP output for
the social factors leading to supply chain sustainability:
Considering the social factors, training seems to be the most important factor,
and social responsibility projects are calculated to be the least important factor.
The consistency ration indicates that the results are valid.

Step 9: Assessing Cluster Involvement

Table 8.11 provides the final weights provided by the AHP analysis for the items
involved in industrial cluster involvement:
The most important item for cluster involvement is research and the least is
cost minimization. The consistency ratio is 0.087.
 246
Mona Ali Ali
Table 8.9. AHP Output 3.

Environmental Waste Green Products Reverse Logistics Env. Regulations Reduce Emissions Pollution Eigenvector
Waste 1 0.33333333 0.14285714 0.33333333 0.14285714 3 0.05419394
Green products 3 1 0.33333333 0.33333333 0.33333333 3 0.10366928
Reverse logistics 7 3 1 3 3 7 0.41250599
Env. regulations 3 3 0.33333333 1 1 3 0.17956046
Reduce emissions 7 3 0.33333333 1 1 3 0.20679506
Pollution 0.33333333 0.33333333 0.14285714 0.33333333 0.33333333 1 0.04327527
ƛ max 5 6.45 CR 5 0.072 1
Table 8.10. AHP Output 4.

Social Health Work Environment Discrimination Trainings Social Responsibility Eigenvector

Health 1 1 3 0.33333333 3 0.19650892
Work environment 1 1 3 0.33333333 3 0.19650892
Discrimination 0.33333333 0.33333333 1 0.33333333 3 0.1016505

Impact of Cluster Involvement

Trainings 3 3 3 1 7 0.45003923
Social responsibility 0.33333333 0.33333333 0.33333333 0.14285714 1 0.05529243
ƛ max 5 5.2 CR 5 0.045 1

247
248 Mona Ali Ali

Table 8.11. AHP Output 5.

Cluster Involvement Eigenvector

Cost minimization 0.01696337
Subcontracting 0.0935572
Supply chain 0.0935572
Product imitation 0.02358568
Strategic alliance 0.04839544
Informal social 0.06561851
Knowledge exploration 0.1136546
Research 0.28330406
Exchange resources 0.02222108
Innovation 0.23914287
1
Lamda 5 11.16 CR 5 0.087

Step 10: Calculating Means for Performance Measures

The total sustainability supply chain performance index is achieved after multi-
plying each weight by the mean performance of the cluster. The following hier-
archy is reached (Table 8.12):
The mean supply chain sustainability performance of the organizations within
the cluster is obtained by calculating the average score based on a 1–5 Likert scale
of interviewee responses to questions related to the performance of their own
organization. The total performance index for cluster involvement is achieved by
multiplying both the performance with the importance of each item as shown in
the below hierarchy (Table 8.13).

Step 11: Calculating the Sustainability/Involvement Index

The sustainability involvement index is calculated by dividing the sustainability
performance index by the cluster involvement index:
Sustainability Supply chain sustainability performance index
index ¼
involvement Cluster involvement performance index

For this case study, the sustainability/involvement index is equal to 4.22/4.15 5

1.01. This could be interpreted as “For every unit change in cluster involvement,
the unit change in supply chain sustainability will be 1.01.”

Discussion and Conclusion

This study attempts to build on three theoretical foundations: the classical
agglomeration theory, the agglomeration lifecycle theory, and the AHP tool. A
Table 8.12. Performance Index Sustainability.

Goal Total Index First Layer Weight Performance Items for First Layer Weight Performance
Score Score
Sustainable supply 4.22034088 Economic 0.785 4.278375 Reliable products 0.42 4.625
chain performance High-quality product 0.299 4.375
index Minimized product cost 0.242 3.75
Information sharing 0.037 3.25
Environmental 0.148 3.8105 Minimum waste 0.054 3.375
Green products usage 0.103 3.75
Reverse logistics usage 0.412 4
Firm environmental 0.179 3.875
regulation enforcement

Impact of Cluster Involvement

Emission reduction 0.206 3.875
encouragement
Pollution 0.043 2.375
Social 0.065 4.5825 Health care 0.196 4.625
Healthy working 0.196 4.625
environment
Nondiscrimination rules 0.101 4.5
enforcement
Investment in 0.45 4.625
knowledge and skills
Social responsibility 0.055 4.25

249
projects
250 Mona Ali Ali

Table 8.13. Performance Index Involvement.

Goal Total Items for 1st Layer Weights Performance

Index Score
Involvement 4.150342 Cost minimization of final 0.0169 3.62
product
Subcontracting other 0.0935 4
companies in cluster
Involved in the supply chain 0.0935 4
of other companies in cluster
Product imitation of other 0.0235 4
companies in cluster
Formal strategic alliance 0.0483 4
Informal social interaction 0.0656 4.125
Knowledge Exploration 0.1136 4.25
Research 0.2833 4.25
Exchange resources 0.0222 3.62
Innovation 0.2391 4.25

thorough review of literature is provided and an argument is developed stating

that there is a gap between theory and generic empirical applications. In addition,
the debate between whether agglomeration produces positive or negative returns
is stated. In an attempt to fill in this gap, a framework to develop an index based
on AHP analysis is introduced. This index offers a quantitative measure of how
agglomeration affects return. Agglomeration is quantified using an indicator
measuring cluster involvement. Furthermore, a specific return is quantified using
an indicator measuring organizational supply chain sustainability performance.
The three main AHP phases proposed by Saaty (Saaty, 1980) are maintained
throughout the study to validate the outputs. The first phase, which is structuring
the problem, is attempted through a comprehensive literature review. The second
phase, comparative judgments, is attempted through inputs of eight supply chain
experts in a case study applied on a specific agglomeration in western Cairo,
Egypt. Priority analysis is attempted by abiding to the AHP analysis handbook
consistency ratios (Saaty, 1980). Tools for both organizational supply chain
sustainability performance as well as for organizational cluster involvement are
proposed and tested. In addition, a framework for calculating an index for the
timely effect of agglomeration on return is provided and tested. Unlike the
methods used thus far and stated in the introduction, the methodology proposed
in this study provides a holistic view. Managers of organizations within industrial
clusters are able to track and monitor their supply chain sustainability perfor-
mance and understand which items lead to higher performance. They could also
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 251

relate how an increase in a specific item affects other items. While this research is
based on theory and abides by the AHP phases, it still requires more validation
through continuous horizontal and vertical applications.
The total index for supply chain sustainability is calculated for the Smart
Village to be 4.22. This number in itself does not reveal any implications. The
index could be used in a cross-sectional comparison or used within a time series
frame to monitor supply chain sustainability. Moreover, taking a deeper look into
the items for both perceptions and performance could reveal interesting results.
The outputs of the AHP weighting analysis based on perceptions of managers
concluded that within the telecom agglomerate studied, the most important factor
contributing to supply chain sustainability perceptions is economic sustainability
with a weight of 0.785. Environmental sustainability is the second most important
factor with a weight of 0.148 and the least important factor is social sustainability
with a weight of 0.065. This output is consistent with the literature claiming that
focus on economic sustainability poses a threat on both environmental and social
sustainability (Chen et al., 2021). Furthermore, the main items leading to eco-
nomic sustainability in this case were reliable products with a weight of 0.42.
Quality of the products and production costs both came in second place with
weights of 0.29 and 0.24, respectively. This could be attributed to the nature of the
industry, which is categorized as highly competitive and volatile. Considering the
environmental pillar, reverse logistics is the highest perceived item with a weight
of 0.41. It is preceded by emission reduction, firm environmental regulation
enforcement, and green product usage with weights of 0.2, 0.18, and 0.1,
respectively. This confirms the claims of Ayub Osman of Ericsson that the gov-
ernment’s vision 2030 is taken seriously. On the social level, investment in
knowledge and skills contributed most to the overall social pillar with a weight of
0.45. The least important factor from the managers’ perspectives was social
responsibility with a weight of 0.055.
Considering the output of the AHP scoring based on actual performance of the
organizations within Smart Village, the highest pillar for sustainable supply chain
performance is the social pillar. With a performance score of 4.58, Smart Village
seems to have a great social standard for its employees in line with its mission and
vision (The smart village, 2016). The next highest performing pillar is the eco-
nomic pillar with a score of 4.27 followed by the environmental pillar with a score
of 0.38. On bar with the perception of managers, the economic supply chain
sustainability performance of organizations is led by both product reliability and
high quality of products. As for the environmental supply chain sustainability
performance, the highest performing item are reverse logistics usage, firm envi-
ronmental regulation enforcement, and emission reduction with scores 4, 3.87,
and 3.87, respectively. The lowest performing item is pollution with a score of
2.37. This could be attributed to the fact that pollution was not on the list of
strategies mentioned by Ayub to abide with Egypt’s vision 2030 (Osman, 2022).
Moving on to cluster involvement, Smart Village achieved a total index of
4.15, which in itself does not reveal any significance. This number could be
compared to other telecom clusters for benchmarking or could be compared on a
timeline for the same telecom cluster to monitor performance. However, the items
252 Mona Ali Ali

leading to this number could reveal some managerial insights. In terms of

perception weights, the highest items leading to this index are research, innova-
tion, knowledge exploration, subcontracting, and supply chain involvement,
respectively. This output affirms the definition of localization industrial clusters,
which states that as more and more firms agglomerate in industry clusters, the
regional advantages to locating in these industry clusters increase as firms share
knowledge and labor pools in addition to inputs (Zipper, 2020). The performance
scores also support this affirmation with the highest scores attributed to innova-
tion, research, and knowledge exploration.
Regarding the effect of industrial clusters on supply chain sustainability, and
revisiting Table 8.4, it is found that the effect of vulnerability to specialization
effect is affirmed by the study results. Hence, cluster firms developing their
specialization within a value-added chain to increase final product quality is
clearly the case in Smart Village (Koshcheev et al., 2021). Contrarily, the
self-sufficiency syndrome effect is not supported. Both innovation and research
items within Smart village are perceived with high weights and high scores. This
result conflicts with the self-sufficiency syndrome effect, which states that, the
reliance of clustered firms on their previous experience and successful practices
decreases region innovation capacity (Koshcheev et al., 2021).

Contribution
This study supplements the vast literature of agglomeration and frameworks of
measuring sustainable supply chain performance. The study proposes a generic
framework to relate both sustainability of the industrial clusters supply chain and
the involvement of industrial clusters. The relation is achieved by introducing a
sustainability/involvement ration. Both theoretical and practical implications are
discussed below.
As for the theoretical implications, the provided framework could be of both
horizontal and vertical importance to the theories mentioned in the literature.
Horizontally, the index could be used as a basis for filling in the first gap referred
to, which is the gap between the classical agglomeration theory and empirical
evidence. The index could be used to measure the impact of agglomeration on
return quantitatively in a cross-sectional study. Because of the applicability of
AHP, both quantitative and qualitative items could be used to measure this
impact. In addition, the index could be used to fill in the second gap, which is the
gap between agglomeration lifecycle theory and empirical evidence. The index
could be used to measure the effect of agglomeration on return throughout
different points on a timeline. This will help map the whole life cycle of a specific
agglomerate and realize when the curve is declining. This study also adds to the
many application of AHP within the index formation literature.
Concerning the practical implications, the ratio could also be used to track the
change in the index itself. An increase in this index from one time to another could
mean an increase in supply chain sustainability performance or a decrease in
cluster involvement. Both options will have their own set of decisions to handle.
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 253

This ration could be used to identify how much a change in any of the involve-
ment items will result in increase or decrease in any of the sustainability items.
This will give companies in the industrial cluster some insight on which of the
involvement items to invest in more in order to achieve a higher change in sus-
tainability. The rate of change in both cluster involvement and supply chain
sustainability performance could be used to track equilibrium. Equilibrium will be
reached when the change in ratio is equal to zero where change in involvement
does not yield anymore change in supply chain sustainability. Thus, the proposed
supply chain sustainability performance measurement framework using the ana-
lytic hierarchy process helps the organizations within a cluster to make timely
decisions on what needs to be addressed in order to improve performance, hence
providing an effective monitoring and control mechanism for all environmental,
social, and economic variables.

Limitations
This study has some limitation due to time and funding constraints, and the
following are a set of constraints observed. The length of the interview made some
of the interviewees uncomfortable with the time taken to answer the pairwise
questions. The interviewees did not understand some of the items, which required
extra time to explain. This led to some resistance in completing the interviews.
Some of the items for sustainable supply chains were irrelevant to the commu-
nications industry and many are eliminated. No incentives were provided to the
interviewees; hence, some resistance was present, which made the time of the
interview limited. Limitations in terms of sampling were also present. The sam-
pling technique was somewhat purposive. This is because managers had no free
time to discuss or fill in the pairwise questionnaire, which led the researcher to
target specific supply chain professionals based on accessibility. There is a gap
between the industry and research institutes in Egypt. Many professionals do not
find participation in this kind of research rewarding. Limitations in terms of
reliability and validity also exist. The reliability of the tools could be enhanced by
the test and retest of the tools in a broader context. The validity of the tools could
be enhanced by including a panel of experts to test the items included in each
construct.

Future Implications
The study prepares researchers to embrace the idea of quantifying the effects of
agglomeration on organizations within the agglomerate. It provides a framework
to help them organize their thoughts and steps. Although this study might have
not been able to comprehensively provide an index, however, it did succeed in
providing and explaining the applicability of a framework for index development.
More cross-sectional and longitudinal studies should follow. Further validation of
the proposed tools and framework is imperative. Using the tools provided in this
study on more than one telecom cluster would enhance the validity of the tool. In
254 Mona Ali Ali

addition, including a panel of experts to review the items proposed in each

construct would develop further the construct validity of the tool. Increasing the
sample size per cluster would also enrich the framework in terms of validity.
Mapping of industrial cluster index throughout a longer time series would
enlighten the knowledge of agglomeration life cycles and give a more rigid defi-
nition to the theoretical advances already present. In this study, only supply chain
sustainability performance is used as one of the returns of agglomeration, yet the
returns of agglomeration are plenty. Building on this index to include a vast range
of agglomeration returns will enhance the literature on agglomeration returns and
improve its applicability. The tool proposed is for a specific unit within the supply
chain. It would be interesting to monitor the items within different tiers of the
same supply chain.

References
Ahmad, N. B., & Saifudin, A. B. (2014). Supply chain management in telecommu-
nication industry: The mediating role of logistics integration. Proceedings of
International Conference of Technology and Operations Management, 2014. Kuala
Lampur.
Belhadi, A., Touriki, F., & Elfazazi, S. (2019). Evaluation of critical success factors
(CSFs) to lean implementation in SMEs using AHP: A case study. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 10(3), 803–829.
Brock, W. A., & Taylor, M. S. (2010). The Green Solow model. Journal of Economic
Growth, 15, 127–153. doi:10.1007/s10887-010-9051-0
Bui, N. T., Kawamuraa, A., Bui, D. D., Amaguchi, H., Bui, D. D., Truong, N. T., . . .
Nguyen, C. T. (2019, July). Groundwater sustainability assessment framework: A
demonstration of environmental sustainability index for Hanoi, Vietnam. Journal
of Environmental Management, 241, 479–487.
Chardine-Baumann, E., & Botta-Genoulaz, V. (2014). A framework for sustainable
performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 138–147.
Chen, W.-K., Nalluri, V., Ma, S., Lin, M.-M., & Lin, C.-T. (2021). An exploration of
the critical risk factors in sustainable telecom services: An analysis of Indian Tel-
ecom Industries. Sustainability, 13(2), 445. doi:10.3390/su13020445
Chunghwa Telecom. (2022). Sustainable supply chain management. [Online].
Retrieved from https://www.cht.com.tw/en/home/cht/esg/sustainable-supply-chain/
sustainable-supply-chain-management. Accessed on July 31, 2022.
Coyle, G. (2004). The analytical heirarchical process (AHP). In Practical strategy (s.l.).
Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd (FT Prentice Hall).
Deutsche Telecom. (2022). Supply chain management. [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www.telekom.com/en/corporate-responsibility/assume-responsibility/
assume-responsibility/supply-chain-management-355304. Accessed on July 31,
2022.
Drake, P. R., Lee, D. M., & Hussein, M. (2013). The lean and agile purchasing
portfolio model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 3–20.
Freise, M., & Seuring, S. (2015). Social and environmental risk management in supply
chains: A survey in the clothing industry. Logistics Research.
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 255

Govindan, K., Rajeev, A., Padhi, S. S., & Pati, R. K. (2020). Supply chain sustain-
ability and performance of firms: A meta-analysis of the literature. Transportation
Research Part E.
Han, X. (2009). Research on relevance of supply chain and industry cluster.
International Journal of Marketing Study, 127–130.
Harik, R., Hachem, W. E., Medini, K., & Bernard, A. (2015, January 2). Towards a
holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing com-
panies. International Journal of Production Research, 4117–4139.
Harputlugil, T. (2018, December 28). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as an
assessment approach for architectural design: Case study of architectural design
studio. International Journal of Architecture & Planning, 217–245.
Jackson, G., Bekele, W., & Randall, W. (2006). Theoretical perspectives on industry
clusters. Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
Kaya, A., & Koc, M. (2018). Over-agglomeration and its effects on sustainable
development: A case study on Istanbul. Sustainability, 2–22.
Kazancoglu, I., Kazancoglu, I., & Sagnak, M. (2018). A new holistic conceptual
framework for green supply chain management performance assessment based on
circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Koshcheev, D., Tretiakova, E., & Ngoc, L. D. T. (2021). Negative effects of industrial
clustering on region social and economic development: System and agglomeration
approach. Ekaterinburg, SHS Web Conf., 93.
Li, X., Han, Z., Zhang, R., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2020). Risk assessment of
hydrogen generation unit considering dependencies using integrated DEMATEL
and TOPSIS approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(53),
29630–29642. ISSN 0360-3199. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.07.243
Lima-Juniora, F. R., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2017). Quantitative models for supply
chain performance evaluation: A literature review. Computers & Industrial Engi-
neering, 333–346.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Xu, L., & AliDiabat. (2016). Using AHP to evaluate
barriers in adopting sustainable consumption. International Journal of Production
Economics.
Mastrocinque, E., Ramı́rez, J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., & Pham, T. D. (2020, July
15). An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable supply chain development
in the renewable energy sector. Expert Systems with Applications, 150.
Millet, I., & Saaty, T. L. (2000). On the relativity of relative measures–
accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European
Journal of Operational Research, 121(1), 205–212.
Nalluria, V., & Chena, L.-S. (2022). Risk assessment for sustainability on telecom
supply chain: A hybrid fuzzy approach. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10,
559–576.
Narimissa, O., Kangarani-Farahani, A., & Molla-Alizadeh-Zaverdehi, S. (2019).
Evaluation of sustainable supply chain management performance: Dimensions and
aspects. Sustainable Development, 1–12.
Niu, K.-H. (2016). Industrial cluster involvement and product innovation: An
empirical study in international industrial clusters. International Journal of Business
and Social Science.
Nunes, B., Dey, P., Bennett, D., Shaw, D., & Pasutham, A. (2009). How green is your
supply chain: An analytical hierarchical process based approach. Bankok, s.n.
256 Mona Ali Ali

Osman, A. (2022). How the telecom industry is poised to support nationwide sustain-
ability plans. Cairo: Alam Ra.
Potter, A., & Watts, H. D. (2011, May). Evolutionary agglomeration theory:
Increasing returns, diminishing returns, and the industry life cycle. Journal of
Economic Geography, 11(3), 417–455.
Qorri, A., Mujkića, Z., & Kraslawski, A. (2017). A conceptual framework for
measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner
Production.
Raza, S. H., Ramish, A., & Khaliq-Ur-Rehman. (2022). Strategic framework for
achieving sustainability in telecom supply chain: A case study of Pakistan. Market
Forces, 17(1).
Ren, Y., Tian, Y., & Zhang, C. (2022, Springer). Investigating the mechanisms among
industrial agglomeration, environmental pollution and sustainable industrial effi-
ciency: A case study in China. Environment, Development and Sustainability: A
Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development,
24(11), 12467–12493.
Rezaee, Z. (2018). Supply chain management and business sustainability synergy: A
theoretical and integrated perspective. Sustainability.
Roelandt, T. J., & Hertog, P. d. (1998). Cluster analysis & cluster-based policy in
OECD-countries various approaches, early results & policy implications. The Hague/
Utrecht: OECD-Focus Group on Industrial Clusters.
Rossell, M., & Walker, M. (1998). Telecom in North Texas: A case study in
agglomeration. Southwest Economy. November/December.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytical heirarchical process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Seo, R., Ode, E., & Ali, M. (2015). Industrial cluster involvement and firm perfor-
mance: The role of organizational learning of clustering SMEs. The Journal of
Small Business Innovation, 18(3), 23–50.
Sopadang, A., Wichaisri, S., & Banomyong, R. (2017). Sustainable supply chain
performance measurement A case study of the sugar industry. In International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Rabat,
Morocco.
Sroufe, R. P., & Melnyk, S. A. (2017). Developing sustainable supply chains to drive
value: Management issues, insights, concepts, and tools–foundations. [Online].
Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aucegypt/detail.action?
docID54983799
Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters and
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29, 258–271.
The smart village. (2016). The international telecommunication union. [Online].
Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regional-Presence/ArabStates/
Documents/events/2015/SSC/S8-EngAdilAbdElGhafar.pdf
The smart village Egypt. (2012). [Online]. Retrieved from https://mcit.gov.eg/Upcont/
Documents/Smart_Villages_Co_landscape_presentation_.pdf
Tolossa, N. J., Beshah, B., Kitaw, D., Mangano, G., & Marco, A. D. (2013). A review
on the integration of supply chain management and industrial cluster. International
Journal of Marketing Studies.
 Impact of Cluster Involvement 257

Wang, X., Lin, Y., & Shi, Y. (2021). Linking industrial agglomeration and manu-
facturers inventory performance: The moderating role of firm size and enterprise
status in the supply chain. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
32(2).
Xie, W., & Li, X. (2021, October). Can industrial agglomeration facilitate green
development? Evidence from China. Frontiers in Environmental Science; Environ-
mental Economics and Management.
Yap, J., Ho, C. C., & Yee, T. C. (2016). Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for
business site selection (s.l.). Penang: American Institute of Physics.
Zipper, R. (2020, March–April). Everything you always wanted to know about
agglomeration (but were afraid to ask). InContext. A publication of the Indiana
Business Research Center at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business.